Logic vs Love: The dichotomy between conservative and liberal economic philosophy

 Here's the thesis statement: liberals believe love should be applied to a political situation in order to resolve it, while conservatives believe logic should be applied instead. Both sides are genuine in their attempt to resolve societal issues. However, neither side understands why the other does what they do. Liberals think conservatives are hard-liner heartless determinists who hate babies (or a woman's right to choose a baby), while conservatives think liberals are ooey-gooey idiots who misunderstand society's systems and will break them through ignorance, even if their intentions are in place.

Thus, I resolve the issue here. Love and logic should be applied in respective quantities relative to the issue. The more an issue hinges on society and human interaction, the more love should be applied. The more an issue hinges on math and logistics, the more logic should be applied. Love does not make trains run on time. However, love will certainly improve the user experience of riding on that train, for a variety of reasons. 

I believe that all motivations for political and economic stances are derivatives of these two core ideologies. Love and logic. For most people, their political motivation will be composed of some derivative of these two core ideas--some more corrupted than others. For example, fear can lead to cold logic, while disgust can lead to impure love. 

The reason why I believe this must be said is because each side does not even attempt to understand the other. They do not understand the underlying motivations for what the other side is doing. Both love and logic are equally important, though for massively different things. Even their less pristine derivatives (sadness, pain, oppression, and offense) still stem from the same idea: some people want to apply logic to a situation, where others want to apply love. 

Thus, I believe that both sides should understand where their interests are coming from, as well as those of the other side. No one is truly evil unless they act with evil intent (the intent to harm or destroy or cause pain without reason). 

I end with the thought that people should know when to apply a conservative mindset and when to apply a liberal one. I do not know exactly which situations would require which mindset, but I realize that 1) they are not the same and cannot be used interchangeably and 2) when used correctly and in the right proportions can greatly improve a society. 

Also, one last postscript: the pursuit of perfection always leads to ruin. 

What is Capitalism? (That ain't no invisible hand)

 People often misunderstand the word "Capitalism." They associate it with free markets, America, and the invisible hand. But this apparent simplicity has also made it easy to throw shade at. I guarantee you, if you ask someone who hates capitalism to explain what it is, they'll give that canned answer as well as the idea that people aren't paid what they're worth and are being exploited, which they attribute to the internal flaws of the system itself. 

No, capitalism is not synonymous with a free market. They are not the same. A "free market" is a system of economic management that allows individuals and groups to, without much interference, produce and consume what they wish and how they wish. 

Capitalism does not actually have any bearing on this. "Capitalism" is a system wherein an individual or group utilizes their eponymous "capital" to create an apparatus to provide goods and services within an economy, with the expectation that their capital will grow through this endeavor. "Capital" in this sense most often means money, but can mean political and social capital as well. I.e. Elon Musk. 

Anyone who hates "capitalism" because of its purported extortionist tendencies should separate it from free market economics. While capitalism is a very good driver of said free market economics, it is not essential to that function. 

Now, on to the "invisible hand." No, it's not invisible and it's not a hand. Every purchase or exchange made within the framework of a free market influences, no matter how small, the "money line." Now, what is a money line? The money line is the agreed-upon value of every good and service within an economy, taking into account its supply and demand. It is very visible; a good example being gas prices. Do you ever wonder how gas stations are always changing their prices, and yet never stray more than ten cents away from the competitors? It's because of this very phenomena: the "money line."

If you are a state-owned factory which distributes its goods based solely on the needs of the people, you must first discover what those needs are and where they are located. Let's say that you have a system of surveys through which each household puts forth their needs; and a large number of clerks who rifle through these "need surveys" who decide, based upon social credit (either an actual number or an intangible feeling) who gets what. Can you see the problem with this system? Individuals are inclined to overstate their needs. Many individuals will slip through the cracks. Too much power is placed in the hands of the arbiters and the clerks. Don't you wish you could have a reliable, accurate system to value goods and services at? One that individuals are inherently inclined to pay attention to, and one that is difficult to violate?

Oh wait, it's there already. The "Invisible hand," otherwise known as the "money line" or "immediate value of goods and services as informed through aggregate activity;" this is what informs the decision of both the distributors and the consumers. It is an automatic and wholly reliable metric with which one can decide their distributary and consumeristic actions.  

Let's go through a thought experiment. I open a local game store with my life savings. I hire two people, nerd friends of mine, to help me out. I am officially a capitalist. Do the anti-capitalists insist on seizing my shop because I am an exploiter? Probably not.

Now my shop does good business. I open two more branches in neighboring towns. I am starting to make a lot of money, and I have a number of employees working for me. Am I an exploiter? Should my property be seized? I pour all of my earnings into the business itself in an attempt to grow it. 

A few years later my game store chain has a market cap of five hundred million dollars. I go public with it and sell shares on the stock market. Should my property be seized? Am I an exploiter? Herein lies the difficulty with setting a boundary between "capitalists" and the proletariat. Under the current order, a proletariat may, with dedication and luck, become a capitalist. While I do agree that suffering and deprivation exist, I must point out that the suffering of a wage cuck in today's America or Europe is qualitatively different from the suffering of the peasantry in pre-Bolshevik Russia. I believe that if an individual has bread and circuses, they have no right to impinge on the economic system (because that is the only job of an economic system.) [Have at the political system all you want.] If your stomach is full most of the time and you have a way to let off steam, then you are doing well as a historical human. When those two things are missing--then it is time for revolution. In America we eat well--too well--and have an infinite array of entertainment. Once those two conditions are met, any foment of revolution is guided by envy rather than a real need for change. The system works well enough. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Please be satisfied with your bread and circuses, and devote your time to obtain more bread and more circuses (in other words, the pursuit of happiness). Do not take from others what they have, unless it is clearly illicit (a whole different argument can be made about that). Instead, grow what you have. Work had to achieve your life goals. Live a life knowing that you are living the most luxurious commoner life in human history.

Be grateful, and trust the "invisible hand." 

The yacht is a broken window

"Broken window" theory states that the destruction of property belonging to someone of means is actually a net positive for the economy. Within this theory's bounds, the breaking of a window can cause more good than harm through the motivation of currency movement. When a window is broken, the owner must hire someone to fix it, and that someone gets paid. Then that someone has to pay for their supplier, and that supplier pays for their raw materials, and so forth. This theory is pushed by the kind of people who also push Keynesian economics. The idea is that the initial loss of property motivates a net gain through the growth or action of the economy. 

Now the same people who push broken window theory also vehemently hate rich people who buy yachts and mansions and such. I believe this is hypocritical. At the very worst, a yacht is a complete loss for the overall economy, as it does not contribute to any kind of need that an ordinary person could have. This is different from a train or a plane of equal value whose use is to provide service for the economy. A yacht, therefore, can be compared to that same "broken window" that so eponymously describes the theory around it. Even though the yacht has no economic value, it stimulates the jobs of thousands of people, and that ten million dollar price tag is distributed throughout the community of people who worked to build that yacht. Thus, it has the same function within an economy as a broken window. The two pictures are the same here. 

The people who harp on the rich for frivolous spending fail to realize that almost all of the money they spend goes to the everyday joe who worked his ass off to build whatever it is they buy. You know Birkin bags? Yeah, there's some everyday guy with skill in leatherworking who benefits from that. The luxury goods and services industry is filled with ordinary people who just want to stay alive, and do so because of the frivolity of the rich.

That's not to say that they should lick the rich people's shoes. Far from that. But one must understand that the phrase "don't bite the hand that feeds you" applies in quite a few cases around this industry.