3 ms·

> The international free market is still supposed to work even if a country doesn't have internal free markets. That is self-proving as false and does not foll

> The international free market is still supposed to work even if a country doesn't have internal free markets. That is self-proving as false and does not follow automatically what-so-ever. You're talking about mediocre economic theories that don't even make sense in theory. > That the US is going back on the first The US has never been the free market in practice or ideology that you're proposing. Not at any point in its history. The US has very heavily utilized things like tariffs and restrictive trade agreements throughout its history, as have all large economies and without exception. The US has even utilized sanctions and blockades when it sees fit, going back 60+ years. If it was ever close to being a free market, that is well over a century in the past. I find it astounding that anybody could be confused about the US being a particularly free market economy today. It's not even close to that. All you need is to have a primitive grasp of the scope of its vast economic regulations, its huge welfare state, and taxation to understand that. The US is a bureaucracy-heavy mixed economy at best.

kelnos 4y ago
This is the thing that always gets me. Anyone who ever complains about restrictions on the "free market" hasn't been paying attention. There is no free market. There never has been a free market. Sure, someone might be against a particular restriction or regulation for specific reasons, but "hurr durr free market" can never be a serious argument, as we do not have a free market, and never have. I think we should err on the side of "freer" markets, but market restrictions have their place, and are often an essential tool to achieve good outcomes.
metacritic12 4y ago
> That is self-proving as false and does not follow automatically what-so-ever. To the extent that anyone believes free markets are good, the usual argument of their goodness does not at all rely on sub-levels to be free markets. Now you might be saying even "free markets are good" is suspect. Attacking that axiom is fine in my book. > The US has very heavily utilized things like tariffs and restrictive trade agreements throughout its history, I support this view. However, the early 90s "Washington Consensus" was that in international spheres to talk up how good free markets are. The US should drop that pretense entirely then.

kelnos 4y ago

This is the thing that always gets me. Anyone who ever complains about restrictions on the "free market" hasn't been paying attention. There is no free market. There never has been a free market. Sure, someone might be against a particular restriction or regulation for specific reasons, but "hurr durr free market" can never be a serious argument, as we do not have a free market, and never have. I think we should err on the side of "freer" markets, but market restrictions have their place, and are often an essential tool to achieve good outcomes.

metacritic12 4y ago

> That is self-proving as false and does not follow automatically what-so-ever. To the extent that anyone believes free markets are good, the usual argument of their goodness does not at all rely on sub-levels to be free markets. Now you might be saying even "free markets are good" is suspect. Attacking that axiom is fine in my book. > The US has very heavily utilized things like tariffs and restrictive trade agreements throughout its history, I support this view. However, the early 90s "Washington Consensus" was that in international spheres to talk up how good free markets are. The US should drop that pretense entirely then.