Home Party Goals Platform Government
Help with a Donation Contact Us

©Conservatarian Party (Penfield Enterprises) 2013

Economic views

Types of Economic systems.

  There are in reality three, although some argue four, economic systems. They are Traditional, Market, Command, or a variation of these called a mixed system. The United States is in reality a mixed system moving toward a command system.

  A traditional system is a subsistence type system concentrated primarily on food and the necessities for life. Skills are handed down from person to person or family to family. The distribution of wealth and possessions depends on the individual's standing in society or on cultural customs.

   A market system relies on the needs and wants of the consumer population. It is governed by the laws  of supply, demand and competition. This is the system commonly referred to with the word Capitalism.

   In a command economy the government  owns and controls the wealth and resources, distributing it among its citizens according to its dictates. This is usually referred to as communism. Socialism is an offshoot of this type where some private wealth and business is allowed with restrictions applied by government such as price and/or wage controls.

  Most economies are called mixed because they are some combination of the above types. The most prosperous economies have leaned heavily toward the market system.

Economic views

  If one were to look back in history it would be discovered that the pilgrims tried the command type of economy when they first landed at Plymouth. This was under a contract which it was believed would bring about this great utopia. Free of outside evil influences, greed and personal property were to be banished. Everyone was to work for the common good, and altruism was to be its own reward. It did not work out well. To  quote Governor Bradford “The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” In other words it did not work. In fact it failed with terrible consequences, during this experiment many people starved and true prosperity was lacking. Those doing the most work resented those who took but did not work as much (producers versus takers). Much like today where more than 47% of the people do not fund the government and only about 20% of the people provide over 73% of the funding. The only reason there is not starvation is the governments Command Economic Principals, with massive government welfare programs, but eventually the government runs out of other peoples money to support such programs.

   In April of 1623 Governor Bradford abandoned the collective system and assigned a plot of  land to each family. They were permitted to keep everything they grew or made and allowed to market what they did not consume themselves. How did this work? To quote governor Bradford's summary “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.” In other words Capitalism worked while collectivism (communism, socialism, fascism) did not.

  We believe that a market system (capitalism) is the right economic model for this country just as the founders did when they wrote the constitution. While a totally free market system may sound good in theory, in practical terms there needs to be some (but very limited) regulation. For example there needs to be regulation such that one state can not individually tax another states products, to promote free and fair interstate trade. There needs to be some regulation about harmful pollution from an enterprise or state which effects health (such as regulation of waste treatment or water systems).

   Regulations however need to be minimal in their effect on commerce and minimal in their effect on the market place. Unfortunately as we move ever closer to the command style of economy the regulations are becoming more burdensome and expensive with the effect of stifling free market economic principals. An example would be the enormous effect EPA regulations are having on energy production and costs, with no real benefit supported by true science. In fact some of the regulations contradict each other so that if a business is in compliance with one regulation it is out of compliance with another regulation.

  Government should not be involved in trying to decide which businesses, ideas, or resources are the best to invest in or support. The market will dictate which are the best and which are the most efficient and economical, with the consumer leading the way. For instance, the government deciding that there needs to be several blends of gasoline and that ethanol must be added for some unproven benefit. The costs of this to the consumer versus any benefit to society is heavily on the side of damaging the consumer in not just the cost of the product, but damage to the engines of the consumer, disruptions in fuel supply, higher food prices associated with those food stuffs used to produce ethanol and public money wasted in support of an inefficient fuel that can not sustain itself in the market place alone (ethanol).

Be a Supporter

Page 1  Page 2

Support Our Veterans