Social conservatism v. economic conservatism

[BrainGlutton]

@Evil_Captor

Well, to be fair, the economists didn’t anticipate the crash of 2008 or the perils of derivatives (I’m sure someone did, but on the whole … no). So they kind of failed a basic, real-world test here. I don’t think they deserve a lot of credibility.

Are seismologists discredited because they can’t predict earthquakes?

[Evil_Captor]

@BrainGlutton

Are seismologists discredited because they can’t predict earthquakes?

Discredited? Try jailed!

And there are a few economists who probably SHOULD be in jail … I’m looking at you, Milton Friedman!

[Evil_Captor]

@BrainGlutton

Well, yes. The difference is that the Dems are not wholly owned, and include some progressives hostile to the business agenda at both the leadership and grassroots levels.

By “some progressives” in Congress, you’re talking so few that they can be counted on the fingers on one hand. The Democrats are so close to being “wholly owned” that it’s just sad to think about.

[Clothahump]

@BrainGlutton

The difference is that economic conservatives are not always wrong and social conservatives are not always evil.

IMO and IME, economic conservatives sometimes have arguments worth listening to. But their actual, unstated motive is usually if not always to defend the interests of the haves, and that is the general tendency of their arguments whether intentional or not – in short, always evil.

That statement, in and of itself, is incorrect. Otherwise, why would economic conservatives be calling for a reduction in the size and scope of the government?

[Corry_El]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

1. Most progressives and social democrats are opposed to hysterical, uncritical patriotism not patriotism of all sorts. They do recognize that national boundaries exist and most government policies will be enacted on national lines.

2. The problem with this is that the Republican elites are not fundamentally different from their liberal counterparts-consider (for example) the sort of sleaze pushed by Ruper Murdoch’s media empire. And unlike the liberal elites, the Republican elites are dishonest enough to present themselves as otherwise in elections.

1. I accept that there are many realistic people on the left who ‘recognize’ that in real politics, redistribution schemes will only be enacted along national lines, but you’re making a practical political observation. I was making a more fundamental one. There’s no consistent rational explanation from a general ‘progressive’ POV why redistribution, or the measures of ‘unfairness’ which ‘require’ it, should be considered only within national borders. And other ‘progressive’ views tending to contradict strictly national redistribution aren’t limited to opposing ‘hysterical’ nationalism. Per the progressive view people from poor countries have a right to enter the US illegally and not even be called ‘illegal’. This would seem to imply a low emphasis on nationalism, not just ‘hysterical’ nationalism. So why should redistribution benefit foreign people who happened to have sneaked into the US, and not all the ones who stayed behind? I think you must admit some element of contradiction there.
   Whereas OTOH again ‘what I earn under a system of the rule of law is mine’ is a simple self consistent idea, though again I’m not saying it’s a politically practical idea, strictly applied.

2. Here I think we’re crossing wires in the opposite way. You’re making a fundamental argument that elites are elites, I’m making a practical political observation: downscale GOP voters hate liberal elites. And while your observation might have validity in some respects, liberal elites sill have distinctive characteristics: outspoken tendency to disdain traditional/religious values, disdain the right to self defense in favor of a ‘safer’ unarmed society (but life is safe for them already), environmental causes which might cause wrenching economic dislocation for many (but typically not for liberal elites), etc. Those are the things downscale GOP voters tend to hate. However it’s also true to a lesser degree that downscale GOP voters hate elites in the GOP; however they believe their voice can be heard in the GOP (it’s partly what the Tea Party is about), but have no such hope in the Democratic Party.

[Voyager]

@Clothahump

That statement, in and of itself, is incorrect. Otherwise, why would economic conservatives be calling for a reduction in the size and scope of the government?

Size of government here means that part of government which helps people who don’t look like you and may vote for the other side. And of course they can call for it all they want - when they get in office and want to stay there they tend to increase the size of government. While cutting taxes.
Also. military is not a part of government in their minds, is it?

[BrainGlutton]

@Clothahump

That statement, in and of itself, is incorrect. Otherwise, why would economic conservatives be calling for a reduction in the size and scope of the government?

Because sometimes that serves the interests of the haves.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@BrainGlutton

“Soft skills”?

Soft skills refer to the skills we use to get along with other people. Things like basic conflict resolution, politeness, social graces, dependability, etc.

They’re an absolute necessity for most kinds of highly paid work, and many people who have trouble getting and keeping low-paid jobs have trouble with them.The “soft skills” deficit among the poor is an often-cited reason for having earlier education. Some kids don’t have a home environment where they learn things like this, but getting them into preschool helps them get some more structure and learn better methods of social interaction.

I think that in some cases, there are people who could learn to be good workers, but they need something of a learning curve. If you leave minimum wages low and supplement household income for people who need more money you allow a sort of onramp into better employment. If you make minimum wages too high, then maybe they never get a start because they’re not worth the minimum wage.

[Shagnasty]

@septimus

As used in American political discourse, the term “economic conservativism” is as much a matter of morality as “social conservatism.” To see this one has only to listen to those who complain about taxes, and what they think those taxes are spent on.

Many Americans single out foreign aid (money paid to teat-sucklers who aren’t even American) as the biggest waste. Certainly none of these complainers has glanced at a breakdown of the federal budget. And of the very tiny portion of the budget spent on foreign aid, the vast majority of that is spent either in Iraq and Afghanistan – countries the U.S. broke – or in military aid to further U.S. geopolitical power.

As a percentage of GDP the federal budget is now exactly what it was in 1983 under Reagan. About half that is spent on self-financed pension systems, and related programs. Over half of “discretionary” spending is spent on the military. One can quibble with the definition of “discretionary,” but the preceding sentence remains true if SNAP and Child Nutrition programs are considered discretionary. Among the biggest items in “non-defense discretionary spending” are Veteran’s Benefits, Transportation, Justice and Homeland Security. Please keep those facts in mind when you peruse posts like this one:
This Doper, and millions of “economic conservatives” who think like him, have never perused the federal budget, nor have only clue about the relative costs of government programs. There are useful debates among professional economists, but “economic conservative” voters don’t engage in economic theory. They’re all about morality:
[ul][li] Stop stealing from me.[/li][li] The needy have only themselves to blame.[/li][/ul]

I’m curious who Shagnasty thinks are “economic liberals” and who are “economic conservatives.” For 33 years it has been, consistently, the Republicans who have driven up the debt. I once thought “fiscal conservativism” described a preference for balancing government budget, but in fact most people who adopt that moniker favor lowering taxes in all situations. Ignoring the recent stimulus to save the financial system from the credit collapse (largely caused by deregulation), the largest deficits have been under Reagan and Bush-43. Even the Obama “stimulus” had tax cuts (insisted on by the GOP) as its largest component.

I am a true economic conservative. I am neither a Republican nor Democrat and I really don’t care what other people that claim to be (pseudo)-economic conservatives have to say because I don’t like them any more than you do. The overall answer to that question is both incredibly simple and complicated at the same time. It certainly starts with balanced budgets at even the lowest levels but especially national levels. If you can’t run projects on schedule and within budget, that always and I do mean always, indicates some other underlying governmental and management failure. If you do it chronically, that is inexcusable.

People always respomd that large governmental budgets are not the same as household budgets. That is slightly true in a way - they have a few more tools at their disposal to deal with debt like manipulating the currency. However, I completely disagree that they are very dissimilar concepts. Believing that is one of the most dangerous hoodwinks of economic liberals. I work for a very famous mega-corp with a larger economic output of many countries and the only reason we are successful is because we can run things properly and within budget. If we applied the same methodology to government, everyone would be better off for it.

The economic fundamentals do not change based on any scale. A wasteful project is bad whether it is mismanaged by a small business that employees 25 people or the U.S. military that has millions on its payroll - the latter is proportionately worse. You can’t mismanage and recklessly spend your way into prosperity no matter no matter what any politicians claim.

Long-term debt is a bad thing unless it is for a true long-term investment. It is the same for countries as it is for individuals. It may be a good idea to go into debt to finance higher education costs. It is a terrible thing to use credit cards to finance a trendy wardrobe. The U.S. is trending much more towards the latter strategy rather than the former and it is a horrible thing to see. Of course we can pay the interest payments now but it just moved us closer to an eventual financial meltdown if something else goes wrong and it saddles our children and grandchildren with interest payments and nothing to show for it.

That is all a very bad thing and completely irresponsible. I ask again, why don’t we just do it the right way? Invest only in things that will pay off in the long-term, get the deficit down to zero or less and start to pay off the national debt. Anything else sounds like a coke loaded gambler at a craps table in Las Vegas at 4 am. It sounds fun but it probably won’t get you out of debt and you would have been much better off to do things the right way to begin with.

[septimus]

@Shagnasty

…
People always respond that large governmental budgets are not the same as household budgets. That is slightly true in a way - they have a few more tools at their disposal to deal with debt like manipulating the currency. However, I completely disagree that they are very dissimilar concepts. Believing that is one of the most dangerous hoodwinks of economic liberals. …

I agree with you in part. Those suggesting that U.S. government debt is no problem “because we can always print fiat money” are being silly. I would however suggest:

(1) The Keynesian view that government should run deficits in bad times and surpluses in good times is generally accepted. The “Obama deficits” are an absolutely necessary response to the depression risk posed by the 2008 credit crisis. It’s just very unfortunate that Obama started with a baseline of high debt and low taxes.

(2) Unless you explicitly acknowledge that Reagan (who “proved deficits don’t matter”) and his disciples are the quintessential “economic liberals”, I’d ask you to stop using that misleading term.

(3) After the Clinton Administration made very important progress toward deficit and debt reduction, the Cheney-Rove Administration sabotaged fiscal policy to pursue a right-wing Starve-the-Bast agenda. This was extremely sad. I can no longer condemn liberals reluctant to cut social programs, since they now know the Idiocrats and Hypocrites, once they regain power, will deliberately squander any fiscal advantage.

Note to kibitzers: It’s fun to debate among ourselves. But if anyone really wants to understand good public fiscal policy, best is to Google “site:nytimes.com Krugman.”

[septimus]

@septimus

(3) After the Clinton Administration made very important progress toward deficit and debt reduction, the Cheney-Rove Administration sabotaged fiscal policy to pursue a right-wing Starve-the-Bast agenda. This was extremely sad

I recommend again the book “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill”. When you read an inside account of how casually and ignorantly the Cheney-Rove Administration sabotaged American fiscal health, it will make you want to vomit.

… And it was after reading that book that I started calling Bush-43 the “Cheney-Rove Administration.” In a key meeting, Bush himself tried to voice doubts about deficits, but was interrupted and chastised by Cheney.