In a very literal sense, "markets" are just a venue to buy, sell, and exchange goods. They are economic, not idealistic. They aren't concerned with equality, un

In a very literal sense, "markets" are just a venue to buy, sell, and exchange goods. They are economic, not idealistic. They aren't concerned with equality, unless it's the equality of the exchange of goods and service. According to every principle of "markets" that I am aware of, none of it includes the principle that it should decrease poverty world-wide. So this was what, a happy accident? Or perhaps the reduction of poverty is simply a side-effect of increases in efficiency. Increases which themselves sometimes hinge on things like ruining the overall health of soil so that we can produce more crops in less time, producing potentially harmful runoff that affects other people, animals and plants. And an increase in equality - was that purely economic? Or perhaps, with the reduction in material needs, and the increase of civil rights, there's less need for dogmatic religious control and tribalism, leading to more egalitarian beliefs, as people are no longer as tightly wound to the organizations that led them before. You can certainly say that markets influenced these things. But that doesn't mean that these things can't simply go back to the way they were - the markets don't prevent backsliding into less equal treatment of marginalized groups. Just look at the rising wave of nationalism and populism across the otherwise stalwart symbols of freedom and democracy! Markets are doing pretty damn well, but we're electing leaders (or allowing leaders to tighten their iron fist) who sound like despots with their insular fear-driven way of life under threat.