I didn't notice DC Al Fine replied to my post, so I should reply now with a fuller explanation.
I shouldn't say that the discussion is bad for focusing on subsidies and transfers, since that kind of thinking is the base of economic thinking on government interventions. The primary question, it seems to be, is nevertheless if social conservatism implies the fate of some institutions and customs should not be determined by market competition.
What DFB or Cathcon have mentioned is just an extreme case of that question.
Applied to DAF's answers to my suggestions, he isn't veering too off script. The orthodox answer to the rent control question is his response. I'd be interested in seeing a SoCon argument for building affordable housing, maybe to minimize the dispersion of people out of the city that would result from a voucher scheme.
Apologies for taking so long to reply. I'm on a bit of a break from the forum.
To answer your primary question, of course I agree that certain institutions/customs should not be left to the market alone. The problem I was trying to get at in my original post was how do socons navigate the new tension between between themselves and "neoliberals"?
A common complaint from the left is that working class evangelicals aren't "voting their interest". Let's ignore the impact of social issues for a second. It's clear that GOP orthodoxy does not always line up with the interests of the working class, but at the same time, the Democrats have their own set of economic fallacies (e.g. rent control), so adopting the Democratic party line is not the solution either.
The question of whether legislation should ban stores from observing religious holidays is bait for the primary question. A much less trivial question is financial regulation. Should SoCons encourage or clamp down on equity and options markets, and if the markets are too pervasive should government pension plans divest from risky finance, even at the cost of lower returns?
I don't know if there is some SoCon argument against high corporate compensation that isn't just a standard argument against inequality. Maybe reforms to corporate governance will lead to more fruitful discussion.
One last thought, which is specific and speculative. If free trade induces a shift in pornography production out of the country, should the state compensate those with jobs displaced and should it sanction the new country of production?
1) Re: Equity markets. Yes there are some aspects of investing that I would like to change. At the same time, there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about investing among the left, and socons. I'm not comforable endorsing "regulation" unless there was a specific list of proposals in front of me. Some proposals I would support include: Limiting 401k fund choices and trading for individual works, caps on management fees for fund providers, advisors etc, requiring fiduciary duty for financial advisors.
2) Agreed here. I really don't know what the solution to this one is, or if its even a problem that requires a solution. I just don't know enough.
3) Well first off, I want pornography banned or at least severely restricted, so the jobs wouldn't be leaving because of free trade if I was king
That said, I'd treat it like I'd treat low level drug dealers, prostitutes etc. With an understanding that poverty/lack of opportunity was a big part of why a lot of them got into the business, I'd support education and training programs, as well as income supports to help them get back on their feet.
