An Economics Platform for SoCons

[DC Al Fine]

One of the things that's bothered me as a social conservative is how commentators of my ilk tend to ignore economics. The comments section aren't much better, with a mix of Reaganites fighting the battles of the 1980's, and Dems who pull the "voting against their interests" card while glossing over areas where the Democratic fiscal platform clashes with socon interests (e.g. Immigration), or glorifying the 1950's economy like we glorify the 1950's family.

With that in mind, what do you think a fiscal platform for social conservatives should look like?

Here are some rough ideas I have:

1) Broadly capitalist with a generous welfare state

2) Generous subsidies for parents

3) Support for the working class getting established. E.g. Expanding the EITC.

Thoughts?

[DC Al Fine]

Are you referring to some type of "socially conservative populist" or something?  Because there's nothing contradictory at all about being a social conservative and believing in Republican economic policy ... it describes a whole lot of wealthy, educated voters all across the South.

You're certainly welcome to make that argument RINO Tom, but I'd suggest that current GOP economic policy does not do a good job of encouraging marriage and stable family formation, especially for the lower middle class and down.

[DC Al Fine]

Hoping the perspective in this thread isn't just "let's subsidise these people instead of those people."

Here's five policies to think over. What about free trade, corporate compensation, businesses shutting down on religious holidays, kidney/surrogacy markets and price controls?

Interesting issues. Here is my take a few of them:

Free Trade: I take Hazlitt's position that while free trade is ultimately better in the long run, it can wreak havoc with individual workers in the short term, and those workers deserve compensation for their displacement. This would improve generous education subsidies for younger workers, and early retirement packages for the older workers. Admittedly there is a bit of a bit of an awkward spot for people who are too young to pension off cheaply, and too old for retraining to have a positive economic impact.

Price Controls: Generally a bad idea that often harms the people they are intended to help and mainly served to protect incumbents. (e.g. Rent control) A better solution as Torie and I have discussed, is that if the poor are unable to afford X, then we should give them the buying power to afford X. So in the case of high rents, the solution is not rent control, but rather vouchers, subsidies and more public housing.

[DC Al Fine]

Price Controls: Generally a bad idea that often harms the people they are intended to help and mainly served to protect incumbents. (e.g. Rent control) A better solution as Torie and I have discussed, is that if the poor are unable to afford X, then we should give them the buying power to afford X. So in the case of high rents, the solution is not rent control, but rather vouchers, subsidies and more public housing.

I guess this is generally something easy to agree on, but I'm curious what exactly is X, and since it's the point of the thread, I assume there are pretty generous adjustments based on family size without giving too much inventive.

Food, clothing, shelter, transportation(probably public), healthcare , education, with a bit of spending money leftover. Generally a modest, but comfortable standard of living. Personally, I think the best way to go about this would be minimum income programs for the first few things, while maintaining separate programs for healthcare and education since the costs can vary so wildly.

[DC Al Fine]

I didn't notice DC Al Fine replied to my post, so I should reply now with a fuller explanation.

I shouldn't say that the discussion is bad for focusing on subsidies and transfers, since that kind of thinking is the base of economic thinking on government interventions. The primary question, it seems to be, is nevertheless if social conservatism implies the fate of some institutions and customs should not be determined by market competition.

What DFB or Cathcon have mentioned is just an extreme case of that question.

Applied to DAF's answers to my suggestions, he isn't veering too off script. The orthodox answer to the rent control question is his response. I'd be interested in seeing a SoCon argument for building affordable housing, maybe to minimize the dispersion of people out of the city that would result from a voucher scheme.

Apologies for taking so long to reply. I'm on a bit of a break from the forum.

To answer your primary question, of course I agree that certain institutions/customs should not be left  to the market alone. The problem I was trying to get at in my original post was how do socons navigate the new tension between between themselves and "neoliberals"?

A common complaint from the left is that working class evangelicals aren't "voting their interest". Let's ignore the impact of social issues for a second. It's clear that GOP orthodoxy does not always line up with the interests of the working class, but at the same time, the Democrats have their own set of economic fallacies (e.g. rent control), so adopting the Democratic party line is not the solution either.

The question of whether legislation should ban stores from observing religious holidays is bait for the primary question. A much less trivial question is financial regulation. Should SoCons encourage or clamp down on equity and options markets, and if the markets are too pervasive should government pension plans divest from risky finance, even at the cost of lower returns?

I don't know if there is some SoCon argument against high corporate compensation that isn't just a standard argument against inequality. Maybe reforms to corporate governance will lead to more fruitful discussion.

One last thought, which is specific and speculative. If free trade induces a shift in pornography production out of the country, should the state compensate those with jobs displaced and should it sanction the new country of production?

1) Re: Equity markets. Yes there are some aspects of investing that I would like to change. At the same time, there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about investing among the left, and socons. I'm not comforable endorsing "regulation" unless there was a specific list of proposals in front of me. Some proposals I would support include: Limiting 401k fund choices and trading for individual works, caps on management fees for fund providers, advisors etc, requiring fiduciary duty for financial advisors.

2) Agreed here. I really don't know what the solution to this one is, or if its even a problem that requires a solution. I just don't know enough.

3) Well first off, I want pornography banned or at least severely restricted, so the jobs wouldn't be leaving because of free trade if I was king

That said, I'd treat it like I'd treat low level drug dealers, prostitutes etc. With an understanding that poverty/lack of opportunity was a big part of why a lot of them got into the business, I'd support education and training programs, as well as income supports to help them get back on their feet.