In his magnum opus, Milton Friedman famously stated that greater economic freedom eventually leads to greater political freedom.
Does history prove his hypothesis true?
I'd like to make the case that it does, and cite three historical examples. Athens, the United States, and post-Pinochet Chile. What did these states have in common?
All of them were rooted in autocracies, but became democratic societies due to the influence of the bourgeoisie along with the heightened consciousness of an enriched lower class - both brought about by free trade.
What are your thoughts?
it seems to
look at every country that has moved from unfree markets to open ones. Economics is part of all aspects of life and naturally a tightly controlled system would require social controls as well to maintain it.
look at how dictatorships/autocratic governments in Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, India, much of Africa, and parts of South America have created incredibly democratic and prospering nations.
India was not a dictatorship but it was heavily socialist for decades, but recently with the BJP and their more open-market focus India has advanced more in the last several years than in decades.
Money is labor multiplied over time, so essentially your work and your life. Capitalism allows you to be free to turn your labor and time into currency, then trade it for other's goods and services. It gives you freedom to make profit off of yourself.
Yes, is there any doubt? The freer the markets, the freer the people.
There's really no other correct answer. Can anyone contradict based Friedman?
History has proven that Communism is an inefficient and ineffective system, that will not function as intended in real life. History has proven that using spears against Maxim guns isn't a good idea. History has proven a lot of things, frienderino.
Really? Could you explain to me, why there's no prevalence of Nazism in Denmark, then? Could you explain to me, why it's uncommon to find a Nazi in Japan? If capitalism led to Nazism, the capitalistic world would be National Socialist. However, it isn't.
We have political freedom. Obama was elected by a majority vote. Reagan was elected by a majority vote. People are allowed to vote. Your meme arrows won't change that.
Singapore isn't an absolute monarchy or dictatorship, however. It's a very flawed democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. If the ruling party was inept (which it certainly isn't), it could be voted out.
Did the Nazis encourage economic freedom?
Certainly not. Hitler believe in economic autarky and protectionism. The Nazis nationalized industry for wartime production.
Plus, economic freedom did not lead to Nazism, it was hyper-nationalism that lead to Nazism.
I genuinely believe that Milton Friedman was a crypto-communist who realized that the revolution couldn't have happen unless capitalism was allowed to run it's course, as Marx himself predicted, so he worked to remove all the social and cultural constraints on laissez-faire capitalism, to unleash it upon the world, spread misery and inequality in it's wake and make communist revolution an alternative again.
Again, economic freedom did not lead to Nazism. Hyper-nationalism and revanchism lead to Nazism.
Friedman never called for "multiculti" or any of that bullshit, he was against the hyper-collectivism of Marxism and socialism. Being individualistic doesn't mean not being nationalistic or traditionalistic at all.
Again, economic freedom did not lead to Nazism. Hyper-nationalism and revanchism lead to Nazism.
Friedman never called for "multiculti" or any of that bullshit, he was against the hyper-collectivism of Marxism and socialism. One can be individualistic while being nationalistic and traditionalist.
Ok. More freedom. Let's start by abolishing property rights and corporations. Those are the two biggest interference to the free market. Except for maybe state money. So let's get rid of that too and with it deposit insurance.
>abolishing property rights
You're either misunderstanding Friedman, or going on with your own anarchist viewpoint. Friedman advocated the State as an umpire, some entity has to monitor and enforce the rules of the game.
Property rights are necessary for the "game" to exist. You can't just abolish them and have people slaughter each other over the right to mine in a particular area.
Milton Friedman never advocated an autocratic government. To the contrary, he said that economic freedom creates political freedom, and that was proven true in Chile.
Thanks to Milton Friedman's ideas, Chile is consistently the best performing economy in South America and a stable democracy.
Are you crazy? It wasn't because of his ideas.
Did Friedman advocate arresting and/or killing the opposition and anyone who dared to speak against the government?
It's thanks to Friedman's ideas that Chile is now the country with the highest HDI and political stability in Latin America.
>he said that economic freedom creates political freedom, and that was proven true in Chile.
Dead trade unionists beneath helicopter flight paths, sent over the edge from the boys from chicago.
You mean subversive guerrillas from the Revolutionary Left Movement? If they pick up arms to overthrow the government, they should understand that death is an option
Thankfully socialism is soon to be erradicated in South America. Argentina will elect a liberal, Brazil will never vote for a socialist ever again and will have the historical leader of the largest socialist party being thrown in jail, Venezuela will collapse sooner or later...
Thanks to Friedman it's also the most unequal country in Latin America, the one where retirees earn about 100$ a month, the one with no universal health care, with no public education, the one where sindical activity is demonized by the press, etc.
Pic related: the difference between a public farmacy and the private stores
>if i don't stand with a capitalistic thing i am commie
No, the fact that you're denying basic facts such as that Chile being the richest country in Latin America is due to Pinochet leads me to believe that you're one of those inbred morons from /leftypol/
>History has proven that Communism is an inefficient and ineffective system
History hasn't proven shit, the sample size is so small that it's meaningless, and on top of that you may as well imagine a world full of modern industrial communist societies and a single underdeveloped capitalist one that was hated by all and you'd have roughly the situation we've had.
political freedom to those with money
>We have political freedom. Obama was elected by a majority vote. Reagan was elected by a majority vote. People are allowed to vote. Your meme arrows won't change that.
See above. Candidates with money buy their place. The media machine magnify the brainwashing propaganda spewed by their campaigns.
The most prominent point that should be addressed is the illusion of freedom.
>the one where retirees earn about 100$ a month
They receive that from the government, but what about private pensions? Unless you have some sort of disability or are about to starve, there is no reason why you should receive a greater amount of money from the state.
> the one with no universal health care
>with no public education
>the one where sindical activity is demonized by the press
This has got to be a joke
Hong Kong is the most destroyed city by class struggle, As for my political views, I am anarcho-syndycalist, as I know that all companies would create state by just being rich. For example poland was very free markety in 90s, so a lot of very powerful companies were opened, which then were boosted by goverment.
Thinking economic liberalism automatically evolves into political freedom is some serious determinism. I guess it depends upon what you consider "political freedom".
Democracy and economic liberalism are fundamentally incompatible if you're going with the liberal interpretation of human nature. If people are really rational utility maximizers like liberal economists believe, why wouldn't people just use democratic institutions to reach their egotist goals? Why wouldn't the poor just vote to confiscate the property of the rich to better their conditions?
Some form of ideology like nationalism is necessary so people don't politically behave in their own interests and to prevent them from applying market logic to the political sphere.
>Hong Kong is the most destroyed city by class struggle
>tiny rocky island city-state
>45th largest economy in the world, above Austria, Chile, Norway and Israel
>15th highest HDI
>almost no bureaucracy
Oh, yes. Seems like hell on Earth.
>They receive that from the government, but what about private pensions?
I was talking about that kind of pension.
There's a mixed system, you HAVE to choose a company from the private sector to manage your pension,
Good luck waiting for a operation in the public sector.
Even the ''''public''''' are paid here, it's hilarious
>This has got to be a joke
why? how is this not an example of how there's no (little) political freedom in Chile?
If you find yourself rejecting history and considering alternative history, you should stop and think about this for a second. Just because you can imagine bizarro world doesn't mean it's a meaningful model for the world we live in. History takes place in the world we live in, and is thus the only meaningful model for reality outside of the present, which is often too close for us to see the larger picture. Communism isn't feasible, and every time it's been tried with a group that isn't really small, it fails spectacularly. In an experiment, if you find the outcome doesn't match your hypothesis, and continues to do this every time you try it, you don't reject the experiment; you reject the hypothesis. History is the largest possible sample size in existence. It's literally the entirety of the time we've been able to keep records. If it's too small, what you propose then is so marginally feasible as to be practically irrelevant. The idea of communism was only arrived at through examination of history by a few misguided men. To reject history is also to reject the foundation of the communism you support.
But, seriously, failing at every single attempt? I mean, every single one? There were quite a lot of tries, in huge nations with large populations, as in tiny countries, from East Asia, to Europe, Africa and the Americas. And none of them worked? And almost all of them resulted in genocide, dictatoship and poverty?
If you want to convince the people Eastern Europe or Cambodia to try again, be my guest.
reminder, that is how 10% of hong kongians live, the rest lives in these types of homes. Wake up. Class struggle exists, at least in havana everyone gets shit, and most people are happy (watch buena vista social club).
>rating country by numbers
Thanks to Milton Friedman, we have 1 functioning state in South America
>you HAVE to choose a company from the private sector to manage your pension
Well, if you are forced to have a pension, that is just wrong.
>Good luck waiting for a operation in the public sector.
That's public health for you. You asked for a public healthcare system and I gave you one.
>Even the ''''public''''' are paid here, it's hilarious
They are still subsidized. I'm not Chilean, so I don't knoiw much about it. Same thing about the press, which I take you, as all other left wingers, believe to be evil.
Lol, they already removed Hugo Chavez from that picture.
>yes, he just enlisted in the Revolutionary Left Army to fight for the proletarian revolution that will abolish private property and slaughter the bourgeoise, but he is totally innocent because he didn't win yet
>Does history prove his hypothesis true?
>What did these states have in common?
Nothing. One is the largest world power, the other is a third world country with the largest income equality in the Americas, and the other is a landlocked banking paradise.
>All of them were rooted in autocracies, but became democratic societies due to the influence of the bourgeoisie along with the heightened consciousness of an enriched lower class - both brought about by free trade.
The United States was protectionist throughout the entire 19th century.
In Chile, Pinochet caused a massive economic crisis and famine in 1982 and had to turn back his reforms and re-nationalize the national copper company (which remains in State hands to this day).
Switzerland was social democratic and only embraced free trade after World War II, it has been a democracy a century before that.
You need to read actual books rather than libertarian blogs OP.
Maybe, but 5 years ago leftists were hailing Hugo Chavez as the second coming of Marx, now that the country collapsed they pretend they never supported his policies.
>buena vista social club
That's a fucking music club that was founded before the Cuban Revolution! These people try to live the best they can with what they have. Everytime they are given the chance, they flee to the "evil corporat-dominated-imperialist countries".
I am Latin American, that's why I know that, not the monster you paint him to be, Pinochet was actually an example of self-restraint, who destroyed a revolutionary army with 10.000 members by killing only 3.000 people.
If you want a truly evil anti-communist dictator, try Videla or Efraim Rios Montt instead.
Who is this guy?
I never heard of him, maybe its just because I study economics
Friedman considers governments captured by financial oligarchs to represent freedom if the captured individuals can be voted out in favor of candidates funded by a different group of financial oligarchs.
I don't, because I consider "freedom" to mean economic equality - the freedom not to have a boss, the freedom to tell the rich to take a hike, the freedom to spend my hours doing what I want and not what the lord (whether CEO or feudal aristocrat) wants. Friedman''s orwellian definition of economic freedom is almost exactly the opposite.
State wars and dictatoships have nothing to do with capitalism.
So, none of them worked as well? None of managed to survive more than a year and you call that the achievement of a socialist society? Tribal societies were more socialists than those guys.
>Removing Chavez because his country is falling apart.
Puerto Rico GDP per capita $28.529
Chile GDP per capita $15.732
>I don't, because I consider "freedom" to mean economic equality - the freedom not to have a boss, the freedom to tell the rich to take a hike, the freedom to spend my hours doing what I want and not what the lord (whether CEO or feudal aristocrat) wants. Friedman''s orwellian definition of economic freedom is almost exactly the opposite.
You have the freedom to do all that.
Mostly because what he is saying is true.
from 73-80, practically everyone killed by pinochet were members of the communist and socialist parties, killed basically just because.
between 80-88, a part of the killed were due actual ''subversive'' activity, but this is less than 10% of the victims
That puts the extremely far above many countries. Most african, south-american and asian nations. But, muh Demoratic Cambodia therefore gommunism,
Latin American here.
Arguing against Chile's performance is not a good idea for the left. It did work better than the other states here. I would probably aim my canons elsewhere, if I were a leftist. You won't win this debate.
The only way you can have this freedom is if you empower an sufficiently strong central government to crush the political power of the oligarchs.
But then, you would be free to be a servant of your bureaucratic overlords, who can't be voted out because they don't derive their power from it. And since they will manage to monopolize both economical, political, and even cultural and social power, you wouldn't even be able to oppose them in any way whatsoever, heck, you would even lack a vocabulary to express any opposition.
Now that's freedom.
>oh yeah. when you study economics in a western college it's all keynes or commie shit, useless in the real world at it's best and economy wrecking at it's worst
Western macro is dominated by monetarism. Perhaps you mean political economy which exists in a vanishingly small number of universities.
Where in the hell do you study? University of Havana?
In Economics History and Macroeconomics, Friedman is mentioned a lot.
>oh yeah. when you study economics in a western college it's all keynes or commie shit, useless in the real world at it's best and economy wrecking at it's worst
No, not true. I did study Economics. There is almost no mention of Marxism, except in history of economic thought, for a few lectures. Friedman is mentioned a lot. Modern macroeconomics descends from Friedman and Keynes, in a way.
Wrong picture. Also, Democratic Kampuchea. It's really underwhelming
No, that's everywhere.
The entire world uses the same textbooks. Friedman is taught by any decent University.
An Economics student that has never heard of him should ask for a refund from his University.
BS in argentina the murders, robbery , hunger and all around bad living conditions are much more worse.
Chile hasn't had a city overrun by looting because the government couldn't afford to pay the cops
My point is that Puerto Rico is a shithole.
And yet it manages to have nearly twice of Chile's GDP per capita.
Don't try to sell me that third world country as some sort of economic miracle.
I'd argue that the flaw in the concept is the separation of freedoms by categories. Generally, the overall level of freedom in a country tends to inversely correlate with the power of its government, and that will also be reflected in its economy. Permissive economies do not lead to permissive states, they already have permissive states.
>greater economic freedom eventually leads to greater political freedom
Economic freedom is not a thing. You either keep the government out of the economy, and then you get monopolies and corporations strong enough to dwarf the citizenry's political power, or you have government establish anti-trust and trade practice laws that curtail economic freedom.
Said Horace est modus in rebus, I doubt Friedman himself believed it strictly, these pointless generalization are a waste of time.
do you even know how much nice stuff chileans have?
Literally the best universities in south america, one of the few countries out there in south america consistently producing science, and i mean hard science like genetic modifications and whatnot, that shit is leagues beyond the rest of the continent.
GDP isn't even a good measure of economic prosperity ,iceland and Honduras have around the same GDP and one is hell on earth , the other is a great nation
Chile is the best country in south america, by most metrics you take, gdp, hdi, life expectacy.
And for most part it's due to the reforms made under Pinchoet, influenced heavily by the Chicago school & Friedman.
What does economic anarchy lead to?
Friedman is correct.
Which is exactly why we shouldn't want pure economic freedom, just as we wouldn't want pure political freedom: Both lead to anarchy, which quickly devolves into warlords creating their personal satrapies, largely to the detriment of the rest of the people and society.
tl;dr fuck friedman and his anarcho-capitalism
>all these people dreaming of living in a socialist utopia
I remember hearing the amazing stories from my anthropology profs about how Milton Friedman flew over Chile in a jet bought for him by Ronald Reagan, parachuted into the capital, and raged hard throughout the city, indiscriminately snapping the necks of every Chilean woman and child to cross his path of mayhem. Friedman's evil rampage prevented the nascent communist grassroots movement, which was almost as popular with the Chilean people as it was with American humanities professors, from reaching fruition. This was a tragedy of epic proportions because the command and control economy was about to usher in a new golden age of economic and sociopolitical utopia. While Friedman was finishing ripping the beating hearts out of the chests of old women and eating them as he quoted passages from Free to Choose, the Chilean people learned to never question the capitalist overlords from Chicago. When news of the story broke among sociology and gender studies departments, there was a collective wail of morning and gnashing of teeth. The critical literary theorists had been unrelenting in their support of the burgeoning Soviet Union at the turn of the century, and they saw what wonders it had worked firsthand for the people of Russia. They felt that they had failed their Chilean brothers. Friedman eventually returned to Chicago from Chile, to return to his Hyde Park throne which was a living chair made from the bodies of welfare recipients, whom were forced to bear their weight of the Libertarian death machine day and night lest their families face the libertarian wrath that had been unleashed in Chile. Now Friedman is lionized by a coalition of Neo nazis, Jewish industrialists, and the religious right, to continue to keep our poor brothers and sisters downtrodden and controlled. Friedman can never die. He is always watching.
>Income inequality is not, in itself, a bad thing.
Yes, it is. It leads to a focus on external markets. The market loses the connection with the home population, which can't afford its products anymore, and instead focuses on populations abroad. As such, resources and products leave the country, money returns, but the money stays at the top (which then often spends it on imports).
Seems to me they perform similar the rest of south america. with argentina being the exception.
However. Less inequality is not a good thing per se. It's a question of morals. While higher life expectancy, GDP, HDI, are good thing per se.
>GDP isn't even a good measure of economic prosperity
I win the debate.
HDI index and gdp per capita puts chile on par with argentina which had a financial crisis or eastern europe which is having a ton of debt and economic problems... so that's pretty far from an "economic miracle"
Don't sell me your country for something that it's not. Save the term for actual economic miracles like Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea...
>inequality is always bad
Would you rather leave in a country where everyone is rich, but some more than others, or in one where every citizen is equalli poor.
Also, only capitalism has the power to make money naturally circulate inside an economy, taking prosperity to everyone. You can have a few "socialist" governments distributing free money to the people, but that is not a sustainable policy.
Socialism is the transitional preiod between Capitalism and Communism. In socialism, control over the means of production is shifted from the bourgoisie to the proletariat. The state (and class) is gradually eradicated, and at that point it's communism.
if we were defining governing by happiness
nobody would be aloud to live outside the tropics and everyone above the tropic of cancer and below the capricorn be forceably vacated due to their vitamin D deficiency
Looks like someone doesn't even know what GDP is or how they calculate it, really it's a measure of the final products in one country in a determinated time, it doesn't point to the prosperity of the country in question but it points to it's output
GDP per capita is the best measure of economic prosperity. You are comparing raw GDP. Iceland is miles ahead of Honduras, in per capita terms. Iceland - 47k USD, Honduras - 2k USD. You need to learn basic stuff.
Indeed Chile is almost on par with Argentina, but slightly ahead on all metrics.
Per capita means per person.
How is a country where normal citizens have no influence over how they live free?
No, it happens when economic growth outstrips income growth. Eventually, if you want to keep your profits up, you need to look for customers elsewhere. The resulting trade surplus is the profit that you don't have to hand down to keep the cycle going.
So long as you have foreign customers, you can then dump wages, but keep prices up. It's turning into quite the problem here.
The sixty million number is a comical, ridiculous high count. A figure closer to one million from the purges and six million from the famines, however, is not wildly inconsistent with demographic data in the way a 60 million number would be.
not the commie anon
"better life" is subjective
there are people who hop trains all day and eat sardines twice a day who are happy as can be and hedge fund managers who want to blow their brains out
a better measure of "prosperity" would be like the national consumption rate of anti-depressants, or divorce to marriage rate
Nice fantasy world, ayn. The economic "miracle" in both south korea and taiwan was preceeded by progressive agrarian reform that obliterated the local oligarchy, and scandinavia developed with constant wealth redistribution. Rich people are generally parasites.
This really is the death of politics in the future. People are so stupid they'll look at this image and go "Whoa, capitalism has the colorful buildings, it truly is the answer" and never look at anything further than the skin-deep memes like how happy those people actually are.
The future of politics lies in slogans and memes, and in that way it has become more like a business than ever imagined
>The median household income of the US is higher than Germany, leftishit.
But the definitions of poverty are different.
In germany, you're below the poverty line if, by yourself, you have an income of ~$13,000;
In the US, a family of four needs to be below ~$24000.
I think you can spot the problem.
Ok, go ahead and try it and see what happens. This is how it would go:
As soon as you announce you will increase taxes on the rich, they will either do three things:
1. Increase product prices
2. Cut costs (workers)
3. Ttake their money out of the country, generating both things.
Even if you manage to grab some of the money and forcebly distribute it among the people, be it in the form of lower interest rates or by just simply handing people money, you will still fuck everything up. Why? Because it is not a sustainable system. You can't keep giving people free money forever. The governmnet has a limited budget. More than that, it discourages employers from starting new businesses or expanding, as well as the common folk, who will see no reason in working.
Employment is the best social policy there is.
>countries all experience more prosperity and economic growth after deregulation
But that's blatantly false. The asian tigers averaged around 9% yearly gdp growth through the 60s and 70s with a heavily intervened economy. After opening their capital account they all suffered severe financial crises. Even after recovery the growth has severely slowed down. The same could be said about latin america, despite what you hear about chile, growth rates were significantly higher during the 50's and 60's through the process of industrialization. The dictatorships imposed from the US, besides proving that capitalism has nothing to do with freedom, slowed down growth to the point where countries like argentina have the same per capita income than 30 years ago.
>The reason why China is so successful is because it dumped the retarded Socialist policies during the 70s
China is following the east asian model, which is a mix of planned and free economy.
Yes, because this is the reality of the situation. There is no workforce discrimination, massive unemployment or a long history of disenfranchisement that has impeded brown loooking people in the past, no, it's just because they're lazy.
>rich people are generally parasites
>government bureaucrats and politicians are not
All of your points are wrong.
The landed aristocracy in Asia, and around the globe, was eliminated or made irrelevant by the advent of global trade and industry. Scandinavia was rich before socialism due to vast mineral wealth, and has merely stagnated since the adoption of socialistic policies. Also, Scandinavian countries have refrained from restraining free trade and free markets like legitimate socialist countries - and that explains why they're not Venezuela tier.
Well, I live in a "black area" and it's pretty nice. It's more mixed, actually, but it also is obvious that a history of segregation and discrimination has contributed to the plight of black Americans today. I'd love to have this discourse with you, but I have a feeling that you work from a position that is highly biased, and we wouldn't truly get anywhere.
I love the fact that every example of a successful free market in this thread are countries that don't pursue free markets and never have.
The USA, Britain, Japan etc. are not free markets. They never have been. They've always been protectionist nations which is why they've done so well.
The only real free market in the world is Somalia. As you can see, it's really thriving.
>Wrong. See HK and Singapore. Both of which became more prosperous after adopting free market policies.
That's false. In fact, it's so false that not even the world bank or the imf agree with what you are saying.
See the papers on the asian miracle by the world bank (1991), amsden (1994), and stiglitz (1997) for reference.
>ask for an economic paper
>get linked to a blog
>by a fox news producer
>that studied Language Arts & Social Studies
I'll read the blog but you are a fucking retard.
>The landed aristocracy in Asia, and around the globe, was eliminated or made irrelevant by the advent of global trade and industry.
Landed aristocracy plays an enormous role in third world countries, and has actively opposed industrialization in many of them.
>Scandinavia was rich before socialism due to vast mineral wealth
Ridiculous arguments. Tons of latin american and african countries have plently of natural resources. In fact, natural resources in negatively correlated with development.
>Also, Scandinavian countries have refrained from restraining free trade and free markets like legitimate socialist countries - and that explains why they're not Venezuela tier.
Irrelevant to a discussion that started with someone claiming that redistrubution would lead to economic apocalypse. I never defended central planning.
Trotsky had utterly failed to achieve power in the party, and the "left" line had also failed until Stalin did a right-left switch to tail end the urban proletariat's spontaneous enactment of the Ural-Siberian method to solve the scissors-crises.
For fucksake, Trotsky destroyed the third revolution at Kronstadt.
1. Do you know where they are from? Their histories, who they were? Did you speak with any of the horrible black people that you talk about, or did you just judge them from afar?
2. Throwing your argument back at you, I live in Washington, D.C. I have had many interactions with blacks, whites, and many others in between. The black people that I know have been generally more loyal, loving people than whites, even though I have a best friend who IS white. Explain that.
>Somalia is a Leninist state
>Somalia is an anarchist state
Nice contradiction. It's a free market. Keep shilling for capitalism though.
>warlords control everything
That's exactly the point. In a genuine "free market", there is no state intervention which leads directly leads to chaos because it's the state which makes markets function. If we had a free market in the West, it would look exactly like Somalia.
Last time I checked, mate, libertarians as in libertarian socialists the people who created the word and the people known around the world other than in the United States as libertarians, advocate the abolition of government.
>Confirmed liar. The HK economy grew massively after ww2. It's GDP continued increasing greatly in the decades following up intil the 90s.
The paper has the growth rate from the 60s on. I previously said that the east asian countries had extreme growth in the 60s and 70s, which is what the paper shows. Be more specific or fuck off.
I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I'm convinced that neither does anyone else in this thread. Everyone's just looking for easy answers. "Just adopt socialism and wealth and prosperity will come, its so simple!" and if not "Just adopt free market principles and wealth and prosperity will come, its so simple!"
I've never studied economics. But I've lived long enough to know that answers to complex problems that have been debated and argued for decades and heavily affect the real world are never simple and never straight-forward.
Y'all are stupid people looking for easy answers that make vague promises of utopia which never come true one way or the other.
if youre gonna blame "plight" of niggers on something, dont blame it on racism
the highest income rates for blacks is in the American South, "Raycist land"
if you want to blame it on anything, blame it on deindustrialization
Blacks migrated from the South during the first half of the 20th century all across the country in order to fulfill increasing labor demand
up until post WW2 industrial labor was increasing ever further, but in the 1950s/1960s the american industrial sector contracted a metric shit ton
the jobs dissipated, but most everyones money was tied up in facilitating the whole migration from all friends and family, so half the blacks that moved out effectively became stuck in cities with noncompetitive job-skills (factories closing) and mortgages and rent to pay with no money in the bank
and years of unemployment and being broke might say.... cause the divorce rate to fucking skyrocket
We're not necessarily talking about free markets, but economic liberty in general - on a domestic scale.
The ability to start one's own business. The ability to invest in enterprises. The ability to farm one's own fields and raise one's own cattle, and tend to one's own flock. The ability to hold private property, so on and so on.
These things are necessary for political liberty, because in nations where they are not present an autocracy is forcefully oppressing the people.
>Landed aristocracy plays an enormous role in third world countries, and has actively opposed industrialization in many of them
I fail to see how a "landed aristocracy" that has political rule over certain parcels of land is comparable to the capitalistic upper-class which has private rights to resources in certain uninhabited pieces of land. Removing an aristocratic system of political control is quite different than redistributing wealth or property.
>Ridiculous arguments. Tons of latin american and african countries have plently of natural resources. In fact, natural resources in negatively correlated with development.
African countries and Latin American countries have their own reasons as to why they are poor, and it has nothing to do with natural resources. Chile and Namibia originated as resource-based economies, but attained high development through free market reforms. Scandinavia has a wealth of metals and emerged relatively unscathed from WWII.
>Irrelevant to a discussion that started with someone claiming that redistrubution would lead to economic apocalypse. I never defended central planning.
Redistribution is central planning.
Well, they can. The jews weren't always an entrepreneurship people. It took centuries of reclusion as the only people who couldn't mix with the other europeans and being the only religion that was allowed to make a profit in business during the middle-ages.
>Somalians IMPROVED under anarchy
The only thing that has helped Somalia has been foreign aid which has increased rapidly due to the complete failure of the free market to help Somalians. Your "success" has been down to international charities not anarchy.
>Socialism is that fucking garbage.
I love the fact people complain about socialism through the internet, you know a creation by the government not by the free market. Throw in virtually every computer component. All socialist creations :)
>more jobs aren't good for the people
>more wealth isn't good for the people
>le race is a social construct meme
Since you obviously love leddit so much, why don't you go back there and take a look at this, dumbass. Denying that the differences between races is merely in the area of skin tone is the height of ignorance.
Something like 4% of the country is legally barred from voting and it is extremely common for states or localities to make it difficult for *certain groups* to vote. Only 40% or so of the population votes regularly.
>gdp is income of all residents
you mean per capita
that means that you distribue all the production of the country per person
that obbviously doesn't show each person getting that much money , and also it doesn't take into account how that money impacts their lives
you're a huge retard in economics
>Well, they can.
Why don't they, then? Heck, why doesn't everyone adopt "jewish culture" and become super successful?
>It took centuries of reclusion as the only people who couldn't mix with the other europeans and being the only religion that was allowed to make a profit in business during the middle-ages.
Correction : it took centuries of eugenics for jewish people to rise to prominence.
>Singapore and Hong Kong
The Asian miracle countries didn't pursue free markets. Have you actually read anything written about these countries' success stories? It was all protectionism.
- ‘[South Korean] President Park launched the ambitious Heavy and Chemical Industrialization (HCI) program in 1973. The first steel mill and the first modern shipyard went into production, and the first locally designed cards (made mostly from imported parts) rolled off the production lines. New firms were set up in electronics, machinery, chemicals and other advanced industries. During this period, the country’s per capita income grew phenomenally by more than five times, in US dollar terms, between 1972 and 1979. Park’s apparently delusional goal of $1,000 per capita income by 1981 was actually achieved four years ahead of schedule. Exports grew even faster, increasing nine times, in US dollar terms, between 1972 and 1979.’ (7)
- ‘ Korea ’s progress is as if Haiti had turned into Switzerland .’ (12)
- ‘What Korea actually did during these decades was to nurture certain new industries, selected by the government in consultation with the private sector, through tariff protection, subsidies and other forms of government support (e.g., overseas marketing information services provided by the state export agency).’ (14)
- ‘Korean exports in the earlier period – things like simple garments and cheap electronics – were all means to earn hard currencies needed to pay for the advanced technologies and expensive machines that were necessary for the new, more difficult industries, which were protected through tariffs and subsidies. At the same time, tariff protection and subsides were not there to shield industries from international competition forever, but to give them the time to absorb new technologies and establish new organizational capabilities until they could compete in the world market.’ (14-15)
NO RICH COUNTRY IN HISTORY PURSUED FREE MARKETS
I love the fact you're actually defending Somalia. What happened before Anarchy was civil war not socialism.
Every economic organisation looks at Somalia and calls the place a disaster except libertarian shills.
>Singapore isn't a dictatorship
Let's be serious.
>If the ruling party was inept (which it certainly isn't), it could be voted out
Technically it could be, sure, like in any dictatorship that bothers allowing elections.
>which it certainly isn't
Plenty of people have been terribly dissatisfied with PAP in the last few years, but it holds onto power mostly through sheer inertia, like other East Asian ruling parties.
My dear anon, if you would just read about the economic policies the tigers implemented instead of seeking confirmation for your preconceived conclusion you would realize you are objectively wrong. East asian tigers in the 60s and 70s had: capital account control, nationalized banking (south korea), managed interest rates, financial repression, state allocation of credits, differential interest rates for different economic agents, managed exchange rates, very high selective tariffs, extremely subsidized industry (particularly the exporting sectors), wage repression, export targets, public/private coordination, five-year plans, etc.
It's only by ideological mental juggles or extreme ignorance that you could make the claim that the asian tigers were pure free market economies. As most countries that successfully developed, they were mixed economies with heavy government intervention in the early stages.
>capitalism isn't reliant on government
>socialism always requires totalitarianism
>The rich earn money just to stuff it in offshore bank accounts and do nothing with it
Okay, if that's what you think.
>U.S has worse income disparity than the fucking 20's
Is that because of the free market, or the government driving wealth and business out of this country with a 70,000 page tax code containing the most punitive tax rates in the Western world?
This is hilarious because the discussion started by you stating that:
>countries all experience more prosperity and economic growth after deregulation
Yet, while trying to defend HK, you quote that:
>This means that Hong Kong fits outside the usual models of Asian economic development based on state-led industrialization (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) or domination of foreign firms (Singapore) or large firms with close relations to the state (Japan, South Korea).
Which states that most countries in the east asian miracle developed though state-led industrialization, proving yourself wrong.
On the issue of HK, state intervention goes beyond fiscal policy.
>government driving wealth and business out of this country
What the fuck are you talking about
The rich are the richest they've ever been
The lower and middle class are the ones suffering, not the fucking bourgeois
I never said Somalia is a successful country or even desirable you retarded leftist filth. I stated that compared to its socialist years, the country is better off. Life for Somalians improved.
The reason that Somalia is the way it is today is because of a failed marxist-lenist regime that collapsed on itself. Not free market policies, stupid fuck.
Let me requote
>Second, until the late 1960s, the government did not engage in active industrial planning. This was partly because the government was preoccupied with social spending on housing large flows of immigrants, and partly because of an ideological sympathy for free market forces. This means that Hong Kong fits outside the usual models of Asian economic development based on state-led industrialization (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) or domination of foreign firms (Singapore) or large firms with close relations to the state (Japan, South Korea). Low taxes, lax employment laws, absence of government debt, and free trade are all pillars of the Hong Kong experience of economic development.
>The hand of government was much lighter on international trade and finance. Exchange controls were limited to a few imposed by the U.K., and there were no controls on international flows of capital. Government expenditure even fell from 7.5% of GDP in the 1960s to 6.5% in the 1970s. In the same decades, British government spending as a percent of GDP rose from 17% to 20%.
Get fucking rekt. HK was a free market economy.
For that matter, the American economy is apparently doing just fine despite the best efforts of Comrade Obama to stamp out capitalism. Not a particularly rosy period, but nothing catastrophic.
>>countries all experience more prosperity and economic growth after deregulation
This is true. See HK, Chile, Germany and China.
I never said SK or Taiwan experiences economic growth because of deregulation. I never said they were free market. That was somebody else.
>state interventionism goes beyond fiscal
True in terms of housing.
Your claim of no country ever have becoming richer after pursuing free market policies is proven false. Fuck off marxist faggot.
I'm pro-Friedman, and I'd like to refute your point.
Capitalism needs some form of regulatory body, such as a government, to ensure contracts between people are maintained, and property rights are respected.
Industrialization is nurtured by the state, however it's unwise for post-industrial economies to artificially support their industries. It kills innovation and encourages inefficiency, look at the Soviets.
You just complained about offshore banking, and I'm telling you it's a symptom of unreasonable taxation. A lot of outsourcing is too, what corporation wants to be in the U.S. when they're taxed at nearly 40%?
>The rich are the richest they've ever been
The fact is, Communism is simply replacing "bourgoisie" with "bureaucrat". Rich people will always exist and experience less hurt during recessions - whether it be the CEO of Walmart or the State Commissar.
Your argument is a little incoherent, since history has proven lassiez-faire policies increase the quality of life for both the upper and lower classes, while Communism decreases it for both.
>Get fucking rekt. HK was a free market economy.
First, an epistemological disgression. Your statement that "countries all experience more prosperity and economic growth after deregulation" is an universal statement, and can therefore by proven false with a counterexample (which you kindly provide in your own quote) but can't be proven right with an example. Which means you lost the discussion already and i'm just responding for fun.
Second, on HK itself, there is no doubt that it was the less intervened of the asian tigers, but as i said before intervention goes beyond fiscal policy. It's pretty funny to read people claiming that the east asian countries were free market economies, considering they would call their governments communist dictatorships if they were to try something even close to what the tigers did.
Why, because you got BTFO?
The reason why wages of the poorest in America haven't risen since the 60s is because America is not reliant on unskilled jobs anymore. Most job creation following the 1960s was in "high-intelligence" sectors, such as the tech sector.
If you're smart in America in 2015, you will be very prosperous.
>tfw learning to draw so i can work for myself from home by drawing anime porn for people
i will never be a wageslave again....
>Ah, so you believe in the great American myth of "rugged individualism."
I believe anyone should be free to do what he wants. That includes enterpreneurship.
>I believe that the NYT summed up what was wrong with the U.S -we think of ourselves as "embarrassed millionaires"
The term was coined by the commie Steinbeck, and why is it a bad thing? I'd rather live in a society where people aspire to better themselves through hard work than in a society of apathetic niggers who are satisfied with receiving their monthly welfare check.
>First, an epistemological disgression. Your statement that "countries all experience more prosperity and economic growth after deregulation" is an universal statement, and can therefore by proven false with a counterexample (which you kindly provide in your own quote) but can't be proven right with an example. Which means you lost the discussion already and i'm just responding for fun.
When I waid that I meant all countries that have deregulated experienced economic booms.
You didn't counter that or even prove it wrong. In order for you to do so, all you had to do was provide a country where its economy was liberalised and became worse. You didn't.
>on HK itself, there is no doubt that it was the less intervened of the asian tigers, but as i said before intervention goes beyond fiscal policy.
We are discussing fiscal policy here. Not personal or housing.
It's nice to see you concede that HK is free market though.
If Somalia was a Marxist-Leninist state it would have rapidly industrialised like the USSR did. It was never a socialist state.
Even so. Let's say for the sake or argument it was a socialist state. Why is the free market not producing rapid growth in Somalia? Why aren't there huge businesses going over there to take advantage of the no tax/no regulation economy for profit and producing a thriving capitalist nation?
What do you mean by political freedom?
Politics is controlled by a small class and always has been economic freedom has hardly stopped that. It just means the people with the most cash have political freedom.
>not every socialist state has to end up like that
>all the others did
>but if we try just one more time it'll work...
You're taking the wealth from individuals and concentrating it in the hands of a single, all-powerful, government. If bureaucrats don't get their hands on it, who does?
What's even worse, is that this government never has to fix inefficiencies because more money can always be printed, and large-scale waste becomes a small blip in a sea of trillions of dollars.
Interesting that your example of a free market -a former British colony- is a country where all the land is owned by the government.
How on earth can Hong Kong be a free market when the market owns 0 land?
>all the others did
Except they didn't.
First example I can think of is Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War
>You're taking the wealth from individuals and concentrating it in the hands of a single, all-powerful, government.
I never said that.
>You didn't counter that or even prove it wrong. In order for you to do so, all you had to do was provide a country where its economy was liberalised and became worse. You didn't.
I did at the beggining. The 1997 asian financial crisis, the 70's and 80's in latin america. An extreme case in argentina in the 90's, which was considered the best example of economic liberalization, and ended up in the worst crisis of their history in 2001.
I don't feel like repeating myself and you seem to have no idea about what you are discussing.
>If Somalia was a Marxist-Leninist state it would have rapidly industrialised like the USSR did. It was never a socialist state.
Every fucking time with you folks.
>Why aren't there huge businesses going over there to take advantage of the no tax/no regulation economy for profit and producing a thriving capitalist nation?
Who says they aren't?
True, but that already requires a higher IQ than ditch digging.
>When the day comes
Which means, never. Keep on fantasizing about killing rich people while living in your mom's basement leeching off welfare.
Correct, it got rich thanks to free market capitalism during the first half of the 20th century.
Well, sure, but I'll probably have an upper middle class income once I graduate.
Also that smiley face suggests you went on a long, self conceited smug self important rant with no real point other than to try to win an argument based of a technicality instead of wanting to learn something new
All those countries had eocnomic booms after deregulation.
>1997 asian financial crisis
Which they recovered from and HK still remains one of the richest countries in the world with a very high GDP.
Countries can sometimes have financial crisis. What a shocker. Your scandanvian utopias have suffered recessions too reyard.
>70s 80s latin america financial crisis
Look up the Chilean miracle.
>By the first half of 2003, however, GDP growth had returned, surprising economists and the business media, and the economy grew by an average of 9% for five years.
Hell Aregtninas economy size doubled since then.
Because fiscally HK is very free market. Never said it's a libertarian country OVERALL.
The workers controlled the means of production, most under the wing of the CNT FAI.
That is the textbook definition of socialism.
And the anarchists did in fact join the Generalitat of Catalonia
>the government supplies investment to the people
>the government creates a complex bureaucratic system to deal with the investment in the totality of a countries economy
>the bureaucrats effectively have control of the economy and proceed to accumulate power and wealth because they now own the means of production for all intents and purposes creating a new hierarchy which is extremely unequal and on top incredibly inefficient because the government tries to control a system that is by its very nature uncontrollable and decentralized
>welcome to the soviet union
Again you make me repeat myself. I'll stop responding if you continue being retarded.
Both latin american and east asian countries had a lower average growth rate after deregulation (which is shown in the paper you linked to, making this conversation pretty retarded), so "they rebounded", as retarded as it is (why adopt policies that lead to economic crises, even if you rebound?), isn't even a valid argument. Financial crises are relevant because their ocurrence increses exponentially with capital account liberalization. And Argentina economy size doubled with non-orthodox policies and state intervention. To be fair, argentina is also an example of intervention going wrong. In any, case you are extremely ignorant.
Say something new/smart or don't even bother, i won't repeat myself.
I'm well aware race is just humans categorizing observable shit, which does indeed make it a social construct. However, that doesn't mean it's meaningless or invalid, which is what the people who push this garbage are implying.
>Both latin american and east asian countries had a lower average growth rate after deregulation (which is shown in the paper you linked to
Which countries? Chile and HK? This isn't the case. HK deregulated post ww2. Are you saying their ww2 grwoth was higher? Nigger you best be joking.
>economic deregulation is what led to the financial crisis in argentina
Overdue loans caused the crisis, not deregulation. Nice try.
>Which countries? Chile and HK? This isn't the case. HK deregulated post ww2. Are you saying their ww2 grwoth was higher? Nigger you best be joking.
It's like talking to a brick wall. You asked for a counterexample("all you had to do was provide a country where its economy was liberalised and became worse"), i gave you several. You are wrong about Chile and HK but they are completely irrelevant.
Come back when you understand basic logic.
>Overdue loans caused the crisis, not deregulation. Nice try.
Is this a joke? Seriously, are you trolling? Your source for what caused the economic crisis in argentina is a paragraph from a blog? Just admit you don't know shit about it and desperately looked up for whatever fit your argument. All throught the deregulation in the 90s argentina had enormous unemployment issues that were historically non existant for the country (25% vs a historical rate of around 6%), massive poverty, massive de-industrialization, etc. Funnily, debt problems in argentina were a consequence of the private debt incurred during the 70's after capital account deregulation, so once again you prove yourself wrong.
Anyway, if you are intellectually dishonest enough to discuss a subject you know nothing about and look up whatever you can find that confirm what you want to beleive there's no point in discussing with you. Keep beleiving your own lies anon.