3 ms·

The US arguably would’ve thrived regardless, we had 50% of the world GDP post-WWII. That percentage pie has only declined, as other nations developed. Nations w

The US arguably would’ve thrived regardless, we had 50% of the world GDP post-WWII. That percentage pie has only declined, as other nations developed. Nations with disparate economic systems, some being top-down centrally controlled communist states. In fact, said states are the only ones who threatened the US economically. And, the US is not the most libertarian country, it’s not even close. The US is developed, so it’s automatically more centrally controlled than most nations. There are plenty of underdeveloped nations that are, effectively, much more libertarian. Because their governments don’t have the capital to enforce much of anything. Those nations are doing quite poorly, hence why they are underdeveloped. You will notice a pattern in the development of nations: as nations develop, the government has more stake in the macro economics of said nation. Because of course they do: they want the economics to go well, and they have the economics to enforce that, or try to. The US government does not “sit out” when things are going poorly, the opposite is true.

WalterBright 26d ago
When I wrote "has been" I meant the 19th century. > the US is not the most libertarian country, it’s not even close. Please give an example.
- stopping 26d ago
  Switzerland perhaps? https://freedomandprosperity.org/2021/blog/according-to-the-human-freedom-index-switzerland-is-the-most-libertarian-oriented-nation/ https://freedomandprosperity.org/2021/blog/according-to-the-...
  - WalterBright 25d ago
    Note I wrote "has been". The economic freedom in the US has steadily declined over the years.
    - stopping 25d ago
      You were responding to a comment which was written using the present tense.
krupan 25d ago
"The US is developed, so it’s automatically more centrally controlled than most nations." What?? Can you explain this better? The more developed a nation the more centrally controlled it is? The USSR was more developed than the US? Also, when did any communist state ever threaten the US economically? See other comments about USSR buying wheat from the US. See the 21 million people Stalin had to murder to try and keep the system running. See Venezuela, drowning in the riches of it's oil, having massive inflation and people starving while their overweight leader ate a pile of empanadas on TV in front of them all. None of these arguments people are making about US resources or distance from other countries or whatever else make any sense.
- preg_match 25d ago
  > The more developed a nation the more centrally controlled it is? Yes, generally, but it's not linear and 1-1. The USSR was not more developed than the US, it doesn't work like that, but the trend is: the more developed a nation is, the more centrally controlled the economy will be. Why? Because as nations develop, the government has BOTH the capital and motivation to more tightly control the economy. Underdeveloped countries simply don't have the capital to enforce economic planning. They might have laws on the books, but it doesn't matter, they can't enforce them. The US has laws on the books, and the capital to back it up. On a macro level, the US government is very closely monitoring and steering the economy. Of course through control of the currency, the Fed, taxes, regulation, subsidies, tariffs, contracts, and more. Consider what makes up our GDP - healthcare alone is 20% ish. How is that controlled? Through our regulations and structure established and maintained by the US government.
- pocksuppet 20d ago
  > The more developed a nation the more centrally controlled it is? The central control has to develop, alongside everything else. Somalia isn't centrally controlled because it can't be, because it's not developed, and doesn't have a way to be centrally controlled. If it was, it would be. See: the history of any developed country. > Also, when did any communist state ever threaten the US economically? In the 1940s-1980s (USSR), and in the 2010s-present (China) and if the US's overreaction is to be believed, from 1960-present (Cuba).

WalterBright 26d ago

When I wrote "has been" I meant the 19th century. > the US is not the most libertarian country, it’s not even close. Please give an example.

stopping 26d ago
Switzerland perhaps? https://freedomandprosperity.org/2021/blog/according-to-the-human-freedom-index-switzerland-is-the-most-libertarian-oriented-nation/ https://freedomandprosperity.org/2021/blog/according-to-the-...
- WalterBright 25d ago
  Note I wrote "has been". The economic freedom in the US has steadily declined over the years.
  - stopping 25d ago
    You were responding to a comment which was written using the present tense.

krupan 25d ago

"The US is developed, so it’s automatically more centrally controlled than most nations." What?? Can you explain this better? The more developed a nation the more centrally controlled it is? The USSR was more developed than the US? Also, when did any communist state ever threaten the US economically? See other comments about USSR buying wheat from the US. See the 21 million people Stalin had to murder to try and keep the system running. See Venezuela, drowning in the riches of it's oil, having massive inflation and people starving while their overweight leader ate a pile of empanadas on TV in front of them all. None of these arguments people are making about US resources or distance from other countries or whatever else make any sense.

preg_match 25d ago
> The more developed a nation the more centrally controlled it is? Yes, generally, but it's not linear and 1-1. The USSR was not more developed than the US, it doesn't work like that, but the trend is: the more developed a nation is, the more centrally controlled the economy will be. Why? Because as nations develop, the government has BOTH the capital and motivation to more tightly control the economy. Underdeveloped countries simply don't have the capital to enforce economic planning. They might have laws on the books, but it doesn't matter, they can't enforce them. The US has laws on the books, and the capital to back it up. On a macro level, the US government is very closely monitoring and steering the economy. Of course through control of the currency, the Fed, taxes, regulation, subsidies, tariffs, contracts, and more. Consider what makes up our GDP - healthcare alone is 20% ish. How is that controlled? Through our regulations and structure established and maintained by the US government.
pocksuppet 20d ago
> The more developed a nation the more centrally controlled it is? The central control has to develop, alongside everything else. Somalia isn't centrally controlled because it can't be, because it's not developed, and doesn't have a way to be centrally controlled. If it was, it would be. See: the history of any developed country. > Also, when did any communist state ever threaten the US economically? In the 1940s-1980s (USSR), and in the 2010s-present (China) and if the US's overreaction is to be believed, from 1960-present (Cuba).