3 ms·

>Today we know that both Soviet-style communism and Hayek-style free-marketism have the annoying tendency to result in people starving It's very annoying when

by aminok 10y ago

>Today we know that both Soviet-style communism and Hayek-style free-marketism have the annoying tendency to result in people starving It's very annoying when people make bold statements like this without any evidence or factual support. Please provide some examples of free market economics leading to people starving. >which is why both approaches have been rejected by Western countries, that, in general, try to aim at some middle ground. I don't know if you know this but Sweden was the most free market economy in the world from 1870 to 1950. After it adopted social welfarism in the 1970s, its growth stagnated. It fell from being the third richest country in the world to the 17th. Imagine how much higher its standard of living would be today if it had maintained the rate of economic development it had in the early 20th century. You assume that since Western electorates have chosen a particular path, it is the optimal path. I see that as hubristic.

dpark 10y ago
> Please provide some examples of free market economics leading to people starving. In a completely free market, how does someone without money not starve? > I don't know if you know this but Sweden was the most free market economy in the world from 1870 to 1950. After it adopted social welfare is in the 1970s, its growth stagnated. I have no idea if this is even remotely true, but I'll assume for a moment that it is. Does the fact that Sweden adopted welfare not tell you something about the consequences of their free markets? The free market was just so awesome that they passed welfare for all the rich Swedes who didn't need it?
- aminok 10y ago
  You can't compare the isolated instances of people starving in developing free market economies, e.g. the US circa 1880, to the mass starvation and economic strangulation caused by communism. >Does the fact that Sweden adopted welfare not tell you something about the consequences of their free markets? The free market was just so awesome that they passed welfare for all the rich Swedes who didn't need it? People are shortsighted when voting. They are easily misled by election promises that give them short-term benefits at the expense of long-term development. In the long run it is much better to sacrifice short-term benefits for greater long-term growth period that will maximize the rise in standard of living and life expectancy.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Certainly I'd choose a free market over communist Russia. But I'd take modern American it European policies over the raw free market. I'd like to not starve if I go broke.
    - aminok 10y ago
      Because you have zero risk bias. Faster economic development reduces overall risk of mortality more rapidly than lower rates, and there is good theoretical and empirical reason to believe the unadulturated free market maximizes the rate of economic development. This holds true even if risk of starvation is not zero percent in an unadulterated free market.
      - duaneb 10y ago
        Until you exhaust your resources. Then you just die. The only thing a free market does perfectly is use resources as fast as humanly possible. Efficiently, of course. Why waste resource you can't profit from?
        aminok 10y ago
        Even resource conservation is done better in a free market, because it responds to anticipated future shortages by raising the current price of the commodity, leading to more responsible consumption.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by aminok 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

> Please provide some examples of free market economics leading to people starving. In a completely free market, how does someone without money not starve? > I don't know if you know this but Sweden was the most free market economy in the world from 1870 to 1950. After it adopted social welfare is in the 1970s, its growth stagnated. I have no idea if this is even remotely true, but I'll assume for a moment that it is. Does the fact that Sweden adopted welfare not tell you something about the consequences of their free markets? The free market was just so awesome that they passed welfare for all the rich Swedes who didn't need it?

aminok 10y ago
You can't compare the isolated instances of people starving in developing free market economies, e.g. the US circa 1880, to the mass starvation and economic strangulation caused by communism. >Does the fact that Sweden adopted welfare not tell you something about the consequences of their free markets? The free market was just so awesome that they passed welfare for all the rich Swedes who didn't need it? People are shortsighted when voting. They are easily misled by election promises that give them short-term benefits at the expense of long-term development. In the long run it is much better to sacrifice short-term benefits for greater long-term growth period that will maximize the rise in standard of living and life expectancy.
- dpark 10y ago
  Certainly I'd choose a free market over communist Russia. But I'd take modern American it European policies over the raw free market. I'd like to not starve if I go broke.
  - aminok 10y ago
    Because you have zero risk bias. Faster economic development reduces overall risk of mortality more rapidly than lower rates, and there is good theoretical and empirical reason to believe the unadulturated free market maximizes the rate of economic development. This holds true even if risk of starvation is not zero percent in an unadulterated free market.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Until you exhaust your resources. Then you just die. The only thing a free market does perfectly is use resources as fast as humanly possible. Efficiently, of course. Why waste resource you can't profit from?
      - aminok 10y ago
        Even resource conservation is done better in a free market, because it responds to anticipated future shortages by raising the current price of the commodity, leading to more responsible consumption.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]