Lmao exactly - the people who bought into Joe’s line that inflation came from “corporate greed,” and has nothing to do with his unprecedented debt-monetized spending, of course!
The whole "greedflation" thing is fucking hilarious. As if businesses only just managed to think of the idea of simply charging more. What a revolutionary concept! Incredible that no one came up with this before!
It would be more hilarious if it didn’t showcase how stupid and gullible such a large portion of the population is. In that regard, it’s pretty sad. Joe is getting away with murder because so many of his constituents are economically illiterate. And even worse, they know it - or they wouldn’t use this kind of rhetoric.
No doubt. This reminds me of the [White House's pre-Super Bowl "shrinkflation" video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcVTzgZyGro&pp=ygUZd2hpdGUgaG9zdWUgc2hyaW5rZmxhdGlvbg%3D%3D). When I first saw this, I literally thought it was AI-generated satire, with the comedic aspect of Biden complaining about "shrinkflation" in the face of his own pro-inflationary policies, which have contributed to a situation where businesses must either charge more or sell smaller quantities.
I was stunned when I realized this was actually real. They truly think their constituents haven't the slightest understanding of basic economic principles, and unfortunately they appear to be mostly correct in this assumption.
Man that is pure gold. It makes you wonder how intentional their rhetoric is. Joe’s repeated claims that inflation was “9%” when he started no longer appear to be a mistake. The chair of his economic council is saying it too. It’s an abject lie - but apparently that doesn’t matter if your constituents believe it.
Inflation is the decreased purchasing power of a currency. It is synonymous with an increase in prices. Prices come from the interaction of supply and demand. Government policies, fiscal and monetary, have increased demand. Companies have responded by increasing their prices.
To say greed has nothing to do with is ignorant. Greed is the fuel of a market economy. Without it we lack the incentives to innovate, to start new businesses, to work harder.
This might sound a little pedantic but greed is the immoderate and insatiable love of possessing something for the sake of possessing it. The market economy is fueled by rational self-interest. Atheist materialists use the term "corporate greed" as a form of propaganda.
In fact, it’s the opposite. I am all for robust discussion on economic theory and current events. What I will not tolerate is intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of reality by politicians who want to incorporate economically illiterate concepts into their rhetoric, such as “greedflation.”
Both sides do do it, but I would argue one side has certainly done it more than the other lately - and perhaps that is why there is a perception that this is a “conservative” sub.
I disagree that greed is not a factor.
I disagree that the Democratic leadership abuses the economic illiteracy of the citizenry more than the Republican Leadership.
The point is that greed is as old as man. It didn’t start in 2020. Of course it is a factor. It is, therefore, not a cause in and of itself in the recent spurt of inflation. If you have a specific counter argument, I’m all ears.
> Lmao exactly - the people who bought into Joe’s line that inflation came from “corporate greed,” and has nothing to do with his unprecedented debt-monetized spending, of course!
The profit motive, corporate greed, it’s all the same. Without it a market economy doesn’t work. It simply lacks the incentive necessary for innovation, business startup and expansion. Of course companies are/were taking advantage of the increased demand that resulted from loose fiscal and monetary policy. But it doesn’t make it incorrect to say that businesses were greedy to charge more because they could.
Furthermore, you portray this as a result of Biden’s policies but neglect to take into consideration the Tax Cuts and Jobs act that dramatically cut taxes while the government continued to increase spending when the country was at full employment. That is arguably a bigger driver of inflation than the Build Back Better Act. Because a significant component of the related inflation metastasized via massive writedowns of ADIT that then fueled a wave of stock buybacks that then drove massive corporate investment in real estate, it had a significant lag.
Anyway, that’s why I think OP correctly identified political bias in “economic analysis” on this sub.
So if that is true, where was the inflation when the TC and Jobs Act went into effect? It was what, 1.6% when Joe took office, over three years later? Do you have a source for the “lag”?
You should read some of the latest research papers on this exact subject. They completely disagree with your entire statement.
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/san-francisco-federal-reserve-analysis-debunks-white-house-excuses-on-inflation/
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2024/05/are-markups-driving-ups-and-downs-of-inflation
It's hard to separate the two when each party clings to wildly difference monetary policies and with almost no overlap. Thus one has to be right and one has to be wrong. Supply and demand in economics is the equivalent to newtons law in physics.
And more than that, they absolutely don't want to understand it. Saying something like inflation is caused by printing money will get you downvoted to oblivion there.
There are good aspects to tariffs, particularly for developing countries that are trying to grow nascent industries. South Korea is a great example of tariffs used effectively, along with other tools like targeted subsidies and promotion of personal savings, in an integrated plan to dramatically increase growth and develop domestic industry.
Under certain circumstances, yes. It was a significant contribution to the economic prosperity that South Koreans enjoy today.
Edit: as well as most of the pacific rim nations that followed some version of the Japan model in the end of the 20th century.
No. Tariffs worked to get Japan, Korea and other Pacific Rim countries’ gdp growth ramped up when they were poor. When they had established competitiveness in global markets they reduced the tariffs. They are not an effective long-term policy but under the right circumstances, they are part of a very effective short-term economic development policy.
Are you familiar with Austrian Economic theory? It's conservative in the sense it believes in minimal* government intervention in the economy. In that sense it's pretty against both Republican and Democratic policy. Republicans aren't real conservatives, only in a performative moralistic way. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats at spending money the government doesn't have.
Neoliberalism is as much of a scare word as cultural Marxism. It’s also a dogwhistle to signal adherence to post-classical economic (ie Marxian or otherwise socialist) thought.
Austrian economics, is valueless. Libertarianism(based on AE) does not believe in fractional reserve banking
Fractional reserve banking, and the money printing it allows, is the center piece of the current system.
Which is why AE is much closer to Neoliberalism than any other political ideology, because free market economics + whatever political ideology you want to combine it with is the Neoliberal ideology.
Mises and his contemporaries literally defined and prescribed to the Neoliberal ideology.
Libertarianism is actually very similar to Neoliberalism. However, it's more rigid in the political ideology that it combines with free market thinking.
Conservative and republican are used interchangeably commonly, and I was saying that Republicans currently are conservative only in a way of preserving perceived traditional values and not in an economic sense. Republican economic policy is essentially neo-liberal. I don't think conservative is a bad word, I was just trying to offer clarity to what the OP is asking.
This sub is relatively anti-government on both sides, because Austrian economics abhor government intervention in the economy. If you look at many of the biggest names in Austrian economics: Rothbard, Mises, Bohm, Menger, Hoppe… they all criticized both left and right leaning governments for their poor economic policies.
I really don't think he's either. He's totalitarian, definitely, but I think when he takes a political stance, it generally leans more fascist than communist. Only thing is, I don't really think he believes half the shit that comes out of his own mouth. But I guess, arguably, if you espouse fascist ideals, whether you believe them or not, you're fascist.
u/ThePatientIdiot
Hm...
There is a lot to unpack here so I'll do it in 2 parts.
1) The sub isn't conservative in the way you think it. It would lean Libertarian/ancap in modern terms. However, if you are truly "inelastic" it is concervative in the sense that is Whig. If Whig parties (of the US or the UK) were around they would be allied with the Austrians. So in reality Austrians largely support economic models of the Victorian period. Free markets, international trade, golden standard, looking down in debt and no wars.
2) About the Trump-Biden thing. To start off in the policies of tarrifs they are equally regarded. As a European I would say that the trade war of US-EU about aluminum motorcycles and whiskey.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67758395](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67758395)
Such practices divide the Western allies more than the Soviet Union or China could ever accomplish on their own. We are killing ourselves!
However, when dealing with China you have to also consider 2 things both of which hurt US consumers first and foremost. The one would be the limitation of the liberty of US consumers. If you wanted to buy a chinese car because it better fits your needs (for example a NIO car) now you need to pay at least double because the gov said so and is threatening to them.
The second and more lasting impact would be the creation of an inefficient US electric car industry. If Ford and Tesla are left on their own to dominate the US market then who would drive innovation? How could the American cars compete in the Asian, Indian or European markets should they be inferior to their chinese counterparts because of protectionism?
Now the only real criticism of this sub is that it isn't that high leveled in the responses and that the trolls get too much attention. However, the thing it has over other subs like r/Economics is really just that, freedom that represents much better how people view economic issues. Here we don't have to cower behind "Quality contributor" tags to show our superiority (which actually is an argument from authority ie I am correct because teh mods said so or I am wrong because I don't agree with them).
I'm going to disagree with a lot of the comments here. It's not conservative, nor libertarian. It's not politically anything, precisely speaking.
Austrian Ec looks at economics, the study of human behavior as applied in a resource constrained environment, through a lens that says analysis of individual behavior is more important than studying group behavior. It starts with the idea that human action can be understood through an individual's *perception* of their best interests (which isn't necessarily the same as their actual best interests, assuming there is such an objective thing).
If you start there, you realize that a lot of the faux math used in macroeconomics are basically subjective. I got in an argument with a regular old econ professor about thirty years ago who wanted us to take subjective numbers and then divide by national population or something stupid like that. I come from a strong math and science background and my head about exploded. I dropped the class and decided the social sciences weren't for me.
Years later I came across the Austrian school and their view is that social sciences are best observed through logic and reason a priori instead of pretending to be physics with people. It opened up possibilities to understanding the world that hadn't been visible to me before.
Austrian economics doesn't cover microeconomics. That seems to work pretty well in it's basic standard form. Math works here because the numbers are a lot more objective.
Being in this world view appeals to, and enforces, the view that individuals matter more than the groups they happen to belong to. It's not that analysis using groups can't be done, but we're already coming from the idea that more individual choice is generally better than less. That's not mandated by the Austrian analysis. But most of us tend to have political views that emphasize individual freedoms and responsibilities. Hence you'll find libertarians here, and ancaps, but even sometimes conservatives and Republicans.
There's nothing preventing someone from advocating Austrian views while being a die hard socialist. It's only that their aims and political views would advise economic policy that pushes away from increasing individual choice instead of towards it. I don't know that many of any of these folks even exist, but they could.
So no, not conservative. But you'll find them here anyway.
The sub is about economics, not politics.
A lot of Austrian School economists lean libertarian, in that they think of themselves as 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative.'
A lot of people think of libertarianism as an 'alt-right' movement. That does not fit with Austrian School economics. A lot of people come to this sub with a very poor understanding of economics, and especially of Austrian School economics, and often even a poor understanding of libertarianism. But they see people here discussing ideas they find appealing.
Lately, I think the participants of this sub are something like 10% who actually understand economics and 90% who don't have a fucking clue... but they think they see academic excuses for rightist government policies here.
This is an economic sub. My guy, you have been exposed to so much of the dogshit economic talk that you think the economic theory of "leave the economy alone" is somehow political. Most of this sub's political discussion is about how if the government was a person, it would be in debtor's prison for its insane spending and debt. We are concerned only with sound money and sound budgeting. Think of it this way, we're the responsible people who keep a balanced budget and engage in the free market, while to government and its crackpot economists are the irresponsible people who max out dozens of credit cards, take out loans for everything, and has massive debt. Half of AE is just applying principles of basic personal finance to macroeconomics.
It's only conservative in the fiscal sense. Not in the political sense.
Austrian provides methodology for real people to be better off tomorrow than they are today which seems quite liberal to me. But I interpret the word "liberal" in the classic context. Not the modern context which has been hijacked by modern nation state interventionist institutions.
I think Austrian jives best with politically agnostic people who are not captured by the mainstream left vs right/liberal vs conservative mind virus. The people that are captured will continue to surrender power and authority to their preferred political policy makers unless they realize it's not working and snap out of it.
If you mean “conservative” in the literal sense of trying to conserve a social and political order in a given area or State, then no. Austrian economists would be “progressive” in the literal sense, as they seek to eliminate as much government interference in the economy as possible, because most government intervention either creates worse outcomes or is essentially stealing from one group to give to another. If you mean “conservative” as in right-leaning on the political compass, then yes, it is right leaning in the defense of individuals as economic actors, removing arbitrary regulation, govt interference in markets, and so on.
This tends to overlap with Libertarian, not modern Republican, views. Most will agree that the State only has a few legitimate functions, namely preservation and protection of individual rights, private property, mutual defense, existential threats, and contract enforcement. However, there is some disagreement on taxation, some (like Hayek) were in favor of universal healthcare and make compelling arguments for it. Some, like Friedman, are in favor of UBI or a negative income tax. Even among economic regulation, some are in favor of preventing mergers between companies which would create a highly concentrated industry, but some will say that natural monopolies may exist where it is the most efficient model and are fine so long as they are not govt mandated and do not prevent new entry into the market from competitors.
All tend to agree that central banking is a disaster, that governments are entirely too invasive into private markets, and that most regulation tends to not only favor the wealthy but are specifically designed to benefit the wealthy.
Austrian economics would traditionally be considered economically right leaning. However, they would NOT have supported Trump. Or most modern republicans for that matter.
They typically strongly oppose tariffs, price floors and ceilings, fiscal, and monetary policy.
They generally argue that taxes should be moderate (some would say low), but very constant. They argue that frequent changes in tax policy fosters instability and slows growth.
They believe fiscal and monetary policy has no positive long term effects. They believe market manipulation is harmful and generally prolongs economic slumps. Any fiscal policy that gives to one group takes from another which has consequences.
They are usually anti regulation, but that is not a sweeping rule. I believe they would go after false claims or harm, but generally leaned “buyer beware”. They often determined that most regulation caused more harm than good.
They are usually private sector oriented - though not always. One of the most famous Austrian economists, Friedrich Hayek, actually supported universal healthcare.
Milton Friedman, whose policies generally aligned with the Austrian school, supported a type of Basic Income.
They have historically blamed the government for all monopolies, but I don’t think that would necessarily still apply in today’s economy. I suspect they would argue for intervention into some mergers.
The major theme of their beliefs though is to target long run growth and not interfere with the economic cycle.
Yes, that is why I said “generally aligned”. In a debate (more conversation) with Hayek, they largely agreed on policy suggestions. Just different ways of studying it.
I love how the entire media, government and academia match lock step on Keynesian monetary theory, but THIS sub is the “ideologically slanted” one. I mean… Paul Krugman is just as neutral as can be I guess s/
I think the chip bans hurt us long term. We just gave up the worlds largest chip market and protected exclusively for Chinese companies… they will be forced to develop good chips and will have the r&d and sales revenue to do it with a protected market. Also all our chip companies bet future growth on growing Chinese demand. They will have less sales because of it. It also doesn’t really hurt Chinese computing power that much in the short term either. I support a flat tariff on everyone but our close allies though.
Idk, China’s playbook has been to bring in the leader of an industry, get them to hire almost exclusively Chinese, those employees spend years learning everything, and then jump ship to Chinese companies to compete with their former employer. Best example of this is Tesla
I agree the chip ban is short sighted but as long as Nvda and company keep innovating, China will struggle to catch up. I think they will eventually crack it or get good enough in like a decade though
The point being it would take longer and be harder to catch up the status quo wasn't disrupted. Most chip grads are Chinese. If Taiwan can pull it off its no question that China can. Im all for the Chinese innovation. Forces us to compete. The fact you can get a decent Chinese ev for 10 grand is crazy. China will be as developed as Japan with 6 times the population. I think we got to give our own industry a leg up though.
Economics and politics are intertwined.
Laissez-faire capitalism must be anti authoritarian as authoritarians want control over their people, and the economy is private transactions. And capitalism is by definition right wing as communism is left.
That puts us in the libertarian right quadrant, which includes classical liberals, moderate libertarians, anarcho-capitalists (directly linked to Rothbard, btw) and so many more ideologies.
Politics is economics + social beliefs.
>Economics and politics are intertwined.
But they're not the same. So referring to a sub devoted to a school of economic thought in political terms is inaccurate and misleading.
This:
>capitalism is by definition right wing as communism is left.
... logically contradicts this:
>Laissez-faire capitalism must be anti authoritarian as authoritarians want control over their people, and the economy is private transactions.
You can't have it both ways.
I'd argue that:
A. The far-right (fascists) often describes itself as capitalist, but in reality favors a good deal of economic intervention, specifically in the form of the government favoring certain businesses and corporations.
B. Most Austrian School economists (ie, those that are not anarcho-capitalists) are not 'pure' laissez-faire capitalists; most will readily admit that some occasional government intervention is both necessary and unavoidable.
But right/left refers to politics, not economics. I have never heard of any such thing as the 'economic right wing.' Right versus left only refers to economics inasmuch as political rightists and leftists tend to favor certain kinds of economic systems, respectively--but both far ends of the right/left political 'spectrum' are totalitarian. You seem to be inventing something, here.
Spectrum?
I know the political compass is not quite accurate but it’s much better than a line.
[here is a political compass of economists](https://www.google.com/search?q=political+compass+economists&client=safari&sca_esv=00cef6a9139fa5fe&hl=en-us&udm=2&biw=375&bih=548&sxsrf=ADLYWILS5_T03RvYy1V_KGUWkRqf76FivQ%3A1715941985317&ei=YTJHZqr_EsXQkPIPpNiUyA0&oq=political+compass+economists&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhxwb2xpdGljYWwgY29tcGFzcyBlY29ub21pc3RzMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESJwlUPgMWJUhcAB4AJABAJgBaqABtweqAQQxMi4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAILoALMBsICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAggQABiABBixA8ICChAAGIAEGEMYigXCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAgYHsICCRAAGMcDGAgYHsICBxAAGIAEGBiYAwCIBgGSBwM5LjKgB-Ij&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#vhid=rS_sUu-FVjX5zM&vssid=mosaic)
This is a conservative conspiracy cesspit that is occasionally interesting to come back to remind me of what a shitface I could've become if I didn't grow out of puberty.
Mind you the sub actually had content 10+ years back when Trump wasn't all the rage among "libertarians".
In fact there actually was a time in this sub when people here supported immigration lmao
This sub still supports immigration. Speaking for only myself, illegal immigration is a very serious problem for many reasons and no one should support criminal activity.
Ummm yes, Austrian economics is a conservative ideology. The belief that the free market is perfect is a conservative talking point because in practice it is used almost exclusively to oppose policies that would help the less powerful. It also takes as a given that undemocratic, hierarchical, authoritative structure of corporate leadership will be the dominant organization of society. Shareholder leadership of society is regressive.
It also has many flatly false claims that deny the reality of the economy in ways that support a conservative and false message, for instance the tendency for industries to concentrate is observed in the majority of industries in the absence of government intervention, but they deny it saying, objectively falsely, that market concentration depends on government (for example, none of the 4 largest monopolies of the industrial revolution recieved either a charter or preferential subsidies that their competitors did not get. In fact Vanderbilt famously built his monopoly despite not receiving subsidies thay his competitors did). It rejects the very idea if market failures, a claim so absurd and ignorant that 100% of economists reject it. I have never heard of an economist claiming that externalities, death spirals, credit crunches, systemic risk, asymmetric information, and monopsony/monopoly power simply do not exist and are impossible. Almost all of these favor the wealthy and powerful and their rejection is a conservative talking point.
The idea that the governments only role is national defense and the enforcement of contracts also, obviously, is a conservative message that denies the governments role in improving the lives of their citizens (recieved by the poor and aid for by the rich) or protecting them against the structural and individual advantages of the rich (it has been claimed on this sub that private courts could handle charges of rape by the rich against the poor, this is on its face absurd and I'm happy to elaborate but I think its so obvious thay I don't need to).
In short, yes, handing society over to business leaders while not only not checking, but flatly denying, their ability to abuse the poor is archconservative, the message thay the government should do nothing but protect property is even more conservative than ancap ideology. The only ideologies more directly conservative are excplicit endorsements of authoritarianism and ultra nationalism, which, to their credit, austrianism rejects.
Ummmmm no, that is what conservatism is and that is what austrianism is. That is the consensus of everybody not on this sub, and also most Austrians will tell you their conservative. You just don't want to face that yoir logic is a farce designed to protect the rich.
But if I'm incorrect, I'm happy to hear which of my factual points is incorrect. Which of the four big trusts, Standard, American Tobacco, Carnegie, JP Morgan, had a government charter? What is the role of government in austrianism outside national defense and contract enforcement? if externalities don't exist at all, why do they exist in the majority of industries? If death spirals are impossible, why are they observable in markets?
Monopolies can exist without charters when the legal barriers to entry for new competition prevent new competition. Natural monopolies which exist outside government charter and these legal barriers to entry do so because the market has determined it is most efficient.
Conservativism is the belief that politics should preserve the social and political order of yesterday. Austrians do not believe that and tend to actively work to change it. Many regulations tend to be written to protect entrenched interests so removing those would increase competition, not preserve entrenched actors. Regulation is a much debated topic even within Austrian circles, not all are ancap (another inherently non-conservative political philosophy).
Externalities do exist. There are arguments for the regulation of non-exclusive, exhaustible goods.
Economic policy and national security can be at odds. That’s a political issue, not necessarily a purely economic one. While the two often overlap and even are often at odds, truly free markets still depend on having free trading partners. The risk of war and trade war means that political leaders must balance the interests of economic actors and national security. I think some Austrians forget this.
The State exists primarily to preserve individual liberty and private property, enforce contracts, provide for mutual defense, and attempt to protect against truly existential risk. I’m a localist, so at the very least I would prefer to see those tasks be the absolute maximum the Federal government does, while the States run themselves more or less as the public chooses. I still prefer minimal State intervention in markets, but I think if welfare is to exist, it should exist at the most local level possible. Decentralization is our friend.
If an industry has increasing economies to scale (financial and professional services, most manufacturing, data, online services) or increasing marginal value of market share (anything with a downward sloping demand curve), then small firms and large firms both prefer to merge. That's why trusts formed. Also, every industry has a little barriers to entry, things cost money. Also to attract investment, firms must provide at least the returns of the next best investment, the fact that things cost money means that competitors will not enter industries until accounting profits go to 0, they will stop when margins approach larger market returns. When a natural monopoly emerges, whether or lot with a charter, it then has abusive market power. It's origins does not change the profit maximizing equations.
All that aside, i am familiar with the logic of austrianism. It is not what is observed, and is rejected by other logical arguments. Simply repeating it is not defending it, I know what you believe, I'm saying you're wrong. You need to defend the claim, not just repeat it.
Correct, economic and geopolitical needs have to be balanced, correct, austrianism rejects this, thats because Austrianism is just conservative talking points that are not internally consistent and rejects the role of government on ideological grounds, thats the exact thing I am saying. We agree on that point.
Conservatism is much more strongly correlated with perseving the status quo than with a general rejection of change, that goes back to Edmund Burke and Hobbes, literally the foundations of the ideology, the social order they are preserving is social hierarchy and undemocratic governance. Go read Burke, he's not criticizing aristocracy, he's saying that an aristocracy of business leaders is even better than an aristocracy of nobles. He's not even about preserving the political structure, he rejects monarchy, he wants to preserve the social order while the political structure transitions. It's not about arresting technological and economic development, it's about making sure that the power structure remains the same. Commercial leaders have been the dominant force in society for 400 years (that is, after all, the definition of capitalism, the social organization by which the owners of capital organize the activity of society). Almost all of the role of government since the enlightment is about protecting the vulnerable in this system. The Rights of Man, Principles of Economics, the American, French, and British constitutions (those are th only ones I've read), are all about the governments role in addressing observed issues in society. Rejecting these is conservative.
It's not even a question of good or bad, some people are conservatives (I'm obvs not, but some are), it's a matter of fact that Austrianism is aligned perfectly what conservatism has attempted to do for the entirety of its existence. The only ones it doesn't match are the forms where the government rather than private individuals form the hierarchical social structure (these being the various forms of authoritarianism and the unique case of ultranationalism where an exclusionary group not defined as a government forms the social structure). Providing courts to settle disputes of property but not of accusations of criminal rape, is an extreme conservative policy that actively supports the powerful and suppresses the vulnerable, maintaining social hierarchy.
The social structure observed when the government practices laissez-faire policies (the closest thing we've ever gotten to either ancap or austrianism) and the logical deduction accepted by the vast majority of economists and social scientists about a laissez-faire society, is rapidly expanding inequality, concentrated economic power, authoritative leaders and a poor class with no recourse against abuses by the rich, in economic life and in general. Ancap uses the language of liberty, but actively describe a conservative society, which most of them will tell you in their own words. There's also the obvious issue where leading commercial leaders will just use military force to protect their interests, eventually coalescing into a monopoly of force.
The US government currently has a monopoly on force, and has used it historically to squash unions and worker strikes. The government has worked more on the behalf of corporations than individual people.
Without the government corporations could form their own police forces, but the difference would be that those forces wouldn't have a monopoly on violence.
The more centralized power is, the more absolute it is. Without a government holding a monopoly on violence, opposition to oppression has more opportunity. A corporation could poison the environment or mistreat its workers, and without a government to protect them they would be held accountable by the citizens. Supremacy over a population is achieved through the absolute power a government holds, which is what millitary coups vie for. Remove the power government holds, and there is no longer an overarching system of total control to attain.
We attempt to solve these power imbalances politically through separation of powers and a semi-democratic process. This is designed to give a monopoly on legal violence to the State regarding very limited and specific arenas, while creating competing factions within the State itself to make it as difficult as possible to infringe on the rights of individuals. Mandating charity isn’t charity; it’s just stealing from some people and giving it to your preferred class. When the govt has the ability to do this, they will use it to benefit the entrenched political class at the expense of everyone else. We see this now.
Violence is a fact of life and all rights are won and protected through violence or the threat of it. Rights won otherwise are due to social, cultural, and often religious forces which act to constrain the ill intent of the powerful. This is part of why the right to bear arms was included in the U.S. constitution.
Your proposition is to give one giant monopoly to an organization which is currently so big and so powerful that it is accountable to no one. This is while you complain about the power of corporations which people at least have the freedom to not interact with (short of monopoly or state enforcement). I am personally in favor of banning all mergers of companies which will increase market concentration beyond a certain HHI threshold to prevent the regulatory capture which we currently have.
Also, I think your definition of conservatism is kinda wild but you do you. I’m not going to convince you or anything you don’t already believe.
Surely you can point out a factual error then. Which of the four largest trusts, American Tobacco, US Steel, Standard Oil, and JP Morgan had a monopoly charter?
Just dipping in quickly but standard oil had patented production methods and was literally granted land by the American government, yet was still shrinking due to market forces before anti trust laws took over
r/economics is great if you want to discuss economics with a bunch of people who don't understand it.
Lmao exactly - the people who bought into Joe’s line that inflation came from “corporate greed,” and has nothing to do with his unprecedented debt-monetized spending, of course!
The whole "greedflation" thing is fucking hilarious. As if businesses only just managed to think of the idea of simply charging more. What a revolutionary concept! Incredible that no one came up with this before!
It would be more hilarious if it didn’t showcase how stupid and gullible such a large portion of the population is. In that regard, it’s pretty sad. Joe is getting away with murder because so many of his constituents are economically illiterate. And even worse, they know it - or they wouldn’t use this kind of rhetoric.
No doubt. This reminds me of the [White House's pre-Super Bowl "shrinkflation" video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcVTzgZyGro&pp=ygUZd2hpdGUgaG9zdWUgc2hyaW5rZmxhdGlvbg%3D%3D). When I first saw this, I literally thought it was AI-generated satire, with the comedic aspect of Biden complaining about "shrinkflation" in the face of his own pro-inflationary policies, which have contributed to a situation where businesses must either charge more or sell smaller quantities. I was stunned when I realized this was actually real. They truly think their constituents haven't the slightest understanding of basic economic principles, and unfortunately they appear to be mostly correct in this assumption.
Man that is pure gold. It makes you wonder how intentional their rhetoric is. Joe’s repeated claims that inflation was “9%” when he started no longer appear to be a mistake. The chair of his economic council is saying it too. It’s an abject lie - but apparently that doesn’t matter if your constituents believe it.
It’s wild because even left leaning media is saying it’s incorrect. Yet people still refuse to believe it. It’s a cult-like mentality
Would it really be even considered inflation? I thought inflation was devaluation of the dollar, that just sounds like price hikes. (Honest question).
But if that’s the case they can’t blame it on the businesses.
Inflation is the decreased purchasing power of a currency. It is synonymous with an increase in prices. Prices come from the interaction of supply and demand. Government policies, fiscal and monetary, have increased demand. Companies have responded by increasing their prices. To say greed has nothing to do with is ignorant. Greed is the fuel of a market economy. Without it we lack the incentives to innovate, to start new businesses, to work harder.
This might sound a little pedantic but greed is the immoderate and insatiable love of possessing something for the sake of possessing it. The market economy is fueled by rational self-interest. Atheist materialists use the term "corporate greed" as a form of propaganda.
Remember “inflation is transitory” lol people are fucking stupid.
This post is exactly what OP is talking about, clearly political.
In fact, it’s the opposite. I am all for robust discussion on economic theory and current events. What I will not tolerate is intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of reality by politicians who want to incorporate economically illiterate concepts into their rhetoric, such as “greedflation.” Both sides do do it, but I would argue one side has certainly done it more than the other lately - and perhaps that is why there is a perception that this is a “conservative” sub.
I respectfully disagree.
I respect that. But with all due respect, how exactly do you disagree?
I disagree that greed is not a factor. I disagree that the Democratic leadership abuses the economic illiteracy of the citizenry more than the Republican Leadership.
The point is that greed is as old as man. It didn’t start in 2020. Of course it is a factor. It is, therefore, not a cause in and of itself in the recent spurt of inflation. If you have a specific counter argument, I’m all ears.
> Lmao exactly - the people who bought into Joe’s line that inflation came from “corporate greed,” and has nothing to do with his unprecedented debt-monetized spending, of course! The profit motive, corporate greed, it’s all the same. Without it a market economy doesn’t work. It simply lacks the incentive necessary for innovation, business startup and expansion. Of course companies are/were taking advantage of the increased demand that resulted from loose fiscal and monetary policy. But it doesn’t make it incorrect to say that businesses were greedy to charge more because they could. Furthermore, you portray this as a result of Biden’s policies but neglect to take into consideration the Tax Cuts and Jobs act that dramatically cut taxes while the government continued to increase spending when the country was at full employment. That is arguably a bigger driver of inflation than the Build Back Better Act. Because a significant component of the related inflation metastasized via massive writedowns of ADIT that then fueled a wave of stock buybacks that then drove massive corporate investment in real estate, it had a significant lag. Anyway, that’s why I think OP correctly identified political bias in “economic analysis” on this sub.
So if that is true, where was the inflation when the TC and Jobs Act went into effect? It was what, 1.6% when Joe took office, over three years later? Do you have a source for the “lag”?
You should read some of the latest research papers on this exact subject. They completely disagree with your entire statement. https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/san-francisco-federal-reserve-analysis-debunks-white-house-excuses-on-inflation/ https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2024/05/are-markups-driving-ups-and-downs-of-inflation
It's hard to separate the two when each party clings to wildly difference monetary policies and with almost no overlap. Thus one has to be right and one has to be wrong. Supply and demand in economics is the equivalent to newtons law in physics.
And more than that, they absolutely don't want to understand it. Saying something like inflation is caused by printing money will get you downvoted to oblivion there.
I am so happy to have recently found this sub. Having experienced this numerous times in that sub left a bad taste in my mouth.
Fucking facts. The idea that OP thinks there are “good” aspects to tariffs is a smdh moment.
There are good aspects to tariffs, particularly for developing countries that are trying to grow nascent industries. South Korea is a great example of tariffs used effectively, along with other tools like targeted subsidies and promotion of personal savings, in an integrated plan to dramatically increase growth and develop domestic industry.
So raising prices for consumers is good?
Under certain circumstances, yes. It was a significant contribution to the economic prosperity that South Koreans enjoy today. Edit: as well as most of the pacific rim nations that followed some version of the Japan model in the end of the 20th century.
How well are those models working now?
South Korea doesn’t have the same policies in place today that they implemented in the late 1970s. They have a flat 10% VAT on imports.
Huh, so… tariffs don’t work?
No. Tariffs worked to get Japan, Korea and other Pacific Rim countries’ gdp growth ramped up when they were poor. When they had established competitiveness in global markets they reduced the tariffs. They are not an effective long-term policy but under the right circumstances, they are part of a very effective short-term economic development policy.
That’s not even what proponents of tariffs argue, you know that?
Let's be honest, most of the people coming to *this* sub lately don't understand economics for shit.
Most of the comments I’ve read in this thread so far are from the confidently, economically illiterate.
Lmaooo
Are you familiar with Austrian Economic theory? It's conservative in the sense it believes in minimal* government intervention in the economy. In that sense it's pretty against both Republican and Democratic policy. Republicans aren't real conservatives, only in a performative moralistic way. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats at spending money the government doesn't have.
AE has no beliefs or recommendations. It is merely an explanation of rational (purposeful) human action under the conditions of scarcity.
>believes in zero government intervention Wouldn't say that. Perhaps 'minimal.'
That'd be more accurate.
Neoliberalism is what you're describing, not conservativism.
Neoliberalism is as much of a scare word as cultural Marxism. It’s also a dogwhistle to signal adherence to post-classical economic (ie Marxian or otherwise socialist) thought.
Austrian economics, is valueless. Libertarianism(based on AE) does not believe in fractional reserve banking Fractional reserve banking, and the money printing it allows, is the center piece of the current system.
Which is why AE is much closer to Neoliberalism than any other political ideology, because free market economics + whatever political ideology you want to combine it with is the Neoliberal ideology. Mises and his contemporaries literally defined and prescribed to the Neoliberal ideology. Libertarianism is actually very similar to Neoliberalism. However, it's more rigid in the political ideology that it combines with free market thinking.
So yes, it's conservative, you jusy want to caveat that with a nonsequitor becuase you're uncomfortable with the implications
Conservative and republican are used interchangeably commonly, and I was saying that Republicans currently are conservative only in a way of preserving perceived traditional values and not in an economic sense. Republican economic policy is essentially neo-liberal. I don't think conservative is a bad word, I was just trying to offer clarity to what the OP is asking.
Fair
No it leans libertarian and ancap
Politically conservative, no. Fiscally conservative and non interventionist, yes.
This sub is relatively anti-government on both sides, because Austrian economics abhor government intervention in the economy. If you look at many of the biggest names in Austrian economics: Rothbard, Mises, Bohm, Menger, Hoppe… they all criticized both left and right leaning governments for their poor economic policies.
R/conservative on Reddit isn’t even conservative
On the conservative subreddit, it’s like a civil war between trump and conservatives
Trump is a socialist
socialite
I'd say totalitarian, maybe fascist, but not so much socialist.
He's more a communist than a socialist - given the whole Russia and China angle he wants to emulate.
I really don't think he's either. He's totalitarian, definitely, but I think when he takes a political stance, it generally leans more fascist than communist. Only thing is, I don't really think he believes half the shit that comes out of his own mouth. But I guess, arguably, if you espouse fascist ideals, whether you believe them or not, you're fascist.
If you agree with Austrian economics you tend to be more conservative/libertarian
u/ThePatientIdiot Hm... There is a lot to unpack here so I'll do it in 2 parts. 1) The sub isn't conservative in the way you think it. It would lean Libertarian/ancap in modern terms. However, if you are truly "inelastic" it is concervative in the sense that is Whig. If Whig parties (of the US or the UK) were around they would be allied with the Austrians. So in reality Austrians largely support economic models of the Victorian period. Free markets, international trade, golden standard, looking down in debt and no wars. 2) About the Trump-Biden thing. To start off in the policies of tarrifs they are equally regarded. As a European I would say that the trade war of US-EU about aluminum motorcycles and whiskey. [https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67758395](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67758395) Such practices divide the Western allies more than the Soviet Union or China could ever accomplish on their own. We are killing ourselves! However, when dealing with China you have to also consider 2 things both of which hurt US consumers first and foremost. The one would be the limitation of the liberty of US consumers. If you wanted to buy a chinese car because it better fits your needs (for example a NIO car) now you need to pay at least double because the gov said so and is threatening to them. The second and more lasting impact would be the creation of an inefficient US electric car industry. If Ford and Tesla are left on their own to dominate the US market then who would drive innovation? How could the American cars compete in the Asian, Indian or European markets should they be inferior to their chinese counterparts because of protectionism? Now the only real criticism of this sub is that it isn't that high leveled in the responses and that the trolls get too much attention. However, the thing it has over other subs like r/Economics is really just that, freedom that represents much better how people view economic issues. Here we don't have to cower behind "Quality contributor" tags to show our superiority (which actually is an argument from authority ie I am correct because teh mods said so or I am wrong because I don't agree with them).
People understand the economy here. It might be a bit of a shock to you.
Not lately.
on reddit anything that isn't overtly leftist, gets brigaded out of existence.
I'm going to disagree with a lot of the comments here. It's not conservative, nor libertarian. It's not politically anything, precisely speaking. Austrian Ec looks at economics, the study of human behavior as applied in a resource constrained environment, through a lens that says analysis of individual behavior is more important than studying group behavior. It starts with the idea that human action can be understood through an individual's *perception* of their best interests (which isn't necessarily the same as their actual best interests, assuming there is such an objective thing). If you start there, you realize that a lot of the faux math used in macroeconomics are basically subjective. I got in an argument with a regular old econ professor about thirty years ago who wanted us to take subjective numbers and then divide by national population or something stupid like that. I come from a strong math and science background and my head about exploded. I dropped the class and decided the social sciences weren't for me. Years later I came across the Austrian school and their view is that social sciences are best observed through logic and reason a priori instead of pretending to be physics with people. It opened up possibilities to understanding the world that hadn't been visible to me before. Austrian economics doesn't cover microeconomics. That seems to work pretty well in it's basic standard form. Math works here because the numbers are a lot more objective. Being in this world view appeals to, and enforces, the view that individuals matter more than the groups they happen to belong to. It's not that analysis using groups can't be done, but we're already coming from the idea that more individual choice is generally better than less. That's not mandated by the Austrian analysis. But most of us tend to have political views that emphasize individual freedoms and responsibilities. Hence you'll find libertarians here, and ancaps, but even sometimes conservatives and Republicans. There's nothing preventing someone from advocating Austrian views while being a die hard socialist. It's only that their aims and political views would advise economic policy that pushes away from increasing individual choice instead of towards it. I don't know that many of any of these folks even exist, but they could. So no, not conservative. But you'll find them here anyway.
If you think that r/Economics fairly presents 2 sides, then to you, yes, this is a conservative sub.
The sub is about economics, not politics. A lot of Austrian School economists lean libertarian, in that they think of themselves as 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative.' A lot of people think of libertarianism as an 'alt-right' movement. That does not fit with Austrian School economics. A lot of people come to this sub with a very poor understanding of economics, and especially of Austrian School economics, and often even a poor understanding of libertarianism. But they see people here discussing ideas they find appealing. Lately, I think the participants of this sub are something like 10% who actually understand economics and 90% who don't have a fucking clue... but they think they see academic excuses for rightist government policies here.
This is an economic sub. My guy, you have been exposed to so much of the dogshit economic talk that you think the economic theory of "leave the economy alone" is somehow political. Most of this sub's political discussion is about how if the government was a person, it would be in debtor's prison for its insane spending and debt. We are concerned only with sound money and sound budgeting. Think of it this way, we're the responsible people who keep a balanced budget and engage in the free market, while to government and its crackpot economists are the irresponsible people who max out dozens of credit cards, take out loans for everything, and has massive debt. Half of AE is just applying principles of basic personal finance to macroeconomics.
There are more world views than the artificially placed American centric left right dichotomy that the ruling class has onused upon America.
It's only conservative in the fiscal sense. Not in the political sense. Austrian provides methodology for real people to be better off tomorrow than they are today which seems quite liberal to me. But I interpret the word "liberal" in the classic context. Not the modern context which has been hijacked by modern nation state interventionist institutions. I think Austrian jives best with politically agnostic people who are not captured by the mainstream left vs right/liberal vs conservative mind virus. The people that are captured will continue to surrender power and authority to their preferred political policy makers unless they realize it's not working and snap out of it.
If you mean “conservative” in the literal sense of trying to conserve a social and political order in a given area or State, then no. Austrian economists would be “progressive” in the literal sense, as they seek to eliminate as much government interference in the economy as possible, because most government intervention either creates worse outcomes or is essentially stealing from one group to give to another. If you mean “conservative” as in right-leaning on the political compass, then yes, it is right leaning in the defense of individuals as economic actors, removing arbitrary regulation, govt interference in markets, and so on. This tends to overlap with Libertarian, not modern Republican, views. Most will agree that the State only has a few legitimate functions, namely preservation and protection of individual rights, private property, mutual defense, existential threats, and contract enforcement. However, there is some disagreement on taxation, some (like Hayek) were in favor of universal healthcare and make compelling arguments for it. Some, like Friedman, are in favor of UBI or a negative income tax. Even among economic regulation, some are in favor of preventing mergers between companies which would create a highly concentrated industry, but some will say that natural monopolies may exist where it is the most efficient model and are fine so long as they are not govt mandated and do not prevent new entry into the market from competitors. All tend to agree that central banking is a disaster, that governments are entirely too invasive into private markets, and that most regulation tends to not only favor the wealthy but are specifically designed to benefit the wealthy.
Austrian economics would traditionally be considered economically right leaning. However, they would NOT have supported Trump. Or most modern republicans for that matter. They typically strongly oppose tariffs, price floors and ceilings, fiscal, and monetary policy. They generally argue that taxes should be moderate (some would say low), but very constant. They argue that frequent changes in tax policy fosters instability and slows growth. They believe fiscal and monetary policy has no positive long term effects. They believe market manipulation is harmful and generally prolongs economic slumps. Any fiscal policy that gives to one group takes from another which has consequences. They are usually anti regulation, but that is not a sweeping rule. I believe they would go after false claims or harm, but generally leaned “buyer beware”. They often determined that most regulation caused more harm than good. They are usually private sector oriented - though not always. One of the most famous Austrian economists, Friedrich Hayek, actually supported universal healthcare. Milton Friedman, whose policies generally aligned with the Austrian school, supported a type of Basic Income. They have historically blamed the government for all monopolies, but I don’t think that would necessarily still apply in today’s economy. I suspect they would argue for intervention into some mergers. The major theme of their beliefs though is to target long run growth and not interfere with the economic cycle.
Friedman is not Austrian by any means due to his methodology, micro foundations and macroeconomics
Yes, that is why I said “generally aligned”. In a debate (more conversation) with Hayek, they largely agreed on policy suggestions. Just different ways of studying it.
I love how the entire media, government and academia match lock step on Keynesian monetary theory, but THIS sub is the “ideologically slanted” one. I mean… Paul Krugman is just as neutral as can be I guess s/
I think the chip bans hurt us long term. We just gave up the worlds largest chip market and protected exclusively for Chinese companies… they will be forced to develop good chips and will have the r&d and sales revenue to do it with a protected market. Also all our chip companies bet future growth on growing Chinese demand. They will have less sales because of it. It also doesn’t really hurt Chinese computing power that much in the short term either. I support a flat tariff on everyone but our close allies though.
Idk, China’s playbook has been to bring in the leader of an industry, get them to hire almost exclusively Chinese, those employees spend years learning everything, and then jump ship to Chinese companies to compete with their former employer. Best example of this is Tesla I agree the chip ban is short sighted but as long as Nvda and company keep innovating, China will struggle to catch up. I think they will eventually crack it or get good enough in like a decade though
The point being it would take longer and be harder to catch up the status quo wasn't disrupted. Most chip grads are Chinese. If Taiwan can pull it off its no question that China can. Im all for the Chinese innovation. Forces us to compete. The fact you can get a decent Chinese ev for 10 grand is crazy. China will be as developed as Japan with 6 times the population. I think we got to give our own industry a leg up though.
Robert Conquests first law of politics: everyone is conservative on what they know best.
No, it's libertarian. Fiscally conservative maybe.
God forbid there’s a sub that has a conservative tilt.
It's simple. Interest rates high banks have freedom, good. Interest rates low, people have freedom, bad.
Seems to just be a deflation and gold standard fetish sub
No, it’s a libertarian sub.
It's economics, not politics.
Economics and politics are intertwined. Laissez-faire capitalism must be anti authoritarian as authoritarians want control over their people, and the economy is private transactions. And capitalism is by definition right wing as communism is left. That puts us in the libertarian right quadrant, which includes classical liberals, moderate libertarians, anarcho-capitalists (directly linked to Rothbard, btw) and so many more ideologies. Politics is economics + social beliefs.
>Economics and politics are intertwined. But they're not the same. So referring to a sub devoted to a school of economic thought in political terms is inaccurate and misleading. This: >capitalism is by definition right wing as communism is left. ... logically contradicts this: >Laissez-faire capitalism must be anti authoritarian as authoritarians want control over their people, and the economy is private transactions. You can't have it both ways. I'd argue that: A. The far-right (fascists) often describes itself as capitalist, but in reality favors a good deal of economic intervention, specifically in the form of the government favoring certain businesses and corporations. B. Most Austrian School economists (ie, those that are not anarcho-capitalists) are not 'pure' laissez-faire capitalists; most will readily admit that some occasional government intervention is both necessary and unavoidable.
Let me clarify ~~right wing~~ economic right wing. And yes some people are Minarchists or moderates, and I also specified that we weren’t all ancaps.
But right/left refers to politics, not economics. I have never heard of any such thing as the 'economic right wing.' Right versus left only refers to economics inasmuch as political rightists and leftists tend to favor certain kinds of economic systems, respectively--but both far ends of the right/left political 'spectrum' are totalitarian. You seem to be inventing something, here.
Spectrum? I know the political compass is not quite accurate but it’s much better than a line. [here is a political compass of economists](https://www.google.com/search?q=political+compass+economists&client=safari&sca_esv=00cef6a9139fa5fe&hl=en-us&udm=2&biw=375&bih=548&sxsrf=ADLYWILS5_T03RvYy1V_KGUWkRqf76FivQ%3A1715941985317&ei=YTJHZqr_EsXQkPIPpNiUyA0&oq=political+compass+economists&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhxwb2xpdGljYWwgY29tcGFzcyBlY29ub21pc3RzMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESJwlUPgMWJUhcAB4AJABAJgBaqABtweqAQQxMi4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAILoALMBsICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAggQABiABBixA8ICChAAGIAEGEMYigXCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAgYHsICCRAAGMcDGAgYHsICBxAAGIAEGBiYAwCIBgGSBwM5LjKgB-Ij&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#vhid=rS_sUu-FVjX5zM&vssid=mosaic)
There's a reason I put it in quotes. Nonetheless, there's no such thing as 'economic right' and 'economic left.' You could just as easily switch them.
This is a conservative conspiracy cesspit that is occasionally interesting to come back to remind me of what a shitface I could've become if I didn't grow out of puberty. Mind you the sub actually had content 10+ years back when Trump wasn't all the rage among "libertarians". In fact there actually was a time in this sub when people here supported immigration lmao
In fact there actually was a time in this sub when people here supported immigration lmao ??? We should we stop? Freedom for both capital and Labour.
This sub still supports immigration. Speaking for only myself, illegal immigration is a very serious problem for many reasons and no one should support criminal activity.
Ummm yes, Austrian economics is a conservative ideology. The belief that the free market is perfect is a conservative talking point because in practice it is used almost exclusively to oppose policies that would help the less powerful. It also takes as a given that undemocratic, hierarchical, authoritative structure of corporate leadership will be the dominant organization of society. Shareholder leadership of society is regressive. It also has many flatly false claims that deny the reality of the economy in ways that support a conservative and false message, for instance the tendency for industries to concentrate is observed in the majority of industries in the absence of government intervention, but they deny it saying, objectively falsely, that market concentration depends on government (for example, none of the 4 largest monopolies of the industrial revolution recieved either a charter or preferential subsidies that their competitors did not get. In fact Vanderbilt famously built his monopoly despite not receiving subsidies thay his competitors did). It rejects the very idea if market failures, a claim so absurd and ignorant that 100% of economists reject it. I have never heard of an economist claiming that externalities, death spirals, credit crunches, systemic risk, asymmetric information, and monopsony/monopoly power simply do not exist and are impossible. Almost all of these favor the wealthy and powerful and their rejection is a conservative talking point. The idea that the governments only role is national defense and the enforcement of contracts also, obviously, is a conservative message that denies the governments role in improving the lives of their citizens (recieved by the poor and aid for by the rich) or protecting them against the structural and individual advantages of the rich (it has been claimed on this sub that private courts could handle charges of rape by the rich against the poor, this is on its face absurd and I'm happy to elaborate but I think its so obvious thay I don't need to). In short, yes, handing society over to business leaders while not only not checking, but flatly denying, their ability to abuse the poor is archconservative, the message thay the government should do nothing but protect property is even more conservative than ancap ideology. The only ideologies more directly conservative are excplicit endorsements of authoritarianism and ultra nationalism, which, to their credit, austrianism rejects.
Damn what an impressively confident, but equally impressively incorrect answer.
Ummmmm no, that is what conservatism is and that is what austrianism is. That is the consensus of everybody not on this sub, and also most Austrians will tell you their conservative. You just don't want to face that yoir logic is a farce designed to protect the rich. But if I'm incorrect, I'm happy to hear which of my factual points is incorrect. Which of the four big trusts, Standard, American Tobacco, Carnegie, JP Morgan, had a government charter? What is the role of government in austrianism outside national defense and contract enforcement? if externalities don't exist at all, why do they exist in the majority of industries? If death spirals are impossible, why are they observable in markets?
Monopolies can exist without charters when the legal barriers to entry for new competition prevent new competition. Natural monopolies which exist outside government charter and these legal barriers to entry do so because the market has determined it is most efficient. Conservativism is the belief that politics should preserve the social and political order of yesterday. Austrians do not believe that and tend to actively work to change it. Many regulations tend to be written to protect entrenched interests so removing those would increase competition, not preserve entrenched actors. Regulation is a much debated topic even within Austrian circles, not all are ancap (another inherently non-conservative political philosophy). Externalities do exist. There are arguments for the regulation of non-exclusive, exhaustible goods. Economic policy and national security can be at odds. That’s a political issue, not necessarily a purely economic one. While the two often overlap and even are often at odds, truly free markets still depend on having free trading partners. The risk of war and trade war means that political leaders must balance the interests of economic actors and national security. I think some Austrians forget this. The State exists primarily to preserve individual liberty and private property, enforce contracts, provide for mutual defense, and attempt to protect against truly existential risk. I’m a localist, so at the very least I would prefer to see those tasks be the absolute maximum the Federal government does, while the States run themselves more or less as the public chooses. I still prefer minimal State intervention in markets, but I think if welfare is to exist, it should exist at the most local level possible. Decentralization is our friend.
If an industry has increasing economies to scale (financial and professional services, most manufacturing, data, online services) or increasing marginal value of market share (anything with a downward sloping demand curve), then small firms and large firms both prefer to merge. That's why trusts formed. Also, every industry has a little barriers to entry, things cost money. Also to attract investment, firms must provide at least the returns of the next best investment, the fact that things cost money means that competitors will not enter industries until accounting profits go to 0, they will stop when margins approach larger market returns. When a natural monopoly emerges, whether or lot with a charter, it then has abusive market power. It's origins does not change the profit maximizing equations. All that aside, i am familiar with the logic of austrianism. It is not what is observed, and is rejected by other logical arguments. Simply repeating it is not defending it, I know what you believe, I'm saying you're wrong. You need to defend the claim, not just repeat it. Correct, economic and geopolitical needs have to be balanced, correct, austrianism rejects this, thats because Austrianism is just conservative talking points that are not internally consistent and rejects the role of government on ideological grounds, thats the exact thing I am saying. We agree on that point. Conservatism is much more strongly correlated with perseving the status quo than with a general rejection of change, that goes back to Edmund Burke and Hobbes, literally the foundations of the ideology, the social order they are preserving is social hierarchy and undemocratic governance. Go read Burke, he's not criticizing aristocracy, he's saying that an aristocracy of business leaders is even better than an aristocracy of nobles. He's not even about preserving the political structure, he rejects monarchy, he wants to preserve the social order while the political structure transitions. It's not about arresting technological and economic development, it's about making sure that the power structure remains the same. Commercial leaders have been the dominant force in society for 400 years (that is, after all, the definition of capitalism, the social organization by which the owners of capital organize the activity of society). Almost all of the role of government since the enlightment is about protecting the vulnerable in this system. The Rights of Man, Principles of Economics, the American, French, and British constitutions (those are th only ones I've read), are all about the governments role in addressing observed issues in society. Rejecting these is conservative. It's not even a question of good or bad, some people are conservatives (I'm obvs not, but some are), it's a matter of fact that Austrianism is aligned perfectly what conservatism has attempted to do for the entirety of its existence. The only ones it doesn't match are the forms where the government rather than private individuals form the hierarchical social structure (these being the various forms of authoritarianism and the unique case of ultranationalism where an exclusionary group not defined as a government forms the social structure). Providing courts to settle disputes of property but not of accusations of criminal rape, is an extreme conservative policy that actively supports the powerful and suppresses the vulnerable, maintaining social hierarchy. The social structure observed when the government practices laissez-faire policies (the closest thing we've ever gotten to either ancap or austrianism) and the logical deduction accepted by the vast majority of economists and social scientists about a laissez-faire society, is rapidly expanding inequality, concentrated economic power, authoritative leaders and a poor class with no recourse against abuses by the rich, in economic life and in general. Ancap uses the language of liberty, but actively describe a conservative society, which most of them will tell you in their own words. There's also the obvious issue where leading commercial leaders will just use military force to protect their interests, eventually coalescing into a monopoly of force.
The US government currently has a monopoly on force, and has used it historically to squash unions and worker strikes. The government has worked more on the behalf of corporations than individual people. Without the government corporations could form their own police forces, but the difference would be that those forces wouldn't have a monopoly on violence.
Right because militaries are famous for neither cooperating nor fighting for supremacy.
The more centralized power is, the more absolute it is. Without a government holding a monopoly on violence, opposition to oppression has more opportunity. A corporation could poison the environment or mistreat its workers, and without a government to protect them they would be held accountable by the citizens. Supremacy over a population is achieved through the absolute power a government holds, which is what millitary coups vie for. Remove the power government holds, and there is no longer an overarching system of total control to attain.
Right, because militaries famously neither cooperate nor fight for supremacy
We attempt to solve these power imbalances politically through separation of powers and a semi-democratic process. This is designed to give a monopoly on legal violence to the State regarding very limited and specific arenas, while creating competing factions within the State itself to make it as difficult as possible to infringe on the rights of individuals. Mandating charity isn’t charity; it’s just stealing from some people and giving it to your preferred class. When the govt has the ability to do this, they will use it to benefit the entrenched political class at the expense of everyone else. We see this now. Violence is a fact of life and all rights are won and protected through violence or the threat of it. Rights won otherwise are due to social, cultural, and often religious forces which act to constrain the ill intent of the powerful. This is part of why the right to bear arms was included in the U.S. constitution. Your proposition is to give one giant monopoly to an organization which is currently so big and so powerful that it is accountable to no one. This is while you complain about the power of corporations which people at least have the freedom to not interact with (short of monopoly or state enforcement). I am personally in favor of banning all mergers of companies which will increase market concentration beyond a certain HHI threshold to prevent the regulatory capture which we currently have. Also, I think your definition of conservatism is kinda wild but you do you. I’m not going to convince you or anything you don’t already believe.
What a load of bs
Surely you can point out a factual error then. Which of the four largest trusts, American Tobacco, US Steel, Standard Oil, and JP Morgan had a monopoly charter?
Just dipping in quickly but standard oil had patented production methods and was literally granted land by the American government, yet was still shrinking due to market forces before anti trust laws took over
And if it's a load if BS, why are there so many conservative talking points, as OP points out