Economic Visions: Conservatives vs. Liberals

You can write a lot about the differences on economic topics between American political conservatives and liberals.

However, in my opinion, there is one truly fundamental difference. I described it last week in this post on my companion business blog. In part, I wrote,

"I think this, frankly, is the central economic issue of the day.Government does not plan the economy. We don't, by and large, run a socialist or fascist economic system in America.

Instead, the idea is that government sets certain conditions of law, safety, taxation, etc., then lets individuals, either solely or collectively, decide how to operate within those parameters to pursue their dreams and achieve economic prosperity."

Conservatives understand that government sets up conditions for people to pursue their individual economic well-being and amass wealth. How that's done is up to the person, or groups of self-organized persons. Therefore, what government attempts to provide is opportunity, not work or jobs, per se. And certainly not the same job, in the same place, in perpetuity.


American political liberals, including most Democrats, and certainly the more extreme ones on both coasts, seem to play on economic misfortune, assuring the poor that by taxing the rich, the liberals will help the poor with some of that transferred wealth. The implication being,


'You are too poor and inept to help yourself. Just keep voting for us, and the subsidies will continue to flow.....'


When they aren't busy taxing the 'rich' to fund welfare payments to the 'poor,' these Democrats are trying to codify industrial policy, via, for example, legislated universal health care, mandated insurance policy coverages, various tariffs and subsidies. All of which serve to frustrate and distort the market pricing of goods, services, and, often, their inputs.

If these confounding legislative activities ceased, and market prices drove business activity, then people would be more easily able to understand and follow the flow of business activity to where it most profitably will occur.

The specific products produced on US shores may change, but it's always going to be in the interest of savvy entrepreneurs to use educated, productive Americans to provide goods or services at competitive prices, or on competitive service terms. In fact, it's not the dollar volume of American manufacturing production that has decreased over the past decades- it's just the number of jobs.

We've gotten more productive, and that's a good thing. The Democrats would insist that each old, less productive worker be retained and paid as before, no matter that there were more productive alternatives elsewhere.

We cannot manage an economy by attempting to control and price inputs. That simply drives business people away, to more flexible locations.

Instead, government needs to simply set consistent conditions for the conduct of business activity, then let those who risk capital figure out what will make them money.

Jack Welch actually managed to articulate a clear, succinct explanation of this last week in an interview on CNBC. When asked his opinion of Hillary's programs and candidacy, he shot back something like,

'I don't think her programs (to nationalize health care and insurance) will work. When have you ever seen government do something better than the private sector can do it?'

American has historically succeeded economically because of its flexibility and hospitality to new ideas. That's why immigrants come here to make a better life. And most do. Hispanic, Southeast Asian, Korean, Chinese. Before them, Germans, Scots, Irish, Poles, and Italians.


In the long run, I really don't think the liberal economic message, most recently articulated by Hillary, will sell. People like to believe they can escape poverty, provide better opportunities for their children, and earn a share of the American Dream

Candidates like Edwards, Obama and Hillary try to tell Americans that they are failing, hopeless, and bound for poverty. The truth is that our country's political economic fabric has done the opposite- it's provided the opportunity for literally millions of immigrants and citizens to move themselves from poverty to economic self-sufficiency, by participating in the globe's most dynamic, attractive economic zone.

As Roger Ailes noted in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, about which I wrote in this post,

"If you watch some news -- I always say to my people, when I see something particularly horrible about America that I think is a little out of proportion to what is actually going on, I call up the desk and say, "Do you have any pictures of people lined up at the border trying to get out?" They say, "What do you mean?" I say, "I just watched that and hell, we've got to get out of here, America's a terrible place. We need to get out fast. There must be guys stacked up at the airport trying to get out of here." No. It turns out everybody's trying to get in, and nobody's trying to get out. We've got to keep that perspective in mind when you cover the news. It doesn't mean you don't cover the bad news about America. You do. It means you don't get up in the morning hating your country. And so, until somebody shows me lines at the border trying to get out, I think there's some good news."

And that, dear readers, is how you know that Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi, and Harry Reid have the wrong idea about America, business and economic development. People are not lining up at our borders to leave, because economic conditions are so bad.

Instead, one of the biggest recent Congressional tussles has been how to set an immigration policy to deal with the rush of illegal entrants to our country, all trying to create their own version of the American Dream.

Really, it's a good, "high class" problem to have. So long as we continue to have a government that only sets economic conditions, rather than legislates business operations, this will continue to be true.