3 ms·

That seems a bit reductive; I don't even know that you're "wrong", but there are a lot of factors that might have led to the United States' success. We have a

by tombert 28d ago

That seems a bit reductive; I don't even know that you're "wrong", but there are a lot of factors that might have led to the United States' success. We have a lot of natural resources and a lot of our land is readily habitable. Yes, the US also has relatively liberal economics [1], and maybe that's why the US has done well, but I think there are too many confounding variables to conclude it's purely because of economic liberalism. [1] I mean liberal in the academic sense, not as a synonym for Democrat.

WalterBright 28d ago
Russia is chock full of natural resources. But Russia was never prosperous. Ditto for Mexico and S America.
- tombert 27d ago
  "Prosperous" is a relative term; Russia, even during the USSR days, was still significantly more prosperous than Uganda, for example. You can say "yes but they weren't as rich as the United States", but if "being as successful as the United States" is your bar then most countries fall short. There are plenty of countries that you would consider economically liberal that aren't as prosperous as the United States. I'm not going to claim I know "why" some countries do well and some don't, and that's my point. There are oodles of variables that end up being relevant and I think it's intellectually dishonest to pick one and thank/blame it for everything.
  - WalterBright 27d ago
    The US had to ship wheat to Russia to keep them from starving. There was a billboard put up in Kansas at the time: "Welcome to the Breadbasket of the Soviet Union". It would be worth your while to read a history of the USSR. > pick one The correlation between prosperity and free markets is a very strong one. P.S. In WW2, the US supplied all its allies (including the USSR) with massive amounts of food and military aid. And the US fought WW2 in two hemispheres. That's what free markets delivered. The evidence is everywhere you look and is overwhelming.
    - tombert 27d ago
      I didn't claim that the USSR was doing well compared to the US. In fact I said the opposite. I said that the USSR was economically more prosperous than Uganda, and was not wrong about that. Prosperity is a relative term, and pointing out that the US was/is rich isn't actually demonstrating anything outside of your inability to read.
      - WalterBright 27d ago
        Sorry I'm not interested in your diversion into Uganda.
        tombert 27d ago
        My point wasn’t Uganda, my point was, and it still is, that “prosperity” is a relative term. I also have no interest in talking about the minutia of Uganda. I was pointing out that the USSR was “rich” by comparison to some other countries.
  - krupan 27d ago
    We're they more prosperous than Uganda? I don't know much about Uganda's history but the 21 million citizens of the USSR that Stalin murdered were as unpropserous as anyone could be. It was an incredibly uneven prosperity if there was any.
    - pocksuppet 27d ago
      Okay well George Floyd was also less prosperous than most of the USSR. I don't see what cherry-picking a specific subset of people has to do with it.
    - tombert 27d ago
      I should make it clear that I'm not a supporter of what the USSR was, and I'm not trying to apologize for it. I'm just trying to argue that "prosperity" is a relative term and trying to nail down the "why" of it is more complicated than the libertarian "corporations good government bad" wet dream that WalterBright always spouts. ETA: Just to cite my sources, you can look at the GDP per capita of Uganda and Russia in 1985 here [1]. No question, the United State was way wealthier than Russia at around ~$33k, Russia at around ~$12k, and Uganda at around $800. The USSR was horrible, Stalin was horrible, I wouldn't want to live in the USSR even if it were still around, but my point is that wealth and prosperity are reductive terms, and it's also reductive to look at one factor and say that that's the cause of everything. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-project-database?time=1983&mapSelect=UGA~RUS https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p...
      - krupan 27d ago
        Prosperity is so much more than just GDP. But look, this discussion started with someone saying our corrupt government is bad, and then throwway120385 described something horrible and called it libertarian and I just had to correct that label. People then felt the need to jump in with a bunch of mostly orthogonal disparagement of libertarianism which led to all this unproductive arguing. By the way did you see my response to you about the Microsoft monopoly? I couldn't reply because we got too deeply nested so I made it a peer comment. I'm sure it will instantly turn you into a libertarian, lol!

by tombert 28d ago

WalterBright 28d ago

Russia is chock full of natural resources. But Russia was never prosperous. Ditto for Mexico and S America.

tombert 27d ago
"Prosperous" is a relative term; Russia, even during the USSR days, was still significantly more prosperous than Uganda, for example. You can say "yes but they weren't as rich as the United States", but if "being as successful as the United States" is your bar then most countries fall short. There are plenty of countries that you would consider economically liberal that aren't as prosperous as the United States. I'm not going to claim I know "why" some countries do well and some don't, and that's my point. There are oodles of variables that end up being relevant and I think it's intellectually dishonest to pick one and thank/blame it for everything.
- WalterBright 27d ago
  The US had to ship wheat to Russia to keep them from starving. There was a billboard put up in Kansas at the time: "Welcome to the Breadbasket of the Soviet Union". It would be worth your while to read a history of the USSR. > pick one The correlation between prosperity and free markets is a very strong one. P.S. In WW2, the US supplied all its allies (including the USSR) with massive amounts of food and military aid. And the US fought WW2 in two hemispheres. That's what free markets delivered. The evidence is everywhere you look and is overwhelming.
  - tombert 27d ago
    I didn't claim that the USSR was doing well compared to the US. In fact I said the opposite. I said that the USSR was economically more prosperous than Uganda, and was not wrong about that. Prosperity is a relative term, and pointing out that the US was/is rich isn't actually demonstrating anything outside of your inability to read.
    - WalterBright 27d ago
      Sorry I'm not interested in your diversion into Uganda.
      - tombert 27d ago
        My point wasn’t Uganda, my point was, and it still is, that “prosperity” is a relative term. I also have no interest in talking about the minutia of Uganda. I was pointing out that the USSR was “rich” by comparison to some other countries.
- krupan 27d ago
  We're they more prosperous than Uganda? I don't know much about Uganda's history but the 21 million citizens of the USSR that Stalin murdered were as unpropserous as anyone could be. It was an incredibly uneven prosperity if there was any.
  - pocksuppet 27d ago
    Okay well George Floyd was also less prosperous than most of the USSR. I don't see what cherry-picking a specific subset of people has to do with it.
  - tombert 27d ago
    I should make it clear that I'm not a supporter of what the USSR was, and I'm not trying to apologize for it. I'm just trying to argue that "prosperity" is a relative term and trying to nail down the "why" of it is more complicated than the libertarian "corporations good government bad" wet dream that WalterBright always spouts. ETA: Just to cite my sources, you can look at the GDP per capita of Uganda and Russia in 1985 here [1]. No question, the United State was way wealthier than Russia at around ~$33k, Russia at around ~$12k, and Uganda at around $800. The USSR was horrible, Stalin was horrible, I wouldn't want to live in the USSR even if it were still around, but my point is that wealth and prosperity are reductive terms, and it's also reductive to look at one factor and say that that's the cause of everything. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-project-database?time=1983&mapSelect=UGA~RUS https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p...
    - krupan 27d ago
      Prosperity is so much more than just GDP. But look, this discussion started with someone saying our corrupt government is bad, and then throwway120385 described something horrible and called it libertarian and I just had to correct that label. People then felt the need to jump in with a bunch of mostly orthogonal disparagement of libertarianism which led to all this unproductive arguing. By the way did you see my response to you about the Microsoft monopoly? I couldn't reply because we got too deeply nested so I made it a peer comment. I'm sure it will instantly turn you into a libertarian, lol!