# Conservative Philosophy
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 14, 2000, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453 "2000-12-14T02:04:49Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2000, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453/61 "2000-12-20T03:38:29Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*
>
> **point 3.** I’m not so sure that that is true. Can you back it up?
Forgot about this one. Well, geez, I mean isn’t this what Dickens wrote about? I suppose I could try to dig it up in a history book, etc. But, I mean, what is your take on how things such as the labor movement and the modern welfare state grew up after the industrial revolution?!?
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2000, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453/62 "2000-12-21T00:23:15Z")
Here ya go, **jshore**. (Now how about coming over to lend me some support in the “Should we raise taxes?” thread, where a bunch of tax-resister types are trying to chew my ass off cuz they imagine I’m advocating a universal single-payer food-supply system? ;))
[In the Shadow of the Poorhouse](http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~mayer/mm/d1/katz.htm), by Michael B. Katz is a study of “welfare in the context of American social history.” Also see the [bibliography](http://www.zusas.uni-halle.de/academics/seminars/us_welfare_state_bibliography.htm) for “The U.S. Welfare State, 1890–1996: A Cultural and Political Analysis”.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2000, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453/63 "2000-12-21T03:19:46Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by jshore \*
> \*\* And, yet, I don’t believe that we are such “bad actors” that we are incapable of, say, having to have a single-payer health care system, like all the other Western democracies._\*
And yet I see no reason why good actors should be compelled to perform in a bad play. And, let’s face it. Socialized health care hasn’t won any Tony awards recently.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\* stuff about the inneficiencis of your company
Sure, but your company isn’t necessarily representative of the whole of the economy, nor is your experience within your company necessarily representative of your company in general. My company is also inneficient in many ways. In its critical few objectives, it is remarkably efficient though.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\* I’m just saying we need “police” in the form of the government to protect us from other forms of abuse of power…economic power. (And then we need the different branches of government to protect us one from the other; and citizens watchdog groups like PIRG and Common Cause and ACLU to also protect us from the government. It’s all a big balancing act. You libertarian-conservatives seem to advocate unilaterial disarmament of the government side.)
\*\*
Oh, I agree with you. We certainly must police these areas. But, like a policeman who sees a black man and assumes he’s a drug dealer, we are being unjust when we assume that a powerful corporation and wealthy individual is necessarily corrupt. And, we do this.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> I grant you that it is not always easy to figure out the externalities and that, if they are not too large, it is probably not worthwhile to correct for them…But, when they are large, whoa!! I mean, what exactly are you basing your whole “free market” beliefs on (e.g., that a good such as gasoline with large externalities is correctly priced)? Don’t tell me it is market economics because you have violated one of the assumptions that allows you to prove in market economic theory that the price is in any way correct (in terms of maximizing efficiency, people’s utility functions and all that groovy stuff). If you believe that gasoline is “correctly” priced at ~$1.60 per gallon, you might as well also believe in the tooth fairy! \*\*
Actually, I got curious, and did a little more checking and thought. Externalities are complete bullshit. Things get priced based on the laws of supply and demand. That is how a market economy works.
Gas is $1.60 because that’s the price it should be. If you disagree, you are free to try and sell gas at a higher price, or use the futures market to make money off your assertion.
If you try to change that price based on nebulous externalities the world economy will eat you for lunch. It’s called a “one way bet.” A good example of why this is a bad idea might be England in the late 80’s when they attempted to assert that the Pound was worth more than everybody else thought it was. They got shellacked.
The “externalities” of gasoline actually get accounted for in different ways in today’s economy. You complain about rich SUV drivers spouting noxious fumes, but a rich guy poays more taxes, a percentage of which goes to environmental agencies and research, which in turn attempt to figure out new technologies and laws that will reduce air pollution. He also pays a lot of tax for that gas guzzler up front and every time he fills it. He also helps keep people employed in the gasoline, highway, and automotive industries by his consumption.
You would suggest that raising the price of gasoline would more accurately reflect its cost because of the externalities involved. In fact, raising the price of gasoline for this reason creates its own externalities in terms of lost revenue to various, industries and individuals involved in them, some of which will be pushed below their margins and recquire aid. Their quandary cascaded further through the economy, as they have less money to spend on other goods and services.
This is a **very** real and demonstrable phenomenom. One tampers with such complex interrelatedness only at great peril, and you do not try to adjust something which is finely balanced when you (as you admit,) cannot fully calculate what you are tampering with, or what value you are seeking.
Try to reset the timing on your car by hadnd, and you’ll get my drift.
No sirree externalities rate very high on the bullshitometer.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2000, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453/64 "2000-12-21T05:13:29Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*
>
> And yet I see no reason why good actors should be compelled to perform in a bad play. And, let’s face it. Socialized health care hasn’t won any Tony awards recently.
And, neither has privatized health care! And, my impression (admittedly not a scientific study) is that most people with firsthand experience of both prefer the former.
> [@](#):
>
> we are being unjust when we assume that a powerful corporation and wealthy individual is necessarily corrupt. And, we do this.
Actually, I see lots more evidence of people assuming that powerful corporations and wealthy individuals are Gods to be worshipped. And the fact that they are doing well is prima facia evidence of their virtue!
As for all of your stuff about gas and externalities, geez, I don’t know where to start. Even an U.S. Office of Technological Assessment study on the issue in transportation felt that externalities were a very real and serious issue. And, that study’s authors included a range of people from environmentalists to representatives of companies such as Ford! (I haven’t yet waded all the way through the study, but could send you the PDF file if you want.)
> [@](#):
>
> The “externalities” of gasoline actually get accounted for in different ways in today’s economy. You complain about rich SUV drivers spouting noxious fumes, but a rich guy poays more taxes, a percentage of which goes to environmental agencies and research, which in turn attempt to figure out new technologies and laws that will reduce air pollution. He also pays a lot of tax for that gas guzzler up front and every time he fills it. He also helps keep people employed in the gasoline, highway, and automotive industries by his consumption.
You have to account for the external costs directly with the use (or manufacture) of the product at issue or else it will still be overused relative to what it would be if the external costs were accounted for. (I.e., even if there is no NET transfer of money from one person to another as a result of the externalities, they are still a problem.) This is one of the points they make in that OTA study. Yes, yes, I know he already pays taxes and blah…blah…blah. The studies take that into account. And, yes, maybe subsidizing the oil and gas and automotive industries is something you want to do because you don’t really believe in market economics. But, if you really believe in market economics, you kinda gotta believe in how the assumptions work too. Maybe you should call your new theory where the price is automatically correct, independent of any externalities involved, “voodoo economics” (although that terms has been used before) because that is what it is.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2000, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453/65 "2000-12-21T05:17:15Z")
P.S.–Thanks, **kimstu** , for the historical links!!!
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2000, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453/66 "2000-12-22T03:10:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by jshore \*
> > And, yet, I don’t believe that we are such “bad actors” that we are incapable of, say, having to have a single-payer health care system, like all the other Western democracies.
>
> And yet I see no reason why good actors should be compelled to perform in a bad play. And, let’s face it. Socialized health care hasn’t won any Tony awards recently.
I have to admit that the more I think about this “bad play” / “good actors” argument, the sillier it sounds. I mean, if these Swedes are so wonderful, why don’t we just start some wonderful immigration incentives to get them all to come here. If they can make a bad play look good, just think what they could do for a good play like ours!!! 😉
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2000, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453/67 "2000-12-22T03:14:05Z")
Well J, probably for the same reason you are unlikely to see Angela Lansbury cast as Sandra Dee in “Grease.”
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-philosophy/45453.md?page=3)