A critique of conservatism (v1.0)

I have some concerns about what conservatives say. I have concerns about what progressives say too but this is a different subject (blog coming soon). 

In our democracy for much of history, the two-party system has prevailed. One can argue whether that is good or bad but that is neither here nor there. It is what is. Because conservatives form a big chunk of the GOP, it is worth listening to what they think at least on economics. They also have beliefs on social policies (I talk about two of them - abortion and immigration - in other essays), and military/foreign policies but I want to focus on economics here. 

Since Reagan, the two key pillars of that thought stream are limited government and supply side economics. This thought stream is influenced by the thinking of the economist Milton Friedman. Both Margret Thatcher in UK and Ronald Regan in US were believers. 

Supply side economics typically take the form of tax cuts or deductions to corporations and capitalists. The problem is many studies especially more recently have not been able to show that supply side economic does much to economic growth rate. Companies and capitalists who get the benefit of these tax cuts and deductions do not necessarily use it to grow the economy or push it to their workers to spend. So, the foundation of that as an economic theory is in doubt. Then what is the point? All these policies do is increase debt. Biden pushed a flavor of demand side economics (called Bidenomics) but there is little real-world data or experience with it and the build back better bill with its key policies did not advance in congress. 

Secondly limited government hardly seems like a meaningful goal in itself from an economic perspective. Programs deemed necessary are enacted by congress. That is national policy and has nothing to do with this subject of limited government.  Where does privatization (corporation run) which is the core essence of limited government fit into this? There are many factors that goes into what a government should do and what companies should do. Cost reduction and efficiency are not the only factors (which companies arguably are better at). Example of government run is social security. Example of corporate run is Affordable care act. 

I had said the following about social democrats thinking in Europe early in history (who had a huge influence in crafting European systems). in an earlier essay. 

" The key question early social democrats struggled with is what public goods must be produced, how much should be produced and how should it be paid for. Public good was best described by the American economist Paul Samuelson. He said private good was rivalrous (if I use some, there is less left for you) and excludable (you can be prevented from consuming the good). A public good on the other hand are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Examples of public good is clean air, clean water, programs to eliminate communicable diseases, etc. The key problem with public good is the free rider problem.  The free rider problem is an economic concept of market failure that occurs when people enjoy a shared resource without having to contribute to it. Private companies usually can't profit from providing public goods, so they're usually supplied by the government and paid for with tax dollars. Capitalism was spectacular at producing private goods. But at least in its early days it was not good at producing public goods. But government expenditure on public good has atleast some down sides. Government projects sometimes get bogged down or incur cost overruns."

I also added these thoughts to that essay on why government programs may possibly be created by congress which go beyond pure economic considerations. Can corporations really execute well to these when profit is the motive?

"However, there are issues which cannot be examined purely from an economic lens. There are winners and losers built in into capitalism and as a consequence it widens inequality. Opportunity is not often available for many segments of society, Meritocracy is crucial for an economy, but the opportunity to develop those merits is also crucial and is often missing for some. There are many who for a variety of reason are significantly disadvantaged to compete in a capitalistic system. There are some like the old, sick and disabled who cannot compete at all. Poverty and unemployment are not consistent with western values, and major levels of inequality, especially if perceived to be unfair, breeds discontent and rebellion against the system. " 

There is much more hope of altruistic policy execution with government than a corporation in my view. But it is not given. 

Here is an interesting opposing perspective by a conservative friend of mine. 

"Your view is because you lean socialistic, and you appear to think that governments will somehow be more altruistic.  I remain skeptical of your position, that governments are somehow immune to the human tendencies found in all other institutions.

My position is not related to Regan, it is simply a view that any organization will try to increase itself. That’s human nature. This is the same for companies, governments and religious organizations equally and we’ve seen abused in all of those institutions.

I think capitalism just tends to balance this through many competitors, as long as it is not manipulated by monopolies and/or poorly designed legislation. All institution needs to be held accountable for the resources they acquire and control, but government is the only institution that can take resources by force."

However, on that sentiment above, I assume if the government did contract a program (like social security or Medicare) that passed congress to a company to run, it will likely be one company so still a monopoly (keep hearing ideas about privatizing social security or Medicare from some). Also, I have seen how private company programs like Medicare part D or Medigap just results in premiums going up and up until it is no longer affordable!!

If, however limited government was not really intended to be an economic principle but rather a policy preference for whatever reason to take an axe or wrecking ball to federal departments and jobs, then I suggest this be debated and majority consensus reached to try to adopt that policy in congress.   

Practically speaking, what is far more relevant to me than a slogan of limited government is how the countries debt is managed and reduced (a very real current concern today - my politics essay drills down into it) and how the appropriations process and programs funded in congress rolls out (a very real concern about effective governance today). 

Blog comments welcome. But keep discourse civil!!