I may be convinced to abandon my Conservative philosophy and switch to Liberalism, here is why:
1) State housing plans in mixed economies like Canada (post-WW2), Scandinavia, and Britain (post-WW2), and Red Vienna have proven to work at not only providing cheap affordable housing but also growing the economy more than the cost. Many of these nations spend the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars on housing projects, but the cheap housing led to an even greater increase in GDP, generating the economy activity required to pay off the loans used to finance them.
2) Taxing the rich makes sense when you have a budget deficit. Trickle Down Economics works if you cut taxes AND spending, because now you're reallocating capital back into private sector hands. If you simply cut taxes, but not spending, that shortfall must be made up for with additional borrowing, so the same amount of capital is still being pulled from the private sector. In fact it's even worse when done through borrowing, since not only are you indebting your nation, but all the capital pulled from the private sector when borrowed was going to be used for investments whereas with taxes a significant portion of that capital was going to be used for consumption. Taxing the rich is better than running deficits.
3) Paul Krugman has proven that spending on public infrastructure projects like Ports and Trains can produce more economic output than the cost of said projects.
4) Quigley has wrote diligently about how in the late 1800s, many monopolies formed. Even in "competitive industries", boys clubs formed where rich men would conspire to take up the important seats on the board of directors of all the major companies. They used their network to price gauge and act monopolistically. They managed to reap massive profits through their control over the means of production. Competing firms and startups were shut out and denied capital by the investment bankers who were also sharing in the profits of these mega-corps. The only way this was stopped was through federal government regulation.
5) John Kenneth Galbraith has proven that the Canadian lumber regulations allowed for a more stable and cost effective lumber industry than the American counterpart that was unregulated and ended up being controlled by a Stackelberg monopoly
1) State housing plans in mixed economies like Canada (post-WW2), Scandinavia, and Britain (post-WW2), and Red Vienna have proven to work at not only providing cheap affordable housing but also growing the economy more than the cost. Many of these nations spend the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars on housing projects, but the cheap housing led to an even greater increase in GDP, generating the economy activity required to pay off the loans used to finance them.
2) Taxing the rich makes sense when you have a budget deficit. Trickle Down Economics works if you cut taxes AND spending, because now you're reallocating capital back into private sector hands. If you simply cut taxes, but not spending, that shortfall must be made up for with additional borrowing, so the same amount of capital is still being pulled from the private sector. In fact it's even worse when done through borrowing, since not only are you indebting your nation, but all the capital pulled from the private sector when borrowed was going to be used for investments whereas with taxes a significant portion of that capital was going to be used for consumption. Taxing the rich is better than running deficits.
3) Paul Krugman has proven that spending on public infrastructure projects like Ports and Trains can produce more economic output than the cost of said projects.
4) Quigley has wrote diligently about how in the late 1800s, many monopolies formed. Even in "competitive industries", boys clubs formed where rich men would conspire to take up the important seats on the board of directors of all the major companies. They used their network to price gauge and act monopolistically. They managed to reap massive profits through their control over the means of production. Competing firms and startups were shut out and denied capital by the investment bankers who were also sharing in the profits of these mega-corps. The only way this was stopped was through federal government regulation.
5) John Kenneth Galbraith has proven that the Canadian lumber regulations allowed for a more stable and cost effective lumber industry than the American counterpart that was unregulated and ended up being controlled by a Stackelberg monopoly
