6 ms·

Not to stir the pot, but I’ve long believed that a big problem with conservative ideology is that it does not seem to believe in externalities—either good or ba

by aqme28 4y ago

Not to stir the pot, but I’ve long believed that a big problem with conservative ideology is that it does not seem to believe in externalities—either good or bad. Positive societal effects couldn’t possibly arise from investments in education or infrastructure. Likewise negative externalities from increased emissions

ch4s3 4y ago
As someone who is not a conservative, but is interested in what and why people think and believe thing, I don't think that's a fair characterization. It seems to me that conservative care a great deal about negative externalities that effect the existing social order, or may do so in the future. I think the problem is two-fold some of those negative externalities were baked into existing institutions or don't directly effect them, and the "culture wars" in the US cause people to take up positions that don't make any rational sense in their worldview. You can make really good conservative arguments for say fighting climate change as it could upend traditional social order, but partisan polarization has made it an issue of "the other side" so mainstream conservatives aren't making those arguments IMHO.
- aqme28 4y ago
  I don't really follow. Do you have any concrete examples of what you're referring to?
BurningFrog 4y ago
Anyone who is Economics literate - which is more common among conservatives - knows about externalities. They also know that when there are negative externalities, government action to try to counter them is often a cure worse than the disease. Also "my proposal will be costly, but the positive externalities will outweigh them" is often stated, but rarely proven.
- bumby 4y ago
  Even the most die-hard libertarians I know (which I'm using here as a proxy for the most conservative) recognize one of the fundamental roles of government is to account for and price in externalities. The OP indicates that the incentives of corporations driven by a profit motive is not to price in externalities. If not the government, what other mechanisms do you suggest?
- Spivak 4y ago
  Genuinely curious, in a conservative world, how do you deal with externalities without some kind of intervention that distorts the market or the natural order? It makes total sense to have debates over what things rise to the level of problem and what the best fix is but, at least in my state politics, Republican's seem to just abandon their principles for pragmatism (which is good) but I can't seem to figure how this doesn't cause an identity crisis. Having a "how a conservative evaluates market interventions" seems less taxing than getting pushed to a breaking point and then begrudgingly doing things not in line with your ideals.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    How to deal with (negative) externalities depends a lot on the nature each specific externality, and what the alternatives are. It's important to recognize that both markets and government action sometimes fail, and why, to have a grownup conversation about options.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Can you provide an example of a government regulation that you see as a net positive? Or private market action that had a negative impact on externalities? Because IME markets in general are so short-sighted they literally plow ahead with profit over all until the river is burning (pollution in Cleveland) or thousands are poisoned for decades (Flint water crisis). And often don't stop or self correct even in such extremes. Some governments have certainly overreacted to market failures, but I don't think that means every conversation has to qualify that.
      - BurningFrog 4y ago
        The classic externality is pollution. Some industrial process produces valuable goods, but the air becomes unhealthy to breathe for everyone. A good government solution to this has been emissions trading¹. The government sets up a maximum allowed emission rate, and producers can trade those rights between them. By making it costly to pollute, producers have incentives to lower pollution, and the allowed rate can be lowered over time, improving the air for everyone. If markets are so stupid and short sighted, it's hard to understand how they've generated 250 years of huge and sustained increases of material wealth all over the planet. 10x as many people now live far richer and healthier lives than 250 years ago. True, a river burned in Ohio 50 years ago, but that's very, very small potatoes in the big picture as I see it. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by aqme28 4y ago

ch4s3 4y ago

As someone who is not a conservative, but is interested in what and why people think and believe thing, I don't think that's a fair characterization. It seems to me that conservative care a great deal about negative externalities that effect the existing social order, or may do so in the future. I think the problem is two-fold some of those negative externalities were baked into existing institutions or don't directly effect them, and the "culture wars" in the US cause people to take up positions that don't make any rational sense in their worldview. You can make really good conservative arguments for say fighting climate change as it could upend traditional social order, but partisan polarization has made it an issue of "the other side" so mainstream conservatives aren't making those arguments IMHO.

aqme28 4y ago
I don't really follow. Do you have any concrete examples of what you're referring to?

BurningFrog 4y ago

Anyone who is Economics literate - which is more common among conservatives - knows about externalities. They also know that when there are negative externalities, government action to try to counter them is often a cure worse than the disease. Also "my proposal will be costly, but the positive externalities will outweigh them" is often stated, but rarely proven.

bumby 4y ago
Even the most die-hard libertarians I know (which I'm using here as a proxy for the most conservative) recognize one of the fundamental roles of government is to account for and price in externalities. The OP indicates that the incentives of corporations driven by a profit motive is not to price in externalities. If not the government, what other mechanisms do you suggest?
Spivak 4y ago
Genuinely curious, in a conservative world, how do you deal with externalities without some kind of intervention that distorts the market or the natural order? It makes total sense to have debates over what things rise to the level of problem and what the best fix is but, at least in my state politics, Republican's seem to just abandon their principles for pragmatism (which is good) but I can't seem to figure how this doesn't cause an identity crisis. Having a "how a conservative evaluates market interventions" seems less taxing than getting pushed to a breaking point and then begrudgingly doing things not in line with your ideals.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  How to deal with (negative) externalities depends a lot on the nature each specific externality, and what the alternatives are. It's important to recognize that both markets and government action sometimes fail, and why, to have a grownup conversation about options.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Can you provide an example of a government regulation that you see as a net positive? Or private market action that had a negative impact on externalities? Because IME markets in general are so short-sighted they literally plow ahead with profit over all until the river is burning (pollution in Cleveland) or thousands are poisoned for decades (Flint water crisis). And often don't stop or self correct even in such extremes. Some governments have certainly overreacted to market failures, but I don't think that means every conversation has to qualify that.
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      The classic externality is pollution. Some industrial process produces valuable goods, but the air becomes unhealthy to breathe for everyone. A good government solution to this has been emissions trading¹. The government sets up a maximum allowed emission rate, and producers can trade those rights between them. By making it costly to pollute, producers have incentives to lower pollution, and the allowed rate can be lowered over time, improving the air for everyone. If markets are so stupid and short sighted, it's hard to understand how they've generated 250 years of huge and sustained increases of material wealth all over the planet. 10x as many people now live far richer and healthier lives than 250 years ago. True, a river burned in Ohio 50 years ago, but that's very, very small potatoes in the big picture as I see it. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]