4 ms·
Higher for who and compared to what? If a television is a requisite for a high standard of living, great, we're beating Ptolemy. It's disingenuous to pretend t
by bhickey 11y ago
Higher for who and compared to what?
If a television is a requisite for a high standard of living, great, we're beating Ptolemy. It's disingenuous to pretend that you can do an apples-to-apples comparison across thousands of years and attribute it to market economics. Given the tremendous natural wealth in the United States, we'd probably have a higher standard of living most countries even if we adopted mercantilist economic policies.
This isn't to claim that market economies aren't a great idea, just that I don't think your reasoning holds water.
- hjhgyhgd 11y agoSurely there are no advanced economies without rich natural resources. Oh wait. There's South Korea and Singapore who are some the most capitalist countries on Earth. I'm also questioning your belief that being protectionist wouldn't hurt our standard of living. Do you know the T-shirt you're wearing cost a lot more if it was made in the USA?
- bhickey 11y agoNo. I'm saying that the United States is so stupidly resource rich that we could get a lot of things wrong and still be fabulously wealthy. I don't think you're wrong by any stretch--market economics are a great idea--but you've got to present better reasoning for anyone to care.