4 ms·

it is insane to me that anyone would point to china as a example of how the rest of the world should operate If you do clearly you place no value on what most

• nicoburns 6y ago
  > it is insane to me that anyone would point to china as a example of how the rest of the world should operate. If you do clearly you place no value on what most people call Basic Human Rights. I don't like the human rights abuses in China. But that doesn't mean they don't do anything well. Such an argument is silly. I could makes a similar claim about the US. How does the US do on the right to healthcare for example? Awfully. But that is only tangentially related to the merit of their overall economic policy. > everyone knows Free markets result in the best economic outcomes No they don't. There is a lot of evidence that free markets lead to better economic outcomes then soviet-style planned economies. That they lead to the best possible outcomes of all possible economic systems is a highly suspect claim given that the economic outcomes they lead to aren't all that great (e.g. high levels of inequality). You seem to have in your mind that free markets and planned economies (which you call socialism, although there are actually many forms of socialism that don't use a state-planned approach such as market socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism) are the only possible economic models. But in fact there are many other approaches. For example the scandinavian model is a mixed economy with some free-market aspects but also a large state (32% of the economy is public sector in Denmark vs 17% for the US and 50% for China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_sector_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_se...), and much stronger regulation than in the US. > That is not to say there is no issue with capitalism in general, Crony Capitalism which is what you have with Heavily regulated markets like we see in the US is a real problem and is largely the cause of Wealth Disparity in capitalist systems Regulation is indeed a problem in the US. But that is only because of the regulatory capture leading to ridiculous regulations that enforce monopolies. In other places (I live in the UK) regulation actually prevents monopolies (e.g. we have laws that anybody may start an ISP using the shared fibre/copper infrastructure) and leads to much better outcomes than unregulated markets. I find it hilarious that you think the US markets are heavily regulated when they are some of the least regulated amongst OECD countries > I am further confused by your statement the Free Markets are better than "remove regulation at all costs" approach. Truly free markets have no regulation, so I am not sure what point you are driving at. Having no regulation is what I am describing as "remove regulation at all costs". My point is that there is a lot of evidence that such markets don't in fact function better than a more measured approach of "regulate where it's appropriate". The political position that all markets ought to be as free as possible is almost as extreme as the one that economies ought to state run.
  • syshum 6y ago
    >>I could makes a similar claim about the US. How does the US do on the right to healthcare for example? Awfully. Well first and foremost Healthcare is not a right. It is a Service that has to be provided based on limited resources Rights are things like Free Speech, the Right to Self Defense, the right to not have your property stolen, etc Aka Negative Rights The right to be free from abuse Things like "health care" are not Human Rights at all
    • nicoburns 6y ago
      The fact that you don't see things like healthcare as a right is precisely my criticism of your system. Of course everything is subject to limited resources and external constraints. Enforcing property laws is subject to limits on policing resources. How is "the right to not have your property stolen" any different from "the right to not have preventable diseases from killing or harming you"? In both cases there is some external problem that is prevented through the use of resources: in one case it's the police and legal apparatus. In the other case it's healthcare providers.
      • syshum 6y ago
        >> Enforcing property laws is subject to limits on policing resources. Incorrect, in the US I have no right to policing either, I have the right to defend my property myself from people that wish to take it. Our Courts have held continuously that no individual has the right to protection from the police force. We do not have Positive Rights in the US, never have and hopefully never will because in order to have positive rights one must infringe on negative rights to supply them So while I have the right to property, I must provide defense of that property myself. I can also ask the courts to mediate if there is dispute over said property. Similar with healthcare, and one area I believe government regulations today intrude on my rights. I should have the right to ACCESS to care, but I would not have the right to require someone provide me with care. So for example I should have the right to purchase any medical supply, drug, etc from any person that wants to sell those supplies free from government interference, but the government should not provide me with that care, and should not steal errr tax other people's labor to provide me with that care either
• coldtea 6y ago
  >If you do clearly you place no value on what most people call Basic Human Rights. For starters, who said human their rights violations go wholesale with their economic policy (and you can't have one without the other)? Second, well, the US is not some paragon of freedom either compared to many western countries. From the largest prison population per capita (25% of the worlds inmates for 4% of the worlds population), to slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, seggregation until 1970s, Japanese interment camps, the only country dropping atomic bombs (and to civilians nonetheless), McCarthyism, mass surveillance, and so on, all the way to Bush, Trump, and co (including the multi-war supporter Obama), plus constant meddling on foreign countries, invasions and occupations, etc., all the way to waterboarding, and such, yeah, I'd take "socialist" Denmark over it...
  • syshum 6y ago
    >>From the largest prison population per capita (25% of the worlds inmates for 4% of the worlds population) Some of that is because many nations massively under report their prison population (aka China). I agree that the US has over criminalized Society, namely in the failed attempt to curb drug abuse by criminal enforcement >>to slavery yes yes, the US is the only nation to ever have slavery in all of history... ::rolleyes:: >> Jim Crow, redlining, seggregation until 1970s, Japanese interment camps, the only country dropping atomic bombs (and to civilians nonetheless), McCarthyism, mass surveillance, and so on, all the way to Bush, Trump, and co (including the multi-war supporter Obama), plus constant meddling on foreign countries, invasions and occupations, etc., all the way to waterboarding, and such, yeah, I'd take "socialist" Denmark over it... I guess that depends on where you place your personal freedoms, All of those things are terrible, most of them are historic atrocities that many nations unfortunately have in their past, or the more modern ones impacted a small number of citizens, and they all universally hated by the population. However with socialism even Denmark style socialism my Income would be massively stolen errr "taxed", I would not have many of my core freedoms (aka Self Defense / gun rights), I would not have the same free speech protections as the US, etc. These all do impact me directly...