3 ms·
I am not an economist to analyze this in-depth. And very likely you have your point. However, for me the discussion is also ethical: I do not find a reason to
by germandiago 5y ago
I am not an economist to analyze this in-depth. And very likely you have your point.
However, for me the discussion is also ethical: I do not find a reason to have an ellite forcing on all the others through coaction what to do. Whether it maximizes economy or not. In other words: peopke are ends not means for others. That is the fundamental point in my view.
I would not take a regime with over 60 million deaths (big leap forward, Chinese cultural revolution, etc.) as an example of something ethical by any measure.
- imtringued 5y agoThat's the damn point. Backwards governments can still succeed precisely because of the opposite, they can become (reasonably) good governments.
- justicezyx 5y agoWhich standards judge the backwardness, and what a good one?
- germandiago 5y agoChina is a reasonable government that has over a million Uyghurs muslims in concentration camps. The history of a reasonably good country that had successes as the Great Leap Forward, the Chinese Cultural revolution and now the Uyghurs, among many others. You know, Chinese government is not reasonably good at any level by any moral assessment. Capitalism has been superior in every aspect: as a proof, migration flows went from socialists to capitalists countries, being East/West Germany just one example.