Economics is an objective science, every bit as scientific as medicine. Economists have by and large concluded that a market unencumbered by restrictions on mut

Economics is an objective science, every bit as scientific as medicine. Economists have by and large concluded that a market unencumbered by restrictions on mutually voluntary economic interactions and protective of people's right to their property is the most effective at raising productivity. That the conclusions of economists strengthens the case for free markets does not suggest that economists are ideological, or biased. That assumption is simply your own biased and conspiratorial view of the world, that assumes a vast conspiracy by the capitalist elite to recruit the economics profession into its propaganda campaign. Like I said, your conspiratorial view of economics/the-free-market is no different than anti-vaxxers' conspiratorial view of medicine/vaccines. >>There are other ways than profit-driven exploitation that's available to help people out of poverty. They're called cooperation, mutual aid and solidarity. No, the evidence suggest these other means are comparatively ineffective, as they can't sustain large-scale cooperation. Socialism has an absolutely terrible track record and the economic theory explains why. >>Without the Free Market Economy, man simply loses all capability to produce and achieve progress. The market is an emergent system of individuals, property and processes that people collectively create through distributed action, without centralized coordination. It's a phenomenon of unimaginable complexity and effectiveness, that is created by the aggregation of trillions of interlocking actions by billions of unique individuals. Discarding the market based on an anti-free-market conspiracy theory is the height of folly. >>If China is removed this "Good News Narrative" falls flat I quoted you an excerpt from the article that asserts the opposite: that the good news narrative remains even when China is removed from the picture. >>My assertion was that if China is taken away, the amount of people lifted out of poverty looks very different Even removing China, which is a clear example of the benefits of protecting market rights, the global poverty rate has declined. Yes the picture is better when you include the world's most populous country, and the number 1 success story of pro-market reforms. Is that the mental gymnatics you're resorting to to continue your stubborn insistence on dismissing the statistics and maintaining that the case made by economists for free markets is motivated by ideology instead of science?