Not to stir the pot, but I’ve long believed that a big problem with conservative ideology is that it does not seem to believe in externalities—either good or bad. Positive societal effects couldn’t possibly arise from investments in education or infrastructure. Likewise negative externalities from increased emissions
As someone who is not a conservative, but is interested in what and why people think and believe thing, I don't think that's a fair characterization. It seems to me that conservative care a great deal about negative externalities that effect the existing social order, or may do so in the future. I think the problem is two-fold some of those negative externalities were baked into existing institutions or don't directly effect them, and the "culture wars" in the US cause people to take up positions that don't make any rational sense in their worldview.
You can make really good conservative arguments for say fighting climate change as it could upend traditional social order, but partisan polarization has made it an issue of "the other side" so mainstream conservatives aren't making those arguments IMHO.
Genuinely curious, in a conservative world, how do you deal with externalities without some kind of intervention that distorts the market or the natural order?
It makes total sense to have debates over what things rise to the level of problem and what the best fix is but, at least in my state politics, Republican's seem to just abandon their principles for pragmatism (which is good) but I can't seem to figure how this doesn't cause an identity crisis. Having a "how a conservative evaluates market interventions" seems less taxing than getting pushed to a breaking point and then begrudgingly doing things not in line with your ideals.
Can you provide an example of a government regulation that you see as a net positive? Or private market action that had a negative impact on externalities?
Because IME markets in general are so short-sighted they literally plow ahead with profit over all until the river is burning (pollution in Cleveland) or thousands are poisoned for decades (Flint water crisis). And often don't stop or self correct even in such extremes.
Some governments have certainly overreacted to market failures, but I don't think that means every conversation has to qualify that.
The classic externality is pollution. Some industrial process produces valuable goods, but the air becomes unhealthy to breathe for everyone.
A good government solution to this has been emissions trading¹. The government sets up a maximum allowed emission rate, and producers can trade those rights between them. By making it costly to pollute, producers have incentives to lower pollution, and the allowed rate can be lowered over time, improving the air for everyone.
If markets are so stupid and short sighted, it's hard to understand how they've generated 250 years of huge and sustained increases of material wealth all over the planet. 10x as many people now live far richer and healthier lives than 250 years ago.
True, a river burned in Ohio 50 years ago, but that's very, very small potatoes in the big picture as I see it.
Not so sure you can attribute 250y of gains solely to markets. In fact much of the health gains come from government funded research.
Now, you admit collective action is needed. Great. Because unbridled markets gave us slavery, child labor, 12h-7d work schedules, company towns, the food pyramid, greenwashing, and robber barons.
So the solution to externalities is largely collective action. Because obviously the market alone didn't make emissions trading happen. Markets were backed into a corner. And it feels like a half assed solution considering we don't need to burn coal any more. The market just values profit more than quality of life of those near the site of production.
If we look solely to markets and careless regulation then the biggest companies will capture regulators. Then we're on the path to modern day feudalism. Seeing Amazon hollow out local competition only makes this feel more and more real here in the Midwestern US.
Even the most die-hard libertarians I know (which I'm using here as a proxy for the most conservative) recognize one of the fundamental roles of government is to account for and price in externalities.
The OP indicates that the incentives of corporations driven by a profit motive is not to price in externalities. If not the government, what other mechanisms do you suggest?
