In economic terms, conservatism will refer to a social welfare function where losses are weighted higher than gains. From that I have a two-fold question: (1) What else, in economic analysis, does conservatism mean to you? (2) Are conservatives, without an economic school of thought, more prone to dangerous manipulation by outlier economic attitudes?
In economic terms, "social welfare" isn't even a defined concept in a capitalistic system. You are trying to merge government bribery for votes into fiscal responsibility and not making much sense. Conservatism in a capitalistic system means that personal or corporate losses are not worth the risk of an investment and the concept of "doing nothing" is a wise decision.
That's nonsense. A conservative social welfare function, for example, is used to justify protectionism. No, I'm referring to how conservatism is used in political economy. An investment decision would refer to risk aversity and opportunity costs. Nothing to do with the thread!
I would argue that conservative economic principles don't advocate protectionism. That isn't meant to imply that "social conservatives" don't advocate protectionism (e.g. immigration laws that prevent unskilled workers from entering the country because they mistakenly believe that these workers will take away jobs from the citizens) but that is not a conservative economic principle and "social conservatives" are not "conservatives" by any real definition. Conservative economic principles do imply that a risk-benefit analysis needs to provide a favorable benefit relative to the risks involved. This is not a "social welfare" issue but instead a simple analysis of the risks involved and the potential benefits always realizing that the risk comes before the possible benefit. Of course I live in the United States and our national economic principles and policies are anything but conservative.
In terms of the economic application of conservatism, protectionism is certainly a likely policy conclusion. Specialisation according to comparative advantage guarantees winners and losers. The standard economic approach shows that winners can hypothetically compensate the losers, such that there is a general increase in well-being and we achieve something akin to pareto efficiency. The application of a conservative social welfare function increases the likelihood that such specialisation is deemed to be undesirable. Losses are weighted higher and therefore such change is more likely to be shunned. The concern I've raised is the specific nature of economic analysis into conservatism. Most folk can refer to general political economy (e.g. Marxism; liberal political economy). Without that guide, do we get an inconsistency in their nature: where, more easily duped by economic fads, they're actually more likely to demand irrational policy that harms the status quo? Examples include austerity today and Thatcherism in the 80s (with the latter engineering economic crisis that threatened the economic paradigm)
Protectionism always results in a higher cost for goods and services than would otherwise exist and that is not a "conservative" economic principle. In this same "hypothetical" situation if the "Losers" are compensated by the "Winners" then they have nothing to "Lose" and they will take unacceptable risks. The "Losers" will soon deplete all of the assets of the "Winners" leaving everyone bankrupt. Only "Risk" prevents unwise expendatures and if the "Risk" is removed then the entire economy collapses. "Risk" of loss prevents the irrational depletion of assets so "Risk" is highly important in a conservative economic philosophy. I would point out again that what is being passed off as "conservative economics" today is anything but conservative economic principle. For example one myth that is prevalent today in the United States is that "investors create jobs" while in reality this is rarely true. Only corporate stock issuances capitalize an enterprise but few investments are related to corporate offerings. Almost all trades on the New York Stock Exchange, for example, are merely one stockholder selling their shares in a corporation to another person. Not a single dime of that money goes to fund the corporation. Even the majority of jobs created by corporations are unrelated to the stocks in the corporation but instead are generated by corporate growth. Capitalization is merely "seed money" and nothing more. It's sort of like a "grub stake" for a gold prospector. The prospector must strike gold to "make a profit" and the "grub stake" doesn't actually strike gold. If the prospector does strike gold then an entire mining company can be created from that wealth employing hundreds of individuals. If not the grub stake is just lost. This takes us back to risk-benefit and the risk cannot be offset by another miner striking gold because if that was the case then there would be more prospectors than the available gold could support. Everyone would be a prospector and not even care if they struck gold because they wouldn't have to. Their time and efforts would not be at risk.
'Conservatives' are forelock-tuggers who back those who rob and starve the poor and constantly go to war for profit, as everyone knows. They hope their masters will throw them bones next week sometime.
There are numerous means to try and justify protectionism. However, they are typically reliant on very specific features. Strategic trade theory, for example, is reliant on oligopolistic power at the international level. The infant industry hypothesis, in contrast, is a reaction to first mover advantages (and associated market failure). Optimal tariff analysis instead refers to country size and how 'beggar thy neighbour' can be adopted. The use of conservatism isn't reliant on any of these factors. It merely requires higher weighting to losses. Its therefore much more common, making your "not a conservative economic principle" look rather awkward. This is irrelevant stuff. The reference to winners and losers is obviously about how market forces, through specialisation, leads to redistribution effects. The nature of the conservative social welfare function will try and reduce these effects artificially by dampening trade through protectionism. There is no such beast as 'conservative economics'. There is no political economy for them to cling on to, ensuring principles are kept. That makes them a potentially damaging element and perhaps explains why liberals are more likely to achieve economic stability.
There are many Conservative philosophy. The question is which one. Do you mean the Conservatives as originally developed in Europe? American Conservatives? Social Conservatives? Do you throw in Libertarians into the mix?
I've referred directly to the economic application of conservatism. There isn't many philosophies within that. Indeed, as I've shown, it leads to very specific economic comment. Without a political economy spine, the party politics involved becomes one of little consistency in thought
I believe the intent is to use a label of "conservative economic principles" to rationalize that which is not conservative by any definition. Just because something can be "rationalized" such as protectionism doesn't imply that is is a conservative ideological principle. The rationalization is actually contrary to the principle. Market forces are always driven by consumption and "protectionism" always reduces consumption by increasing costs.
I've shown how the conservative social welfare function operates and how it impacts on trade policy. That you weren't aware of the analysis doesn't change the fact that it is indeed conservative analysis 'at play'
Conservatism, as you said, denotes reliance upon protectionist trade policies. It may also be related to fiscal conservatism, or the idea that governments should not run large deficits and debts. Oftentimes, people will also throw consider deregulation, free trade agreements, privatization, and low taxes as policies of economic conservatism, but I would probably deem them to be neoliberal.
There are different points of view on economics in Conservatives circles. There are people who believe what Pat Buchanan believe in economic Nationalism. Pat wants a fortress economy that is self sufficient. Then you have the original Conservatives who are anti free market. Edmund Burke advocated stability. Free market cause change. So the original Conservatives were anti free market because it disturbed social stability. Then recently you have a new interpretation from social Conservatives who put family first. There attitude is if it strengthen the family good. These guys are anti trade, pro manufacturing. Their Conservative is sort of a "blue collar" Conservative philosophy. Then you got your Libertarians who want to serve up the free market raw. Not all Conservatives are the same. Just like not all lefties are the same. On the left you got Greens, Liberal, Socialist, Communist. Both sides of the political spectrum come in many different flavors.
Protectionism results in higher costs for goods and services as well as lost domestic jobs so please explain how that can possibly considered as being conservative. Protectionism is always recepricated between nations. For example if the US imposes protectionist policies agianst China and China recepricates then it would adversely effect Boeing sales of airliners to China. Airbus would receive the contracts that Boeing would lose causing a major loss of thousands of high paying aerospace jobs in the US. Protectionism is a lose-lose situation because it raises prices and reduces the number of jobs. That is not a conservative position and cannot be rationalized.
I always find that tag a little whine driven! What does it actually mean? At least with limited government in liberalism there is some 'meat' to the analysis
I've already said (and there is no debate with it): a conservative social welfare function necessarily weights losses higher than gains. Protectionism, by reducing the redistribution effects through specialisation according to comparative advantage, is quite consistent with maximising that function. It typically cannot be rationalised through standard economic analysis. However, to show how comparative advantage produces the first best outcome, we typically have to make quite restrictive assumption on the notion of a community indifference curve. Conservative social welfare functions eliminates that analysis and therefore promotes apparently irrational result.
The idea of fiscal conservatism is more relevant to economic policy than economic analysis. More specifically, it is the idea that governments should not run deficits, maintain 'balanced' budgets, and promote 'fiscal responsibility' by minimizing government expenditures and, correspondingly, keeping rates of taxation 'low'. With regards to economic analysis, I really cannot say there is any 'conservative' economic position besides the protectionist stance on trade. The majority of what lay observers consider 'conservative' economic perspectives are really, in the context of economic thought, neoliberal in nature.
I think Reiver may be looking for a delimited description of economic conservatism. In other words, he is seeking thoughts regarding economic conservatism from the perspective of economic theory, not just the conflation of the politics and economics in practice.
Its political dogma. Unlike liberalism, there is no sense of what 'limited government' means. There is only cliche, mixed with dangerous ignorance (giving us stupidity such as austerity). That merely goes back to my original comment: without any sound political economy, conservationism is prone to erroneous economic etch-a-sketch
The US Constitution delineates what the Federal Government is responsible for. Austerity only occurs when spending is reduced - if spending is low to begin with, there is no need to cut spending.
Yes, translated into economic policy. In that regard, I cannot really say that conservatism has any economic theories to fall back on. They merely pick and choose, which is why economically speaking, conservatives range from rabid trade protectionists to bleeding heart neoliberal advocates.
You are self righteously arrogant no matter who you talk to. Amazing considering how little you know. How do you know when you get around your circle back to where you started since it is all alike?
