Free trade (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 09:44:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Free trade (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Free trade  (Read 17356 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,018


« on: February 10, 2004, 11:37:54 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, you can cite examples (some disputable), but what is the intellectual connection between conservatism and protectionism? I thought conservatives usually promote less government interference in business, less protection for unions and industrial laborers, on the basis of support for free enterprise. I thought this was the heart of economic conservatism-- the lassiez faire. So whats the issue here?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,018


« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2004, 08:11:15 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So why do conservatives today fight against full employment policies? Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

Regarding history of the parties, I agree, when the Dems represented the South, they wanted cheap machine tools to import. The Reps represented the industrial states that wanted protection.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,018


« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2004, 12:57:42 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A full employment policy is a generalized monetary and fiscal policy designed to ensure the economy operating at maximal employment; or the natural rate of unemployment. Government works programs create jobs just as any other projects create jobs. But a full employment package also means expansion in the money supply, interest rates that are not inflation-targeted, and deficit spending. Full employment has always been a goal of left-wing governments throughout history from Truman's Fair Deal to the British Labour party in the 1960s and 70s. They have always been opposed or at least not really supported by conservatives. The conservatives won some points in the late 70s and early 80s when there was a huge trade-off between employment and inflation due to economic restructuring. But Reagan generally tolerated very high unemployment rates compared to what was being advocated by Democrats. The reason this isn't such a huge issue now may be because the trade-off with inflation is not so clear.

My understanding of conservatism as anti-ideological comes from Russell Kirk, author of the Politics of Prudence and one-time partner of William Buckley.

"Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogma, and conservatives inherit from Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time... As H. Stuart Hughes wrote more than thirty years ago, 'Conservatism is the negation of ideology.' Because any ideology-that is, a theory of fanatic politics promising the terrestrial paradise-is illusory, eventually the consequences of the ideology are perceived by most people to be ruinous; and then, God willing, a healthy reaction occurs."
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.017 seconds with 10 queries.