• count_dongulus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    No, it’s because despite being worse for the lower rungs of the human experience without strong controls, well-managed market economies lift countries higher than their alternate economy peers. Markets are more efficient because incentives drive the economy to prosperity at a faster rate. Feudalism, communism, anarchism, corporatism, etc are comparatively inefficient and eventually lead to a scenario where the market economies outpace others, and trade imbalances magnify that disparity. You eventually run a high risk of social upheaval when the people look at their more prosperous neighbors with envy, and wonder “why don’t we have what they have?” You see either political instability to drive change, or authoritarian strongmen who delude the people that regardless of reality, the system in place is best. Economic power generally leads to military power too.

    What happened to the USSR? Why are China and Vietnam now market economies? What kind of economy does North Korea have? Why don’t countries still engage in mercantilism or feudalism?

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago
      1. What lifts people, development or individuals owning tools, rather than the collective? You seem to think it’s the latter.

      2. The profit motive drives profit, not development. See: rapid enshittification and exploitation.

      3. Prove the inefficiency in Communism and Anarchism, this is a baseless claim.

      4. Development drives material conditions, not individuals owning tools.

      All in all, you’re full of it.