Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Free markets mean the only way to make money legally is to provide a product or service that other people want to buy. And people want to be healthy, educated, engaged and safe. In other words, it takes advantage of the inherently selfish nature of people to make others better off.

> obesity is at all time highs

Obesity is a choice. I know people won't like me writing that. I know it is very hard to lose weight. It's still a choice, though. I don't see how making people less free would change that.

> gen Z is the first generation to score less on standardized tests than the generation before them

The government is the primary institution that provides education, not the free market.

> civilians killed by law enforcement is at an all time high

I don't see how that is a result of economic freedom.

> Economic freedom at it's extreme will only lead to a weakening of the middle class

The US was much more economically free in the 1800s than now, and the middle class became the dominant class, by far.

> consolidation of wealth among those holding the most wealth.

Wealthy people get that way in a free market by creating products and services that other people want. In other words, they do not "consolidate" wealth, they create it.

> The US was much more economically free in the 1800s than now

Not much economic freedom for slaves or for Indians forced off their land (e.g. illegal seizure of the Black Hills by the US government [0], the Cherokee in Georgia, etc).

Prior to 1900s-era state laws and the federal Securities acts, you could sell fraudulent investments backed by nothing but the blue skies of Kansas. I suppose that's an economic freedom that was lost, can't say I miss it.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure_of_the_Black_Hills

Yes, we know a slave economy is not a free market.

> you could sell fraudulent investments

Fraud is against the law in a free market.

Then I don't understand how you can say "The US was much more economically free in the 1800s than now".

The growth in endless regulations, taxes, permits, etc., are a serious impediment. For example, being unable to rebuild after the Palisades fire.

Body weight is controllable, but is not the same thing as obesity, but scientific evidence does not suggest obesity is voluntary, but I'm not trying to talk about obesity. I was just merely using it as a proxy for societal health, because I hope you can agree that obesity is not healthy.

> The government is the primary institution that provides education

I thought there was a large section of free market libertarians that want to get rid of public schooling?

>I don't see how that is a result of economic freedom.

Again, i was using it as a proxy for safety, not economic freedom.

> The US was much more economically free in the 1800s than now

The middle class became the dominant class post-WWII. wtf are you talking about?

If I have one million people pay me $1000, I am creating value, but I not 'creating wealth' I would literally be consolidating the wealth of one million people into my bank account.

Owning desirable assets could be considered 'creating wealth' due to the price of those assets going up, but owning assets is not creating products and services that other people want.

I will go back to my original point, that economic freedom is not a panacea and does not solve for health, education, and safety, but rather creating things that people want to seperate them from their money. Health, education, and safety are all more effective when provided by the government.

> The middle class became the dominant class post-WWII.

I've heard that before, and it's simply not true. Pre-revolutionary colonial America had a thriving middle class.

Consider this. A couple of decades ago, a sunken Missisouppi river steamboat was found in the mud. It had foundered before the Civil War, I don't recall the date. And so it was dug out, and researchers went over its cargo.

They were shocked to find out what the cargo was.

It was everything needed for a general store. Pots, pans, jars, knives, forks, shoes, clothing, preserved meats and candies, tools, etc. Nothing in it was for rich people, it was all meant for the middle class. And it was packed to the gills with that cargo.

If you like, look at paintings and photographs of towns in the 1800s. Do you see a couple mansions, and a bunch of shacks? Nope. You see middle class homes, general stores, all signs of a prosperous middle class.

> all more effective when provided by the government

Government providing that has a pretty sorry history.

> due to the price of those assets going up

The price of the asset is a function of its ability to create value.

Do me a favor and point to an American history book that informed your point of view. But fair is fair, I submit:

https://www.amazon.com/ALASTAIR-COOKES-AMERICA-Alastair-Cook...

Read it and tell me that the US consisted of overlords and serfs. Yes, I know about the slave South, which was an overlord/serf economy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com