4 ms·

This conversation is never going to get anywhere, because we have fundamentally irreconcilable views of the world. In my view what lifted people from abject po

This conversation is never going to get anywhere, because we have fundamentally irreconcilable views of the world. In my view what lifted people from abject poverty was a measure of technological progress and industrialization. The places where people were mostly lifted out of poverty do not embrace the completely unregulated free market fantasy of Friedman. I believe in government as a strong regulator to rein in corporations, because corporations are optimized to generate profits even when they cause harm to society in their profit-seeking mandate. Obviously you will disagree with this, because government icky, and you seem to embrace the fantasy that once free of the shackles of icky government, the benevolent capital holders will benefit the world somehow. You advocate for something very extreme, and it is clear we won't find middle ground at this point. Have a great evening, and feel free to have the last word.

ch4s3 1y ago
It’s pretty clear that when governments open markets and relax market controls the population grows in wealth. Certainly, technology drives efficiency and grows the pie I wouldn’t argue otherwise. However the closed economies with price controls and lots of government intervention can’t easily make use of technological innovations. China started growing when private businesses were first allowed, for example. The Nordics took off after liberalizing their economies. You can look across South America and see that the most open economies have the highest standards of living. I don’t disagree that governments have a role in regulating harms, and neither did Friedman. He did believe that taxing pollution was more effective than setting particular targets, but that’s a difference of approach not of aims. I think we probably have more overlap than you imagine.

ch4s3 1y ago

It’s pretty clear that when governments open markets and relax market controls the population grows in wealth. Certainly, technology drives efficiency and grows the pie I wouldn’t argue otherwise. However the closed economies with price controls and lots of government intervention can’t easily make use of technological innovations. China started growing when private businesses were first allowed, for example. The Nordics took off after liberalizing their economies. You can look across South America and see that the most open economies have the highest standards of living. I don’t disagree that governments have a role in regulating harms, and neither did Friedman. He did believe that taxing pollution was more effective than setting particular targets, but that’s a difference of approach not of aims. I think we probably have more overlap than you imagine.