Back when we had an economic policy that was liberal from 1946 to 1970, the country spent two thirds of the time with full employment. When we had conservative policies between 1980 and today, we had full employment one third of the time.
When we had economic policies that were liberal during the first same time period, we got NASA, the Interstate Highway, lower taxes that spurs spending and budget deficits thus fitting the definition of liberal, NIH, NSF, DARPA, we lowered our debt to GDP ratio substantially, the GI Bill and of course, a strong, vibrant middle class. When we had conservative economic policies that were conservative from 1980 to today, we slashed spending for NASA, we don't have any new infrastructure that is meaningful, we do have lower taxes for the top but more for the top, we still got NIH, NSF, and DARPA but with less priority than before 1970, we have higher levels of debt, the GI Bill thankfully remains, and sadly, our middle class is not what it used to be.
Let me know your thoughts on this and let me know what I got right or wrong.
We have plenty of history, and history shows liberal economic policies work, and provide for better stability.
The problem with conservatives is, they suffer from wish fulfillment syndrome. They wish Ayn Rand type capitalism would just work, and if you wish hard enough everyone can get FILTHY RICH! Its just not reality.
Liberal economic policies call for higher taxes (generally more so on the rich) to provide vital resources to the economy; such as, infrastructure, smart regulations, and education to name a few. This resources make the workers and businesses of America stronger. If we neglected these things, businesses might do well in the short term (though that is of dubious certainty), but over time they will start suffering the consequences of bad roads, outdated worker standards, and under-educated workers.
I think the great flaw in conservative economic polices is that they promote selfishness and work against social cooperation. Liberal economic policies that promote a progressive tax structure, minimum wages, and employment security effectively promote greater social cooperation based on tax revenue. Which culture is going to be the most healthy, one that cooperates through taxation or one that takes the position, every man for themselves? I'm going with the former.
The economic disasters the USA has suffered all resulted from the bizarre conservative idea that the market, no matter how diverse, dangerous, unique, or open to monopoly, can "correct" itself. Nonsense, without regulation, free markets become no different than free for all gang brawls. Of course conservative economics is an oxymoron. Producers WILL try to tie up their sector, and then exploit the closed market. 1929 and 2002 are the best examples.
If the cost to produce a product goes up, the price for that product must go up. It doesn't matter what causes the increase cost, regulations, taxes, energy, materials, wages or whatever. If prices don't go up, profits go down and you will no longer be profitable, then you go out of business. Remember, a corporation cannot pay taxes, only individuals can pay taxes. If taxes to corporations go up, the cost of their products go up, individuals pay those higher prices, so we pay for those taxes, wages, regulations, or whatever increased the cost to produce the product. (Adam Smith, Von Mises, Hayek, et al)
All you have to do is go back in History to see how liberal policies have been what "Made America Great". When wages were good, jobs were available and education was affordable. And WHY were all those things working so well? Because the majority of middle class workers were in UNIONS.
Reagan began the dismantling of the middle class and both Bush's finished it for him.
Normally, I am more moderate on fiscal issues, but when it comes to modern conservative economic policies, I purposely lean further left. Why? Because conservative economic policies that could be used to benefit the economy are now corrupted. For example, although conservatives claim capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity, it hasn't actually been that way for over three decades now. In the modern world only those who are already very wealthy are able to actually increase their wealth, while others are forced to live with what they can put together because it's extremely difficult to increase your quality of life in a nation plagued by economic struggle. This is also partly due to the fact that millions of people also lost their jobs because large corporations were laying them off at alarming rates, moving their labor overseas so they could make even more money by paying foreigners wages that they can barely live off. And don't even get me started with healthcare... There needs to be a balance.
However, you can't talk to conservatives about these things, because then they will falsely accuse you of inciting "class warfare" and label you a "lazy, thieving socialist" who's out to take everyone's money and destroy the economy, not realizing that they are the ones doing the real damage. Middle-class conservatives are siding with the enemy, destroying themselves, and being brainwashed into blaming the poor and liberals for all of their problems. Conservative policies, both social and fiscal, only benefit the privileged in our society and nobody else.
First of all, between 1980 and today there was not really a proper free market and also everyone blames Laissez-Faire Capitalism for the Wall Street crash but it was actually due to the federal reserve who would never exist in a true free market where individuals have the right to spend their money how they like and voluntarily. In an extreme conservative economy, taxes would be abolished. Taxes are wrong because they are theft and involve blackmail (the threat being shut in a cage) and enslavement- forcefully laying a claim to the labour of individuals. Theft is absolutely wrong. Also a free market would lead to more prosperity as without government intervention, corporations can flourish providing full employment and goods to the people. The minimum wage causes unemployment. Regulation causes debt. Public spending also causes debt and taxation is theft, blackmail and enslavement.
There are plenty of examples showing that conservative supply-side economic policies are far superior than demand-side liberal economic policies. Here are several:
- 1920-1921: President Warren G. Harding sought lower taxes and a balanced budget after the heavy spending and high tax Woodrow Wilson years which had led to a depression. His policies worked and brought the Roaring Twenties.
- 1929-1945: Both Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt raised taxes and raised spending, but then Great Depression last for 16 years. You could saw World War II saved the economy, but afterword there was a huge economic bust.
- 1961-1964: John F. Kennedy cut taxes as well, which led to heavy growth and more tax revenue. His policies brought back growth not seen since the 1920s.
- 1970-1980: The stagflation of the 1970s brought slow growth and higher unemployment. The capital gains tax was raised, killing a great deal of innovation.
- 1981-1982: Ronald Reagan cut taxes and domestic spending was limited. There was huge economic growth coming out of the recession .
- 1993: Canadian spending cuts turned a huge deficit into a surplus and economic growth to the Canadian economy.
- 1997-2003: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both cut capital gains taxes and revenue went up. These tax cuts resulted in the 1999-2000 balanced budgets before the War on Terror.
- 2008: Estonia slashed public spending, which allowed a budget surplus and a balanced budget.
First of all, assuming that the "Opinion" post defines "Liberal" in the sense of Pro-Intervention by Government policies, and "Conservative" is defined by Laissez faire Capitalist policies (which, ironically, is called "Economic Liberalism"), Conservative policies are better simply on a moral ground, as they help promote the cause of freedom. Even on a utilitarian basis, however, the 2008 Stock Market Crash was caused by Government intervention, though to be fair, Bush did that, not the Liberals. The New Deal helped delay recovery from the Great Depression, which was caused in the first place by Government intervention (much of its severity was due to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff).
So, yeah. Conservative economic policies are better overall.
The 63rd Democrat Congress passed (December 23, 1913) the biggest economic policy in the past century. Federal Reserve System.
Has that worked in our favor?
Some say yes, and some say no.
My opinion is that when you have a small group of board members that are not elected by the people of the United States to control the nations currency then that to my is detrimental, and that system what put in place by a Democrat President, a Democrat controlled House, and a Democrat controlled Senate.
Democrats own this law
Back in the 40's, 50's and 60's yes, liberal economics were great, today liberals have turned from the political ideology it was into a group of young idiots who don't know the first thing about economics, thydon't even know where money comes from and could care less about it, that's why our libral president couldn't care less how much debt he puts us in, he just wants to spend spend spend $ $ $, our $, he wastes it all on obamacare.
Conservative Policies are often to let the free market operate more independently then Liberal ones. First though this opinion is poorly worded as better is subjective. Any government interference in the free market create inefficiency, that is not debatable as it is commonly agreed upon by leading economists. While Liberal policies almost always have a better short term effect in the long term often make the situation worse then before it started.
An example is the raising of minimum wage. When first put into effect the workers benefit and have more money. But not long later as the cost of supply increases for firms (labour has increased in cost), the firms have less money and seek to maintain good profits for the investors and/ or owners. The firm's product is often raised in price and means that now that products have gone up in price minimum wage workers are again short for cash. Then because sales fall the firm has lay offs. In the end for people who keep their job they are either slightly better off or in the same place and for those who lose their job it is much worse. Their are much more following effects of the raising of minimum wage and it is not good for an economy.
There are five republican economists to three democrat economists. There is a reason for this! It is known in the field of economics that taxes provide a deadweight loss in the economy, regulations are bad for business, and fiscal policy just does not work in the long term. Look at the New Deal. It cut unemployment dramatically, until it stopped. Then unemployment shot back up. It had no long term effect on demand, and America just spent more than it ever had before.