Conservatives Get Liberals Wrong on Capitalism (1 Viewer)

[The Other Liberal]

A piece in the U Penn Statesman, a right leaning college paper states : At the core of liberal ideals are values of fairness, liberty, and above all, equality. It makes sense, therefore, that a liberal economic policy should seek to generate prosperity not just for the whole, but primarily for society’s least fortunate. Politically, this has manifested in ideas of big government and regulation. But if the liberal objective is to prioritize a moral outcome, then history and academia tell us the most “liberal” system is in fact capitalism.

Listening to conservatives you would think liberals oppose capitalism. Most of the time I assume they equate liberals with socialists as a scare tactic to get votes. However conservatives might really believe liberals are against markets and private enterprise. They are wrong. The fact is we both favor different types of capitalism. Conservatives believe freedom means being left alone - not interfered with. For them economic growth and prosperity depend on unregulated markets, fewer taxes, and less social spending. Liberals believe regulated markets ensure the public wellbeing and competition essential to markets. Furthermore we recognize the limits of charity to help those in need. This necessitates social safety nets which are funded through taxes especially on high income earners. Socialism eliminates markets and private enterprise in favor a worker control and ownership of economic resources.

The OP paints a rosy picture of laissez faire capitalism : The freedom of capitalism also generates unparalleled hope and equity. Capitalism at its heart is the dream of “rags to riches.” That any person of any background can, through ambition and industriousness, be liberated from socioeconomic strata seems like the quintessence of liberal values. It creates a meritocracy in which hard work, not origin, leads to success. The post further states.... If liberals truly do want an outcome that advances society’s least fortunate, then unadulterated capitalism is the clear answer. While ideological debate is usually founded in conjecture, when it comes to the economy, history and hard data make the case clear: the government should seek to give economic agency to the people wherever possible. As Milton Friedman put it, “Government should be a referee, not an active player.”

It's true individuals freely create all kinds of businesses. Some are small and others become large corporations with thousands of stockholders. A few people get rich while many others are middle class. This fuels growth and prosperity. However greed, negligence, short sightedness, monopolies, and economic downturns often lead to abuses and harm. Workers, consumers, and the environment are affected. Inequities consign many to poverty. Regulations, taxes, and social welfare have minimized harm and spread prosperity to more people. If this were not the case the misery and discontent among working class would have led to violent unrest even revolution. The OP doesn't think about this. Capitalism works so well because of democratic interventions supported by liberals and social democrats not untamed markets and enterprises favored by conservatives.

The Liberal Case for Capitalism - The UPenn Statesman

Usually, political debate with my peers ends in impasse, but I still do it, because an unquestioned viewpoint is never valid. As someone whose broader ideology began in fiscal conservatism, I have always asked with genuine curiosity why my liberal peers believe in their economic platform. And...

upennstatesman.org

 

[Paul]

A piece in the U Penn Statesman, a right leaning college paper states : At the core of liberal ideals are values of fairness, liberty, and above all, equality. It makes sense, therefore, that a liberal economic policy should seek to generate prosperity not just for the whole, but primarily for society’s least fortunate. Politically, this has manifested in ideas of big government and regulation. But if the liberal objective is to prioritize a moral outcome, then history and academia tell us the most “liberal” system is in fact capitalism.

You are correct, but many conservatives now make a clear distinction between a liberal and a left winger. Some conservatives envision liberals in the mold of JFK who said:

Today these words would be considered right wing.

Listening to conservatives you would think liberals oppose capitalism. Most of the time I assume they equate liberals with socialists as a scare tactic to get votes. However conservatives might really believe liberals are against markets and private enterprise. They are wrong. The fact is we both favor different types of capitalism.

I agree with you. The conservatives put emphasis on AOC and her squad and ignore many moderate liberals. They want to There is only one form of capitalism:

Capitalism is often confused with corruption among those in power. IN other words crony capitalism is no good. The basic essence of capitalism has created the most prosperity in world history. The essence of capitalism is best described by this quote:

Conservatives believe freedom means being left alone - not interfered with. For them economic growth and prosperity depend on unregulated markets, fewer taxes, and less social spending.

That is the libertarian side of conservatives. To a certain extent they are correct.

Liberals believe regulated markets ensure the public wellbeing and competition essential to markets. Furthermore we recognize the limits of charity to help those in need. This necessitates social safety nets which are funded through taxes especially on high income earners. Socialism eliminates markets and private enterprise in favor a worker control and ownership of economic resources.

I believe conservatives believe in competition to a MUCH greater degree than liberals or left wingers. The idea of affirmative action is seen as racism by the right.

There is a difference between voluntarily giving half of my sandwich to a hungry person than using state coercion to take half of my sandwich every time I buy one. That is where I see the difference between the right and the left.

Western capitalist nations provide the highest standard of living in the world and this is done by taxing those that have more. The Swedes believed in this and went over board in the 1970s when they envisioned a socialist utopia. The Swedes lowly returned to the center when they realized it was a pipe dream.

The OP paints a rosy picture of laissez faire capitalism : The freedom of capitalism also generates unparalleled hope and equity. Capitalism at its heart is the dream of “rags to riches.” That any person of any background can, through ambition and industriousness, be liberated from socioeconomic strata seems like the quintessence of liberal values. It creates a meritocracy in which hard work, not origin, leads to success. The post further states.... If liberals truly do want an outcome that advances society’s least fortunate, then unadulterated capitalism is the clear answer. While ideological debate is usually founded in conjecture, when it comes to the economy, history and hard data make the case clear: the government should seek to give economic agency to the people wherever possible. As Milton Friedman put it, “Government should be a referee, not an active player.”

True capitalism is like animals in the wild where the lion is king and will eat Bambi every time. The only hope for Bambi to coexist with the lion is to live in a zoo where the lion is prevented to do his own thing.

It's true individuals freely create all kinds of businesses. Some are small and others become large corporations with thousands of stockholders. A few people get rich while many others are middle class. This fuels growth and prosperity. However greed, negligence, short sightedness, monopolies, and economic downturns often lead to abuses and harm. Workers, consumers, and the environment are affected. Inequities consign many to poverty. Regulations, taxes, and social welfare have minimized harm and spread prosperity to more people. If this were not the case the misery and discontent among working class would have led to violent unrest even revolution. The OP doesn't think about this. Capitalism works so well because of democratic interventions supported by liberals and social democrats not untamed markets and enterprises favored by conservatives.

Capitalism needs a welfare state to survive. Capitalism does not like the notion of a violent revolution.

The Liberal Case for Capitalism - The UPenn Statesman

Usually, political debate with my peers ends in impasse, but I still do it, because an unquestioned viewpoint is never valid. As someone whose broader ideology began in fiscal conservatism, I have always asked with genuine curiosity why my liberal peers believe in their economic platform. And...

upennstatesman.org

 

[zztop]

I'm just going to post this here because I didn't think it needed a new topic

 

[MT15]

It sure makes you think of how your own problems are trivial, in comparison.