3 ms·

> Compare the success of the free market at raising the standard of living as opposed to other forms of government - by a lot. Generally alongside massive gove

> Compare the success of the free market at raising the standard of living as opposed to other forms of government - by a lot. Generally alongside massive government-directed/-financed social programs, often much higher tax rates than we’ve seen for decades, alongside a powerful labor movement, and alongside substantial regulation like antitrust. To the extent the raised standard of living has been anything remotely like equitable, anyway. To wit: > For example, people like to rag on Amazon, but Amazon's products and services has personally benefited me greatly. Shopping online saves me a ton of time, and wear and tear on my car. That’s great, for you. And the conditions their warehouse workers experience more closely resemble the conditions of workers in similar jobs a century ago, than the conditions of equivalent jobs which no longer exist many places Amazon operates warehouses. In the same time that this more-free market has been allowed to grow such behemoths, wealth and income disparity have ballooned incredibly. To that point, if I said something like this to many family members and several friends: > As for equity portfolios, anyone in America can invest in equities. Etrade, Robinhood, etc., have done a great job democratizing investing. Want a piece of the action? Buy some equities. They’d either laugh out loud or stop speaking to me. Buy some equities with… what? They’re struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Given the circumstances, where I’ve taken over mortgage payments for my parents so they can have a home and where there’s hospital bills much larger than the value of the house, I suspect some of them would disown me for being so callous. I sincerely am glad that you’re enjoying the benefits of the free market such as it is. But you shouldn’t be under the illusion that it’s anywhere near as available to others as you seem to think.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
Phew this went somewhere entirely different than I thought it would when I wrote the first paragraph. My original point was going to be that freedom of market wasn’t the ingredient that allowed standards of living to increase in anything like tandem. It was freedom of society. As our “rising tide” lifted all boats, our economic policies mostly resembled socialist countries’, and their effectiveness was mostly attributable to living in a society where you don’t get dead or put in prison or similarly punished for advocating things you think would improve your life or the lives of those with whom you have solidarity. That’s still true. The free market is an awful vessel for that. And there’s no reason to conflate social freedom with it, if anything there’s every reason to assume unfettered market freedom loves social constraint.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The free market is orthogonal to other measures of freedom like democracy. Voting rights are not required for free market to deliver prosperity, as China has demonstrated. > there’s every reason to assume unfettered market freedom loves social constraint. I don't know where that came from. I don't see any such relationship. > where you don’t get dead or put in prison or similarly punished for advocating things you think would improve your life or the lives of those with whom you have solidarity. That’s still true. The free market is an awful vessel for that. I'm not sure what you're thinking a free market is. A free market, to be a free market, does not put people in prison for improving their lives.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    > The free market is orthogonal to other measures of freedom like democracy. To the extent it is, it’s a failure which erodes or prevents those freedoms from thriving. > A free market, to be a free market, does not put people in prison for improving their lives. I was going to invite you to learn more about labor history in the US, but… > as China has demonstrated. Never mind, you clearly already understand the point that a state which has mass forced labor camps is compatible with what’s called a free market. But you certainly can’t say no one’s imprisoned with a straight face.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > To the extent it is, it’s a failure which erodes or prevents those freedoms from thriving. I don't see how. > I was going to invite you to learn more about labor history in the US I know a fair bit about it. Present what you're thinking about. > you clearly already understand the point that a state which has mass forced labor camps is compatible with what’s called a free market A free market doesn't have to be perfect in order to deliver results. It's just that the more free it is, the better it delivers.
WalterBright 4y ago
Consider all those hundreds of thousands of people that tramp thousands of miles just for a chance to get into the US? What do they know that you don't, or are they just fools? Why is there not an exodus of hundreds of thousands of poor Americans tramping to other countries? > Generally alongside massive government-directed/-financed social programs, often much higher tax rates than we’ve seen for decades, alongside a powerful labor movement, and alongside substantial regulation like antitrust. Much of that occurred long before government social programs, high taxes, unions, anti-trust, etc. Take a look at things like height statistics for Americans throughout the 19th century. Height statistics are a good proxy for standard of living - people don't grow tall if they are malnourished as children. Amazon has scores of millions of customers. They wouldn't be shopping at Amazon if Amazon was cheating them. Amazon turnover is such that the average employee works less than a year. This is incongruent with being forced to work there at subhuman conditions.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > Consider all those hundreds of thousands of people that tramp thousands of miles just for a chance to get into the US? What do they know that you don't, or are they just fools? This feels like a strawman, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it’s asked sincerely. Nothing I said was intended to suggest that the disparity across borders wouldn’t justify their journey. Many making that journey certainly do know something I do not, and I wouldn’t call anyone a fool for it. I’d add that my own response to myself below might better address this than the comment you’re responding to. > Why is there not an exodus of hundreds of thousands of poor Americans tramping to other countries? Last I checked, more people cross the southern US border to emigrate out of the US in recent years. Not sure what the numbers are, not going to dig them up to win at being right, I just think it bears mentioning that people migrate for a wide variety of reasons and I’ll leave it at that. > Much of that occurred long before government social programs, high taxes, unions, anti-trust, etc. Take a look at things like height statistics for Americans throughout the 19th century. Height statistics are a good proxy for standard of living - people don't grow tall if they are malnourished as children. Alright, I’ll grant that people got taller around the same time they were likely to die in factory fires. I won’t grant that being taller is an aspiration I care about as much as not dying in factory fires. > Amazon has scores of millions of customers. They wouldn't be shopping at Amazon if Amazon was cheating them. > Amazon turnover is such that the average employee works less than a year. This is incongruent with being forced to work there at subhuman conditions. I’m not going to bother responding to these paragraphs, because I don’t understand your reasoning, other than I don’t think they say what I think you think they say.
benreesman 4y ago
I want to tread a bit lightly on any disagreement with a living legend like Walter Bright who was navigating the complexities of public/private sector trade-offs via his aerospace work when I was knee-high to a grasshopper: experience and demonstrated ability like that deserve more consideration than they get around here. With that said, my personal politics (I did self-identify as a “coastal leftie”) are such that I tend to agree with you that equitable surges in human welfare seem highly correlated with a deep partnership between the public and private sectors, strong labor organization, thoughtful and deliberate restraints on monopoly actors, and the Powers That Be taking a very long view on their own welfare by viewing it as a partnership with the working class. I have also had to divert significant funds to family members both older and younger than me because people in both groups faced exceedingly bleak economic situations of comparatively new vintage: the older because of a collapse in traditional safety nets for retired persons (both public sector and community oriented) and the latter because of starting their working lives during the Great Recession, neither of which is anything to them but really bad luck. I can’t speak for Walter, but in my lifetime I’ve observed a marked decline in what used to be called noblesse oblige among the asset-holding class, and given his greater experience it seems at a minimum plausible that my dissenting opinions are a product of a deviation from more typical conditions. I sure hope so!

eyelidlessness 4y ago

Phew this went somewhere entirely different than I thought it would when I wrote the first paragraph. My original point was going to be that freedom of market wasn’t the ingredient that allowed standards of living to increase in anything like tandem. It was freedom of society. As our “rising tide” lifted all boats, our economic policies mostly resembled socialist countries’, and their effectiveness was mostly attributable to living in a society where you don’t get dead or put in prison or similarly punished for advocating things you think would improve your life or the lives of those with whom you have solidarity. That’s still true. The free market is an awful vessel for that. And there’s no reason to conflate social freedom with it, if anything there’s every reason to assume unfettered market freedom loves social constraint.

WalterBright 4y ago
The free market is orthogonal to other measures of freedom like democracy. Voting rights are not required for free market to deliver prosperity, as China has demonstrated. > there’s every reason to assume unfettered market freedom loves social constraint. I don't know where that came from. I don't see any such relationship. > where you don’t get dead or put in prison or similarly punished for advocating things you think would improve your life or the lives of those with whom you have solidarity. That’s still true. The free market is an awful vessel for that. I'm not sure what you're thinking a free market is. A free market, to be a free market, does not put people in prison for improving their lives.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > The free market is orthogonal to other measures of freedom like democracy. To the extent it is, it’s a failure which erodes or prevents those freedoms from thriving. > A free market, to be a free market, does not put people in prison for improving their lives. I was going to invite you to learn more about labor history in the US, but… > as China has demonstrated. Never mind, you clearly already understand the point that a state which has mass forced labor camps is compatible with what’s called a free market. But you certainly can’t say no one’s imprisoned with a straight face.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > To the extent it is, it’s a failure which erodes or prevents those freedoms from thriving. I don't see how. > I was going to invite you to learn more about labor history in the US I know a fair bit about it. Present what you're thinking about. > you clearly already understand the point that a state which has mass forced labor camps is compatible with what’s called a free market A free market doesn't have to be perfect in order to deliver results. It's just that the more free it is, the better it delivers.

WalterBright 4y ago

Consider all those hundreds of thousands of people that tramp thousands of miles just for a chance to get into the US? What do they know that you don't, or are they just fools? Why is there not an exodus of hundreds of thousands of poor Americans tramping to other countries? > Generally alongside massive government-directed/-financed social programs, often much higher tax rates than we’ve seen for decades, alongside a powerful labor movement, and alongside substantial regulation like antitrust. Much of that occurred long before government social programs, high taxes, unions, anti-trust, etc. Take a look at things like height statistics for Americans throughout the 19th century. Height statistics are a good proxy for standard of living - people don't grow tall if they are malnourished as children. Amazon has scores of millions of customers. They wouldn't be shopping at Amazon if Amazon was cheating them. Amazon turnover is such that the average employee works less than a year. This is incongruent with being forced to work there at subhuman conditions.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
> Consider all those hundreds of thousands of people that tramp thousands of miles just for a chance to get into the US? What do they know that you don't, or are they just fools? This feels like a strawman, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it’s asked sincerely. Nothing I said was intended to suggest that the disparity across borders wouldn’t justify their journey. Many making that journey certainly do know something I do not, and I wouldn’t call anyone a fool for it. I’d add that my own response to myself below might better address this than the comment you’re responding to. > Why is there not an exodus of hundreds of thousands of poor Americans tramping to other countries? Last I checked, more people cross the southern US border to emigrate out of the US in recent years. Not sure what the numbers are, not going to dig them up to win at being right, I just think it bears mentioning that people migrate for a wide variety of reasons and I’ll leave it at that. > Much of that occurred long before government social programs, high taxes, unions, anti-trust, etc. Take a look at things like height statistics for Americans throughout the 19th century. Height statistics are a good proxy for standard of living - people don't grow tall if they are malnourished as children. Alright, I’ll grant that people got taller around the same time they were likely to die in factory fires. I won’t grant that being taller is an aspiration I care about as much as not dying in factory fires. > Amazon has scores of millions of customers. They wouldn't be shopping at Amazon if Amazon was cheating them. > Amazon turnover is such that the average employee works less than a year. This is incongruent with being forced to work there at subhuman conditions. I’m not going to bother responding to these paragraphs, because I don’t understand your reasoning, other than I don’t think they say what I think you think they say.

benreesman 4y ago

I want to tread a bit lightly on any disagreement with a living legend like Walter Bright who was navigating the complexities of public/private sector trade-offs via his aerospace work when I was knee-high to a grasshopper: experience and demonstrated ability like that deserve more consideration than they get around here. With that said, my personal politics (I did self-identify as a “coastal leftie”) are such that I tend to agree with you that equitable surges in human welfare seem highly correlated with a deep partnership between the public and private sectors, strong labor organization, thoughtful and deliberate restraints on monopoly actors, and the Powers That Be taking a very long view on their own welfare by viewing it as a partnership with the working class. I have also had to divert significant funds to family members both older and younger than me because people in both groups faced exceedingly bleak economic situations of comparatively new vintage: the older because of a collapse in traditional safety nets for retired persons (both public sector and community oriented) and the latter because of starting their working lives during the Great Recession, neither of which is anything to them but really bad luck. I can’t speak for Walter, but in my lifetime I’ve observed a marked decline in what used to be called noblesse oblige among the asset-holding class, and given his greater experience it seems at a minimum plausible that my dissenting opinions are a product of a deviation from more typical conditions. I sure hope so!