4 ms·
Is the market 100% efficient? No, certainly. But just because it isn't always efficient, doesn't mean that it isn't monumentally better at advancing the human c
by viggity 12y ago
Is the market 100% efficient? No, certainly. But just because it isn't always efficient, doesn't mean that it isn't monumentally better at advancing the human condition than an economy run by a few central planning bureaucrats.
- kaonashi 12y agoMy knowledge of history shows no such correlation. Russia and China developed through central planning, and free markets do a terrible job helping other countries develop. The best outcomes seem to rise through some combination of both central coordination and market-base approaches.
- bprieto 12y agoCentral planning in the USSR and China led to huge famines with millions of deaths. And you should check what happened in Germany after the WWII: one country, split in two, one with central planning, other with mostly free market. Guess what was the result 40 years later? Same thing for Korea: one country, split in two, one with central planning, other with free market. The free market country gets western standard of living, central planning gets poverty, stagnation and famine.
- tokenadult 12y agoThe divided country examples of west Germany versus east Germany, south Korea versus North Korea, south Vietnam (an especially poorly governed country, but still) versus north Vietnam, and Taiwan (or Hong Kong) versus mainland China all suggest that free market economies in general do better for all their people than centrally planned economies. The recent economic growth in China resulted from basically relaxing central planning in several keys areas of the economy on the examples of Hong Kong and Taiwan.
- kaonashi 12y agoThose examples seem to me to illustrate the importance of access to foreign trade, which the central planning economies were cut out of for political reasons.