So far, everyone I've known to use the word other than to mock it (myself, mostly) very clearly did not know what they were talking about, and what they did know was wholly derivative and unconsidered.
Great article as always! I actually started my first semester of college last fall, and one of my required classes was all about “power and privilege”. Even though our professor was quite accepting of the more right-leaning views of me and a couple other classmates, many of the assigned readings had some anti-capitalist undertones.
Sounds quite soft tbh. It's good to read leftist works, but here it's all we ever read and right-leaning views are dismissed. Where do you go to college? Also, thank you!
I go to Cal Lutheran. Despite being a Christian school, the students and staff are quite secular, and many events are held that center around social justice and other left leaning causes.
A propaganda pouch of carefully selected and picked cherries.
I prefer to look at reality rather than obsess pedantically about the finer points of economic theories that have no cognisance of actual science, such as physics and biology. Given that an economy is really just the transformation of potential energy into embodied energy in goods and services AND an entirely subordinate sub-set of the wider environment, this willful naivety renders this kind of thinking not merely incomplete and inaccurate but actually dangerous.
It's not a zero sum game, but it is a finite reality system.
And anyone who thinks that existing markets anywhere are open, balanced and able to deliver rational outcomes in competitive situations is living in a fantasy land that isn't even pretty.
If you look outside you can plainly see where "free market" ideals have got us. Quoting grifters like Thomas Sowell doesn't change that fact. You can call it whatever you want but the truth remains. With people like Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher, and Bill Clinton, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That fact was not disputed in your article. Whether or not consolidation of wealth is the goal if is the outcome and all this hand wringing is just an an excuse to punch left which liberals love doing even when the obvious problem is fascism
I talk about economic inequalities and social mobility in the article. The first have mostly been driven by a profoundly regulated market (land/housing) and the second is significantly correlated with increased economic freedom. Drop your priors, your views are not supported by the evidence.
Also a lot of your facts are just pictures of random graphs with no sourcing, your quotes are from ghouls like Thatcher who made life in Britain much worse, especially for people in underrepresented communities (especially queer folk). I think your argument ignores a lot of suffering that is caused by the markets and is not solved by competition. Honestly this market driven ideology is barely distinguishable from the average MAGA follower
You also mention “prosperity” like it's an objective, measurable thing. Is prosperity for everyone? Or is prosperity just for the shareholders? It really sounds like all of your “facts and data” amount to little more than vague platitudes to make liberals feel better about killing the poor
I don't understand the “wealth inequality over time” graph. What is their factor for determining “wealth inequality” wouldn't a more useful stat be some sort of chart that shows how much wealth is owned by how many people? Is it because those stats make your whole argument look really bad and show that wealth inequality is still a giant problem in this country (I'm sure you are aware of the whole 1% 99% statistics and your article completely ignores it).
The housing market regulations on the U.S. have some of the fewest regulations in "developed" countries. This has not led to greater economic equality, it has led to housing become a pipe dream for the average american and the market itself is just a casino for private equity. The economic crashes in this country/world are always preceded by a heavily unregulated market
My other question about this article is you mention "economic freedom" like it's an objective, measurable stat. How is "economic freedom" determined? Number of regilation? Some sort of quality that the regulations have? (Not objective) How much money the top 1% make (might as well be for what the stat shows)
Blah… more neoliberal spin. The “Chilean miracle” decimated lives, destroyed the role of labor in negotiations and privatized all public assets for Pennie’s on the dollar, specifically into the hands of American companies. The legacy of Friedman and Hayek will always be a return to feudalism painted over with stats that “prove” it works by conveniently obfuscating that it ONLY works with dictators and the suspension of law combined with a story of how “left wing” governments did it. They conveniently leave out the role of debt leveraged by the captured IMF and World Bank, not to mention the fact that privatized assets suddenly get listed on an exchange and then see massive fluctuations if anyone mentions nationalization. Go ask the ANC in South Africa. This is largely social Darwinism in a business suit.
So far, everyone I've known to use the word other than to mock it (myself, mostly) very clearly did not know what they were talking about, and what they did know was wholly derivative and unconsidered.
Great article as always! I actually started my first semester of college last fall, and one of my required classes was all about “power and privilege”. Even though our professor was quite accepting of the more right-leaning views of me and a couple other classmates, many of the assigned readings had some anti-capitalist undertones.
Sounds quite soft tbh. It's good to read leftist works, but here it's all we ever read and right-leaning views are dismissed. Where do you go to college? Also, thank you!
I go to Cal Lutheran. Despite being a Christian school, the students and staff are quite secular, and many events are held that center around social justice and other left leaning causes.
A propaganda pouch of carefully selected and picked cherries.
I prefer to look at reality rather than obsess pedantically about the finer points of economic theories that have no cognisance of actual science, such as physics and biology. Given that an economy is really just the transformation of potential energy into embodied energy in goods and services AND an entirely subordinate sub-set of the wider environment, this willful naivety renders this kind of thinking not merely incomplete and inaccurate but actually dangerous.
It's not a zero sum game, but it is a finite reality system.
And anyone who thinks that existing markets anywhere are open, balanced and able to deliver rational outcomes in competitive situations is living in a fantasy land that isn't even pretty.
If you look outside you can plainly see where "free market" ideals have got us. Quoting grifters like Thomas Sowell doesn't change that fact. You can call it whatever you want but the truth remains. With people like Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher, and Bill Clinton, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That fact was not disputed in your article. Whether or not consolidation of wealth is the goal if is the outcome and all this hand wringing is just an an excuse to punch left which liberals love doing even when the obvious problem is fascism
I talk about economic inequalities and social mobility in the article. The first have mostly been driven by a profoundly regulated market (land/housing) and the second is significantly correlated with increased economic freedom. Drop your priors, your views are not supported by the evidence.
Also a lot of your facts are just pictures of random graphs with no sourcing, your quotes are from ghouls like Thatcher who made life in Britain much worse, especially for people in underrepresented communities (especially queer folk). I think your argument ignores a lot of suffering that is caused by the markets and is not solved by competition. Honestly this market driven ideology is barely distinguishable from the average MAGA follower
All my numbers are sourced.
You also mention “prosperity” like it's an objective, measurable thing. Is prosperity for everyone? Or is prosperity just for the shareholders? It really sounds like all of your “facts and data” amount to little more than vague platitudes to make liberals feel better about killing the poor
I don't understand the “wealth inequality over time” graph. What is their factor for determining “wealth inequality” wouldn't a more useful stat be some sort of chart that shows how much wealth is owned by how many people? Is it because those stats make your whole argument look really bad and show that wealth inequality is still a giant problem in this country (I'm sure you are aware of the whole 1% 99% statistics and your article completely ignores it).
The housing market regulations on the U.S. have some of the fewest regulations in "developed" countries. This has not led to greater economic equality, it has led to housing become a pipe dream for the average american and the market itself is just a casino for private equity. The economic crashes in this country/world are always preceded by a heavily unregulated market
My other question about this article is you mention "economic freedom" like it's an objective, measurable stat. How is "economic freedom" determined? Number of regilation? Some sort of quality that the regulations have? (Not objective) How much money the top 1% make (might as well be for what the stat shows)
Blah… more neoliberal spin. The “Chilean miracle” decimated lives, destroyed the role of labor in negotiations and privatized all public assets for Pennie’s on the dollar, specifically into the hands of American companies. The legacy of Friedman and Hayek will always be a return to feudalism painted over with stats that “prove” it works by conveniently obfuscating that it ONLY works with dictators and the suspension of law combined with a story of how “left wing” governments did it. They conveniently leave out the role of debt leveraged by the captured IMF and World Bank, not to mention the fact that privatized assets suddenly get listed on an exchange and then see massive fluctuations if anyone mentions nationalization. Go ask the ANC in South Africa. This is largely social Darwinism in a business suit.
Neoliberal policies enabled the ultra rich to play the white working class to do their bidding. This oppressive policy needs to die asap
I answer all of this in the article. It's utterly wrong.
I could definitely see Argentina benefiting from a little more capitalism.
I think in the US it’s probably gone too far and the deindustrialization did a lot of harm.
No reason the optimal direction to move in has to be the same in every country! Sometimes you need more capitalism, sometimes less.