Should Conservatism be Anti-Capitalist or Capitalist skeptic?

[Noradin]

I think there is a little truth to Reagan's "trickle down" theory of economics. If you give the people who create jobs more money to spend they'll hire more people. Problem is, it doesn't work as well as we hoped.

It doesn't work at all.
Just because it is very hard to create jobs without having money does not mean that having money makes one create jobs.
In fact: Having money - no strings attached - removes the need to create jobs.
Why take risks and extend efford to create jobs (for sometimes ungrateful employees) when your living is secured by the money you have somewhere save?
Why would you risk that? Don't you think of your kids?

The trickle down theory only woks where money comes with an expiration date, when taxes on monetary funds are high and those on means of production are low.
That is currently not the case.

On topic: Conservationism and Capitalism are on different dimensions. They often coincide but not necessarily. If you have just two parties that oppose each other in everything purely on principle due to the setup o the voting system, then you obviously end up with two poles every time.

It is manly due to history that capitalism arised first and while it had many benefits it also let to a buildup of problems when unchecked - maninly extreme unequlities in wealth distribution and possibility to get rich exploiting the poor - and there is always someone cheap enough to do so. Thus one took account of the situation (and called it capitalism) then went on to formulate other concepts (Socialism among them). Parties were created to put forward some such suggestions or used these ideas to win votes. But then there were the ones who got rich already in the old system. Of course they didn't want to risk everything, they wanted to conserve the status quo - and they needed some more votes for their position, so they included a few things people liked that they wanted to conserve, too.

- - - Updated - - -

I am of the belief that the demographic shifts/trends towards aging and declining youth over all partly fuel the global economic anemia.

The main problem is that money looses not enough value if you have huge amounts of it lying around somewhere doing nothing.
Progressive taxation is not steep enough and can be avoided too easily.
Thus there is no reason to risk and invest money to keep the value of your possesions up.

(Please note that I'm not proposing to rob the rich of all their possesions or something, I'm proposing to make the efford investing it worthwhile for them again.)

[Theodarzna]

I'm still not sure what your point is. We are not yet close to a world where 7 billion people live comfy middle class lives, I dont think anyone is arguing that. Even without further significant annual GDP growth, there are still ways to improve life. From increasing agricultural efficiency, destroying starvation in 3rd world countries, to using science to find superior clean energy.

I maintain that isn't the goal or function of Capitalism, "To make everyone middle class." Middle Class cannot exist without a lower class or an upper class. The three will exist always.

- - - Updated - - -

The main problem is that money looses not enough value if you have huge amounts of it lying around somewhere doing nothing.
Progressive taxation is not steep enough and can be avoided too easily.
Thus there is no reason to risk and invest money to keep the value of your possesions up.

Ah so money should have a more temporal value, I.E. hoarding it is counter to having it.

How would one accomplish this?

- - - Updated - - -

Which once again proves the importance of the private sector as the most significant source of resources. Practically all the money that the government collects as taxes has been originally created by private organizations -- something that socialists always forget. The private sector basically feeds the entire society. Strangulate the private sector too much, and eventually you strangulate yourself.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have taxation or welfare programs, but we should never forget what's the source of all our wealth.

Physically all money in existence was created by the treasury, a government institution.

[PC2]

I maintain that isn't the goal or function of Capitalism, "To make everyone middle class." Middle Class cannot exist without a lower class or an upper class. The three will exist always.

So. Our system is not entirely capitalism anyways, we have government planning that addresses social issues. Having different classes isn't a problem, certainly not in the West where food is plentiful and new technology like the internet and smartphones eventually become ubiquitous.

[Kalis]

I maintain that isn't the goal or function of Capitalism, "To make everyone middle class." Middle Class cannot exist without a lower class or an upper class. The three will exist always.

Which is irrelevant to their point that we aren't at a level of complete saturation, as you are contending. There is plenty of room for market growth, so to assert that we have reached the high point and it is only downhill from here is without foundation.

[Theodarzna]

So. Our system is not entirely capitalism anyways, we have government planning that addresses social issues. Having different classes isn't a problem, certainly not in the West where food is plentiful and new technology like the internet and smartphones eventually become ubiquitous.

So there is no limit in theory? I.E. No endgame and growth is, counter to what I fear, eternal?

- - - Updated - - -

And?

Social ownership is not the same as government ownership. Employee-owned companies are socialist in concept. Market competition, likewise, isn't a capitalist concept, uniquely; market systems long predate capitalist theory, and are key elements in multiple non-capitalist economic systems, mercantilism and market socialism in particular.

I am fascinated by the idea of social ownership, especially with 'dark factories,' or completely automated factory.

[PC2]

So there is no limit in theory? I.E. No endgame and growth is, counter to what I fear, eternal?

There are natural resource limits, such as arable land and precipitation that will limit the maximum potential population. But contrary to various doomsayers, natural resources are not about to be depleted. And the few resources that are, have alternatives.

Long-term growth is dependent on science.

[Noradin]

Ah so money should have a more temporal value, I.E. hoarding it is counter to having it.

How would one accomplish this?

Progressive taxing was invented for that very purpose. (Applied, to monetary riches of course, the implementation matters.)
And it works well until someone gets rich enough that the best investion one can make with the money one has is to change the system.
That is always a problem where people can influence the rule.
The Greeks like to banish those people who got too influential, most societies ultimately killed them (like the French in their revolution).
With the potential destruction we have at hand today we should make sure to find a satisfying solution before we provoke a civil war somewhen in the next century and preferably without having to by some time fighting a war as distraction. Losing that might solve the problem, too, - temporally - but only if we manage to leave something to live on aferwards.

[Endus]

I am fascinated by the idea of social ownership, especially with 'dark factories,' or completely automated factory.

It's not really that complex a concept, and it's one that's well-tested and currently in place in many respects. Like I've said before; that's largely the difference between a credit union and a bank; the latter is privately owned by some private individuals who may or may not use the services of the bank (shareholders, basically), the former is socially owned by the customers.

Social ownership doesn't mean that it's shared equally, necessarily. You can still see gradations in compensation. The central concept is that employees should see direct gains from their labor; if their company makes better returns, if they own a share, they see that return reflected in their own compensation, directly. There's no such guarantee, with private ownership, and indeed, the owners have every motivation to not boost their employee's pay, since that comes out of their own pockets.

[Theodarzna]

It's not really that complex a concept, and it's one that's well-tested and currently in place in many respects. Like I've said before; that's largely the difference between a credit union and a bank; the latter is privately owned by some private individuals who may or may not use the services of the bank (shareholders, basically), the former is socially owned by the customers.

Social ownership doesn't mean that it's shared equally, necessarily. You can still see gradations in compensation. The central concept is that employees should see direct gains from their labor; if their company makes better returns, if they own a share, they see that return reflected in their own compensation, directly. There's no such guarantee, with private ownership, and indeed, the owners have every motivation to not boost their employee's pay, since that comes out of their own pockets.

Oh what glorious pride and sorrow, I find I am in complete agreement with you Endus, is this a sign of miracle or of the impending ending of the world?

I have personally shifted money over to a local credit union, and generally I think its a more advantageous structure. As a weird form of Basic Income I've also wondered if instead of corporate taxes (Which they cheat on anyway) a certain number of shares of all registered corporations should be held in Common and thus the whole country collects a portion of the profits of the Corporations we created.

[Endus]

Oh what glorious pride and sorrow, I find I am in complete agreement with you Endus, is this a sign of miracle or of the impending ending of the world?

Honestly, I think it's more that some people have decided I'm the Great Satan, evil Commie Supreme, and that bleeds over into people thinking I'm WAY more extremist than I really am.