3 ms·
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 str
by 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 agoCertainly 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 agoBecause 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 agoUntil 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 agoEven 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.