So if the cost principle records asset’s value at point purchase why does conservatism allow the record of current lower price value of assets instead of current higher price value?
In other words, why are some of the accounting principles more biased to depreciation than appreciation?

The reason for recording assets at fair value is not conservatism. They’re trying to present information at market value because they feel it’s more relevant information.

For example. I spent 2k to buy a painting, that 2k was market value at the time. 5 years later, the artist becomes famous, and that 2k painting is now worth 100k. It’s not particularly useful to report on the financials that I have a painting worth 2k. It’s much more useful to tell the reader that the reader is now worth 100k on the market. The fair market value on this painting held as a short-term investment is more /relevant/, and that’s the justification for using fair value in this case.

However, that same painting may be worth only 50k tomorrow when the artist turns out to be a neo-nazi. And then it might be worth 115k the next day when it turns out that it was just a rumor. If the fair value of the painting is jumping up and down, then saying it was worth 100k at one specific point in time might be misleading! To avoid misleading people about the value of the painting which is constantly changing it’s fairvalue, the accountant might just report the painting as an investment held to maturity, and only report it’s cost basis instead of its fair value. It’s a more conservative approach.

Why does conservatism allow depreciation, but not appreciation? GENERALLY speaking, the accountant would rather tell people the company is worth less than it is, because people will be happy to find out it’s worth more later. If the accountant tells people the company’s assets are worth more than they are, then people will be pissed to find out it’s worth less later. Conservatism is a safer policy, and promotes stability, that’s why GAAP is often designed around conservatism.

Back in 2004, conservatives said if Gay Marriage were legalized, then families would collapse left and right, and kindergartners would pretty much be watching pornos in the classroom.

Look at what happened in Massachusetts, Iowa, New York State, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Washington, DC, etc.

Families have collapsed altogether! The institution of marriage has fallen apart.

Yet people still say Conservatism is a flawed and erroneous philosophy.
WHY?

SOOO true.

Once those Same-Sexers hopped on the equality boat, I realized immediately that there just isn’t any point in marriage at all!

Example: He poops on my dresses. EVERY. DAY.
He snores at night!
I’ve actually forgotten how to wear hats! I knew how to wear hats before them gay folks messed around with marriage!
Food doesn’t taste the same!

‘N other stuff. I want my special rights back!

Liberalism is about social progress. Conservatism is about maintaining society’s culture and traditions. Can’t you be in favor of both? I mean, I believe in progress, but I also believe in keeping it reasonable (and count myself as libertarian as well). Where is the dichotomy here?

They aren’t opposed.

I’m both a Conservative and Libertarian. And I’d say in about 80% of all issues, the two have the same position on an issue.

Is adherence to Capitalistic principles the foundation of conservative morality?

Do all conservatives believe in the righteousness of capitalism and that wealth is a measure of goodness?

I know that the subset of Conservatives who are "social conservatives" also believe that God’s dislike of gays, abortions, and science are tenets of conservatism, but do conservatives agree that the fundamental tenet of conservatism is an absolute faith in unregulated capitalism?

Actually when you read the theory of capitalism as described by Adam Smith, its founder, you see that what we have today, and what conservatives believe in, is NOT capitalism! The theory only claims to work when there are lots of competitors, but what happens with an unregulated market is that the bigger fish eat the smaller fish and finally you are left with very few competitors in each industry, and then all the advantages of capitalism disappear, you end up with higher than market value prices and lower than market produced quality, ironically quite a bit like the Communist system, where there isn’t much competition, either, and the public suffers as a result. What conservatives favor is unrestrained capitalism, allowing it to degenerate to monopolies, that’s the system we have, and it is collapsing just like Communism did. Reasonable regulations to assure competition are necessary. Obviously, the big fish don’t want that, and use their control of the Republican Party to assure that there won’t be any such regulations.

What I mean is Social Conservatism leads to more rules and restrictions. This leads to more enforcement, which leads to (all together now) Bigger Government.

So, how are a Small Government and Social Conservatism compatible?

They are not.

Social conservatism requires ever larger "thought" police. Rubio wants to make it illegal for pregnant women to leave the state, if he disapproves! How many guards does he plan to post on the highways? To what end? The subjugation of the people? Thanks, Cuba, you gave us a great one this time.

How did he change it?
What were the differences between his views on conservatism and those of Metternich?

Conservatism? Bismarck? His was the first European example of the welfare state.

I supported the Tea Party when they were all for fiscal conservatism, however now that they are getting involved with the abortion issue etc, I am starting to disagree with that. I wish they would just stick to their core values of fiscal conservatism and leave the social issues out.

Because we were invaded by GOP heads and radio personalities; we’re no longer the party of the every-day person. We’re pretty much just the Republican party under a fancy new wrapper.

How about if I also cut spending, or stop paying for other basic expenditures? Like taking care of my medical, or my home and I just let it all fall apart… Will it just start taking care of itself, and my overall debt further diminish?

If Fiscal Conservatism is truly this easy, we should all be anxious to embrace and apply this Republican geniusness to our own personal finances. Right?

If you were to apply "fiscal conservatism" in all of its’ glory to your analogy, you’d not only pay nothing towards the debt, you’d also decide that the way out of debt is to work fewer hours per week.
Making less is the GOP’s sure-fire debt reduction program…go figure…

I know the UK is pretty universally against gun ownership and their is a higher atheist mentality so they is less "My Gun and My God" stuff.
But I mean what do the two different types of conservatism agree and disagree on?

Are the liberal agendas between the two nations different as well?

Yeah, they are pretty different. Liberal and conservative is pretty relative, one country’s liberals are another’s conservatives and vice versa.

I have some questions about politics:

1- Does Liberalism mean liberated from religion, and conservatism mean non-secular?
2- Do you HAVE to be secular if you’re a liberal? or leftist in general? (i know u have to be in communism)
3- if democratic socialism means to provide basic human needs, does that mean Canada and France are democratic socialists? but the USA has a free education and health care system, too…
I got confused.

There is no exact definition. They’re relative terms and mean different things in different countries.

1) No.
2) No, but you must believe in separation of church and state.
3) This also isn’t an exact term, more like a sliding scale. Canada and France are more so than US, but US has public funding for many things (business especially).