(no title)
palmfacehn | 4 months ago
We must also observe that opponents to laissez-faire liberalizations are by definition proponents of illiberal central planning.
Yes, vaguely liberalized economies have had problems. It doesn't follow that the problems of these vaguely liberalized economies are exclusively the result of liberalization. HN will harp on cherry picked citations. A common theme will be judging events in the distant past by the standards of the present.
The alternative is not a utopia, it is a relatively less free and more centrally planned economy. The failure mode of these centralized systems is more catastrophic, results in less opportunity and less productivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
AI is a technology to be used to improve the human condition. The laissez-faire system, to the extent that we allow it, is the decentralized way to allocate resources to serve humanity.
mcv|4 months ago
Note that free market economics and laissez-faire economics are not the same thing. A free market requires a transparent market that's equally accessible to everyone, that's not dominated by cartels and monopolies, and that requires some regulation. Laissez-faire opposes that regulation and wants to give free reign to cartels and monopolies. Adam Smith explicitly warned against those, and pointed out the necessity of workers organizing to avoid being taken advantage of. And that, workers having negotiating power, that is what increased their living standards.
> We must also observe that opponents to laissez-faire liberalizations are by definition proponents of illiberal central planning.
This is bullshit. There's the entire free market economy in between those two extremes.
culll_kuprey|4 months ago
You see, here’s the big problem. You people can’t even agree about what the object of your argument even is.
Were are fucked.