4 ms·

>who feels a personal distaste for free markets, for the triviality of what they so often elevate and the depth of what they let languish, but tolerates them be

>who feels a personal distaste for free markets, for the triviality of what they so often elevate and the depth of what they let languish, but tolerates them because they’ve done more than anything else to lift up the world’s poor? I feel like this is a bad argument. There's never been an instance of non-free markets that was given any sort of room to grow healthily without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail. Free markets being the standard economic model doesn't deserve any praise. It's impossible to know without more examples of non-free markets whether we're making progress because of it or despite it.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail The only example I can think of is Soviet-style communism - I assume that the substantial outside powers you're referring to are western capitalism? If so... soviet communism was as substantial and working at least as hard (probably harder) to make capitalism fail, but capitalism was able to withstand assault by outside powers.
- beeboop 5y ago
  I think what this tells is that capitalism, in our sample size of one, was better capable of withstanding assault. Not that it's a better system, that it serves people better, or is better at lifting people out of poverty. In fact it the evidence seems the opposite: European countries that are much less free-market and have strong socialist policies are overwhelmingly better places to live than the US for the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. To claim that capitalism is the reason for people being lifted out of poverty just seems ridiculous when there's not really a way to show causation.
  - dataangel 5y ago
    Yes but if a system consistently fails in response to external pressure then it’s not an equilibrium, which will almost certainly end up being bad for the people under that system as they are conquered, annexed etc.
    - notpachet 5y ago
      What a bleak world to inhabit where the primary metric for the value of such a system is whether it can survive inevitable hostilities. We are still such a primitive species in so many ways.
      - dataangel 5y ago
        There's no reason the conquerors have to be the same species. There's a lot of precedent in all known life, parasites, symbiosis and predator/prey relationships are everywhere. Nor does it have to be a personified antagonist, could be climate change, plague, etc. The longer the system goes the more shocks it has to survive.
BobbyJo 5y ago
> There's never been an instance of non-free markets that was given any sort of room to grow healthily without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail. I think this is universally understood to be the reason markets work best: they aren't as fragile. The world is an extremely chaotic place where anyone with resources can use those resources to influence anyone or anything else. The most important quality of an economic system is the ability to function despite that fact.
- notpachet 5y ago
  Sometimes it feels like capitalism only functions because of that fact.
- beeboop 5y ago
  So capitalism is the best option because capitalism causes pressure on other countries and other systems to fail while also being good at resisting the pressure caused by itself? This seems like a poor argument too, and is definitely not supporting the claim that free markets lift people out of poverty.
  - dataangel 5y ago
    If your system can’t function in the presence of adversaries it isn’t practical. Adversaries will always exist.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    > So capitalism is the best option because capitalism causes pressure on other countries and other systems to fail while also being good at resisting the pressure caused by itself? No, it's the best system (so far) because 'humans' cause pressure on other countries (and their own) to fail. > This seems like a poor argument too, and is definitely not supporting the claim that free markets lift people out of poverty. My argument doesn't support a claim I wasn't making? Weird.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail The only example I can think of is Soviet-style communism - I assume that the substantial outside powers you're referring to are western capitalism? If so... soviet communism was as substantial and working at least as hard (probably harder) to make capitalism fail, but capitalism was able to withstand assault by outside powers.

beeboop 5y ago
I think what this tells is that capitalism, in our sample size of one, was better capable of withstanding assault. Not that it's a better system, that it serves people better, or is better at lifting people out of poverty. In fact it the evidence seems the opposite: European countries that are much less free-market and have strong socialist policies are overwhelmingly better places to live than the US for the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. To claim that capitalism is the reason for people being lifted out of poverty just seems ridiculous when there's not really a way to show causation.
- dataangel 5y ago
  Yes but if a system consistently fails in response to external pressure then it’s not an equilibrium, which will almost certainly end up being bad for the people under that system as they are conquered, annexed etc.
  - notpachet 5y ago
    What a bleak world to inhabit where the primary metric for the value of such a system is whether it can survive inevitable hostilities. We are still such a primitive species in so many ways.
    - dataangel 5y ago
      There's no reason the conquerors have to be the same species. There's a lot of precedent in all known life, parasites, symbiosis and predator/prey relationships are everywhere. Nor does it have to be a personified antagonist, could be climate change, plague, etc. The longer the system goes the more shocks it has to survive.

BobbyJo 5y ago

> There's never been an instance of non-free markets that was given any sort of room to grow healthily without substantial outside powers trying to force it to fail. I think this is universally understood to be the reason markets work best: they aren't as fragile. The world is an extremely chaotic place where anyone with resources can use those resources to influence anyone or anything else. The most important quality of an economic system is the ability to function despite that fact.

notpachet 5y ago
Sometimes it feels like capitalism only functions because of that fact.
beeboop 5y ago
So capitalism is the best option because capitalism causes pressure on other countries and other systems to fail while also being good at resisting the pressure caused by itself? This seems like a poor argument too, and is definitely not supporting the claim that free markets lift people out of poverty.
- dataangel 5y ago
  If your system can’t function in the presence of adversaries it isn’t practical. Adversaries will always exist.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > So capitalism is the best option because capitalism causes pressure on other countries and other systems to fail while also being good at resisting the pressure caused by itself? No, it's the best system (so far) because 'humans' cause pressure on other countries (and their own) to fail. > This seems like a poor argument too, and is definitely not supporting the claim that free markets lift people out of poverty. My argument doesn't support a claim I wasn't making? Weird.