4 ms·
Exactly! We are driving our future off a cliff by allowing collectivism to return over libertarianism. For example his perspective would be very consistent wi
by alchemist1e9 3y ago
Exactly!
We are driving our future off a cliff by allowing collectivism to return over libertarianism.
For example his perspective would be very consistent with the perspectives of the founding fathers of the United States. The Founding Fathers would have widely agreed with the speech’s support for free-market capitalism and its critique of collectivism, socialism, and excessive state intervention. Advocating principles that promote economic freedom and prosperity would resonate with them as a reflection of their own efforts to create a government that promotes individual liberty and economic opportunity. celebration of the entrepreneur as a hero of prosperity and its warning against state overreach would likely find broad support among the Founding Fathers. They were, after all, establishing a new nation built on principles of liberty, property rights, and opposition to tyranny. The speech’s call for economic freedom and limited government intervention mirrors the Founding Fathers’ debates on the proper role and size of government. Many of the Founding Fathers, like Alexander Hamilton, would likely support the speech’s endorsement of free-market capitalism. The emphasis on economic freedom and the role of free enterprise in lifting people out of poverty would resonate with his and similar Founders’ views on economic development.
Yet somehow this is generally considered the majority opinion today of his speech:
> has pretty strong and "out of the ordinary" opinions and ideas
- slibhb 3y agoThat whole debate wouldn't have made sense to the founding fathers. Yes they were liberals, but "capitalism" wasn't coined until the 19th century. Milei is quite extreme when he claims that markets can't fail. He's trying to move Argentina in the right direction. I would have voted for him. But that's an extreme claim and is rejected by most economists.
- alchemist1e9 3y agoI respectfully disagree in that perhaps some vocabulary would need altering to use words they were more familiar with, but free markets and free enterprise, along with property rights and low taxation was exactly their founding perspective. Regarding “most economists” it would depend on how broad you allow the claim of being an economist is a valid one. We have literal socialist and marxists claiming to be economists. That’s as absurd as creationists claiming to be evolutionarily biologists. Those are perspectives that are empirically proven to be rubbish yet due to human instinctual biases persist for long periods of time. Eventually collectivism, socialism, and marxism should be banished to the gutters of history, the only question is how much more pain and suffering will it take before human civilization decides to include proper social and economic science as part of core education curriculum, like evolution is taught in most places today.
- slibhb 3y agoYou're ranting about marxists...but the question is whether markets can fail. Milei says no. But there are plenty of examples of markets failing so, if we take that idea seriously, it reduces to something like "free markets have never been tried". What does that remind you of?
- alchemist1e9 3y agoPlease provide the examples of market failures and I suspect on closer examination you will discover State failure, not market failures.
- notahacker 3y agoThe speed with which you moved from dissenters-from-economic-orthodoxy-are-creationists to rejecting the possibility of imperfect information, transaction costs or natural monopolies for not confirming to the dogma that the market is always right is truly impressive...
- robertlagrant 3y agoI don't see how that's a market failure.
- alchemist1e9 3y agoMonopolies are legitimately debatable topic for government intervention. However what is the reason governments should be involved in imperfect information or transaction costs? Please provide specific market failures. Additionally creationists is the perfect analogy for collectivists, socialist and marxists, their ideas require magic fairy dust to have any chance of working.
- notahacker 3y agoGovernment isn't involved in imperfect information or transaction costs: responsibility for those failures of the market delivering suboptimal results lie entirely with the market participants. Obvious examples include the highly profitable sale of products that avoid the R&D overhead and additional manufacturing expense to actually do what they claim to do, and the inability of various disparate individuals each receiving small negative side effects to their health to coordinate to stop a local polluter even if a tort system for restitution (a government intervention!) actually exists. Creationism is also the perfect analogy for people who either are ignorant of or deny basically anything past the first page of an economics textbook in favour of the dogma that if markets fail to deliver optimal results it must be the fault of state intervention. Much like Marxism, the economics of Mises needs a lot of fairy dust