Ideas on conservatism

[thinkandmull]

**Conservative thinkers believe that people with inventive skills (capitalists) should run the ecomnomy, instead of letting people in the buildings of Washington DC use organizational skills on a national level. Yet let’s say, for example, that there was no “government” and that certain capitalists ran the ecomnomy, those with the control being those with the highest polls (taken monthly). Would that a good form of management in the conservatives eyes? Yet how is it truly different from power being used by those in Washington? Is the clash between elected people and non-elected individuals a bad thing for society? Is the clash a pre-determined act of human nature? Pope Francis told the World Trade Organizatgion, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund on May 9 about “the *legitimate *redistribution of economic benefits by the state”? From this, back to the encyclical *Quadragesimo Anno *(May 15 1931), the Church hasn’t particularly supported neo-conservatives thoughts on how economic justice is to be treated. Now, if one believes he must follow the common teaching on the Church, can anyone explain on this thread how someone can be Catholic and a political conservative (as opposed to an independent). If the Church’s teachings are not binding because they do not specifically address a clear issue of natural law, then the conclusion must be that that these questions of economic right have no definite abstract right or wrong answers for anyone.

Any helpful comments?**

 

[Timothysis]

People who believe in free markets don’t think anyone should “run” the economy, especially a government. And that isn’t just limited to “conservative thinkers” (whatever/whoever that is).

The Church does not teach the specific mechanics of how markets and economies should function; she simply reminds us that there should be a thought toward the common good. This notion of “economic justice” is a politically charged term that has come into use in the past several years that serves as a means for those left of center in this country to try and sell their policies to a gullible public in order to retain their hold on power in Washington. As we saw a week or so ago, it’s not working.

 

[thinkandmull]

If capitalists can run things, than why were the unions that Leo XIII called for necessary?

Also, Pius XI , 1931

25. With regard to civil authority, Leo XIII, boldly breaking through the confines imposed by Liberalism, fearlessly taught that government must not be thought a mere guardian of law and of good order, but rather must put forth **every effort **so that “through the entire scheme of laws and institutions . . . both public and individual well-being may develop spontaneously out of the very structure and **administration **of the State.” Just freedom of action must, of course, be left both to individual citizens and to families, yet only on condition that the common good be preserved and wrong to any individual be abolished. The function of the rulers of the State, moreover, is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor. “For the nation, as it were, of the rich is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wageworkers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight.”

 

[thinkandmull]

I meant to say “If capitalists can’t run things…”

 

[thinkandmull]

Evangelii Gaudium “Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” “this opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

I think a crude “naïve” trust in government can be bad too, if the individuals aren’t deserving of trust. I don’t think there is any certain answer to these questions: I’ve never believed that economics (or politics) was a science in the mechanical sense. Its all about supporting the party who has the PEOPLE you trust

 

[Seraphim73]

Evangelii Gaudium “Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” “this opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

That’s just a fundamental misunderstand of free market economics. It puts absolutely zero trust in the “goodness” of people. In fact it is just the opposite. Free market economics assumes that people are people, and that they will, as a group, always act in their own self interests. And because of that basic function everyone benefits because of the increased efficiency in the use of resources.

 

[Timothysis]

I meant to say “If capitalists can’t run things…”

Capitalism doesn’t “run things.” I can’t imagine what you mean by that.

Here in America we have a free enterprise system where anyone can begin any business they like. Whether they succeed or not is an entirely different matter. I don’t understand how those who run for profit businesses “run things.” But it certainly isn’t the place of the government to tell you that you can or can’t start a business. That is not the purpose of government.

 

[Timothysis]

Evangelii Gaudium “Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” “this opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

The problem with this statement is that is uses a politically charged term, “trickle-down theories” without defining what it exactly means. It is a known fact that there is point where taxes for individuals and corporations start to see a diminishing return the higher they advance. When the happy median is achieved one can see prosperity through “tickle down” economics because the rates are at a point where those who achieve can reap a fair reward and have enough to invest in others. The “crude and naive trust” is, in my opinion, the idea that government is the one who can invest wisely in programs to do the most good. We’ve seen the growth of a welfare state over the past 40 years that is going to reap nothing but bad news for those who have been raised having someone else foot the bill.

 

[thinkandmull]

I’m not really against conservatism. I play the “devil’s advocate”, a role I learned from college; lawyers get to the truth of matters by opposite thinkers taking opposite positions. I got hooked on Foxnews from the days when I stayed with my loving grandparents for a awhile. They love that station. Sometimes check out other news stations also though

 

[thinkandmull]

Has anyone read Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State? I read that early in high school.

I believe in democracy the majority of the time just because the majority get their will heard. I don’t actually govern myself in such a system though. I am governed by the majority, which is more often better than one person or a minority because it would seem that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is ideal…

 

[decatholic]

That’s just a fundamental misunderstand of free market economics. It puts absolutely zero trust in the “goodness” of people. In fact it is just the opposite. Free market economics assumes that people are people, and that they will, as a group, always act in their own self interests. And because of that basic function everyone benefits because of the increased efficiency in the use of resources.

In a non free market economy if people are not people then are they slaves? and/or then people with will not act in their own self interest?

If liberals were efficient they wouldn’t need capitalists.

I have not idea what : And because of that basic function everyone benefits because of the increased efficiency in the use of resources means. Would you elaborate?

 

[decatholic]

Has anyone read Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State? I read that early in high school.

I believe in democracy the majority of the time just because the majority get their will heard. I don’t actually govern myself in such a system though. I am governed by the majority, which is more often better than one person or a minority because it would seem that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is ideal…

What happens when a majority has no root in morality or values? Would anyone really submit to this? I would not. Majority rule may decide all over 65 are by majority of no value and therefore should be terminated. The church is great example of how democracy by majority with morality is evil.

 

[decatholic]

The problem with this statement is that is uses a politically charged term, “trickle-down theories” without defining what it exactly means. It is a known fact that there is point where taxes for individuals and corporations start to see a diminishing return the higher they advance. When the happy median is achieved one can see prosperity through “tickle down” economics because the rates are at a point where those who achieve can reap a fair reward and have enough to invest in others. The “crude and naive trust” is, in my opinion, the idea that government is the one who can invest wisely in programs to do the most good. We’ve seen the growth of a welfare state over the past 40 years that is going to reap nothing but bad news for those who have been raised having someone else foot the bill.

Timothysis- well stated. Though I believe the happy median is tilted to much towards social program funding. Government functions are well extended beyond the intent of our founders.

 

[Seraphim73]

In a non free market economy if people are not people then are they slaves? and/or then people with will not act in their own self interest?

People are always people but controlled economies do not take advantage of that fact.

I have not idea what : And because of that basic function everyone benefits because of the increased efficiency in the use of resources means. Would you elaborate?

Yes of course. Let me define a couple of terms first.

Scarcity: All resources are scarce. Meaning there is not enough of any resource to supply the needs/wants of everybody.

Alternative uses: Resources can be used for different things. Milk, as an example, can be sold for drinking or used to make cheese.

And now the very simple definition of economics by Lionel Robbins:

Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

The basic point is all resources have to be rationed. The question is what is the most efficient way to do it. How much milk should be produced, how much allocated for drinking, how much should be allocated for cheese, how much for creamer, how much for powdered milk, how much for yogurt, how much for ice cream etc. You get the point. A price controlled economy uses the individual decisions of millions of individuals, all making decisions based on their individual needs and desires, to allocate those resources. If more people want milk to drink more milk is purchased. If more milk is purchased the price goes up. When the price goes up producers shift milk from the other uses to sell for drinking. All of this happens without any central decision making. A consumer wants to drink milk so they buy it. The producer wants to earn a profit so they produce more milk for consumption. Both are following their own individual desires without any regard for the desires of others.

Command economies on the other hand are very inefficient in their allocation of resources. The reason it it’s impossible for a central planner to know the wants, needs, desires and abilities of all the various consumers and producers. What if you allocate too much milk for drinking? Then that milk is wasted. And remember, milk is a scarce resource. There is only so much of it. So milk wasted for drinking is milk that can’t be used for alternative uses. In a price controlled economy if a producer makes too much milk for drinking there is a cost. If they don’t shift they will go out of business. So there is a strong incentive to be efficient and only provide what demand calls for. In a command economy the incentive is exactly opposite. As a result scarce resources are wasted and the society on the whole is made poorer.

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[otjm]

If capitalists can run things, than why were the unions that Leo XIII called for necessary?

Actually, you were right the first time - with capitalists running things.

Why are there unions? Because there has been stupid management.

Out here in Oregon we saw a beautiful example of some of the idiocy that passes itself off in union/non union conversations, some years ago. Tektronix, in Beaverton, sold off one of its subdivisions (televisions, if I recall correctly) to Xerox.

The Tek group were non-union, and were compensated fairly, with bonuses for exceptional work.

Xerox was unionized, and the union set their hats to unionize the new subdivision.

I can remember the (not very bright) response, when this was being reported in the news. The guys from Tek basically said - hey, we are paid fairly with salaries and benefits, and those of us who perform exceptionally well are further compensated.

The union guy’s response? It was only favoritism, because it was the same people who kept getting the bonuses.

Which was another way of saying everybody is equal, and puts forth equal effort, so because all effort is equal, there is no possibility that someone performed exceptionally well.

The stupidity of the answer - as well as what was being said underneath it - showed the mind block to reality.

Where everyone does exactly the same job, and all are trained equally, there are still going to be differences in skills and abilities. however, they will be somewhat ameliorated by training. Where skills and jobs are not completely equal, then recognizing that is a matter of accepting reality.

We have unions because management too often has been unwilling to adequately pay workers for fair work or address other real concerns; one only has to know some of the working conditions of miners in West Virginia before unionization to understand how badly a company can act towards its employees. Where management has seen the value of employee contribution, unions have not succeeded - or for that matter, not been needed.

Unions likely will never go away, but there certainly is room to question where they are existing in some areas (teachers come to mind immediately). There is also room to question what unions do in terms of negotiations; the Wobblies out here (dock workers) shut down international shipping over the insistence that one of their workers “supervise” another union (electricians) when the electrician hooked up or unhooked electrical connections to power refrigeration in units brought in by ship. Like a) supervision was needed - NOT; and b) like the dock worker really had any clue - NOT. It was purely job protection for work that was not needed; but they had the clout to literally interfere with international shipping - and may have soiled their own bedding as at least one international shipper pulled out of the area. Results - less work and lower income for the Wobblies.

Voltaire was right: the problem with common sense is that it is not all that common. On either side.

All animals are equal, except some animals (pigs) are more equal than others.

In a just society, there is no need for unions. Except that a just society does not exist in toto; and the result is that injustice occurs on both sides. Whose ox is gored the worst too often is the only real accounting which can be done.