Interesting. And, now you mention it, I knew that the "Asian Tigers" had a lot of deliberate industrial policies supporting their growth and for some reason it just hadn't clicked that these are precisely the countries that Norberg is talking about! And it would indeed have been an excellent point to add into the section about industrial policies at the end. China too is not exactly "laissez-faire" to its high growth market economy. Thanks for the comment.
I agree. I guess the point here is more about questioning why some people seem to want to take a sort of "anti-government" stance, when actually, as demonstrated by the Asian Tigers, effective government industrial policy can often be a great boost to the growth and healthy functioning of the capitalist market economy. We need both to have a thriving liberal society.
Regarding the "rhetorical pattern"... let's turn it on its head? Is there a non-capitalist example, without free money from e.g. natural resources, that is a nice place to live? Where "nice" include freedom to leave, freedom of opinion, access to education/health care, etc? I am not aware of any. For me, the alternative ways to organize a society to capitalism with an open society, looks like excuses for a junta, to enslave the local population and steal everything.
Hi, yes, I agree, which is why I don't understand it when some people take an "anti-capitalist" stance. But, I guess the key point I'm trying to make in my video is that I also don't understand taking an "anti-government" stance when actually many of the nice things you mentioned, (freedom of opinion, access to education/health) are not things that capitalist mechanisms are capable of delivering exclusively by themselves. Liberal, democratic governments are also an essential part of the package. To have a flourishing, liberal society we need a healthy interplay between liberal democracy and market capitalism with a continual attempt to seek out and get rid of the worst aspects of both of them, but to also improve and champion the best bits of both of them.
@@Go-Meta Hmm... You seem to build a good case for the straw man position. It seems to me, that the logical next step for libertarians should be in political science -- like building theories about how a state can make it visible, when political parties do a regulatory capture and start misusing resources to stay in power. Which is quite funny.
Any work to help shine a disinfecting light on the worst abuses of state power would be great. While I champion the role of the liberal, democratic state, I certainly agree that there are many aspects of it that need to be radically improved.
“Great job!” That’s what I said to myself about my hard trying self that had listened to this compote for 5 min. Yeah, that was not easy because it insulted my intelligence.
Please give us an alternative. Seems you are only posing questions. There is a great quote from Chomsky when he was asked about his opinion on capitalism, to which he responded “Ghandi was once asked what he thinks about western civilization, and he said maybe it would be a good idea. And you can say the same about capitalism, we’ve never had anything remotely resembling it.”
I'm not at all suggesting that we should scrap capitalism, and indeed it's an interesting quote you mention from Chomsky as it seems to imply a similar thought to one that I've had, which is that progressives should actually encourage proper functioning markets for certain sectors of the economy. What we often have instead is more like corporatism supported by a captured (corrupted!) government, so a genuine competitive market place would often be an improvement. I guess my overall point in the video is to encourage "anti-government" libertarians to recognise the essential role of government, and indeed "anti-capitalists" to recognise that capitalism can be a very effective way to organise certain parts of the political economy. They both have problems, but they both have strengths too and we need them both, working together. But if that didn't come across in my video then I need to improve my scripting 😀 as I certainly don't want to come across as just asking questions. At the very least I hope I am hinting at the route towards solutions 😀 Thanks for the comment.
South Korea had a highly interventionist government, which is exactly why it is a successful economy
Interesting. And, now you mention it, I knew that the "Asian Tigers" had a lot of deliberate industrial policies supporting their growth and for some reason it just hadn't clicked that these are precisely the countries that Norberg is talking about! And it would indeed have been an excellent point to add into the section about industrial policies at the end. China too is not exactly "laissez-faire" to its high growth market economy.
Thanks for the comment.
Doesn’t change the fact it’s a market capitalist society, just with extra government involvement and propping up infant industries early on
I agree. I guess the point here is more about questioning why some people seem to want to take a sort of "anti-government" stance, when actually, as demonstrated by the Asian Tigers, effective government industrial policy can often be a great boost to the growth and healthy functioning of the capitalist market economy. We need both to have a thriving liberal society.
very nice job Oli - super balanced and thoughtful
Hey Giles, thanks! 👍
Regarding the "rhetorical pattern"... let's turn it on its head?
Is there a non-capitalist example, without free money from e.g. natural resources, that is a nice place to live? Where "nice" include freedom to leave, freedom of opinion, access to education/health care, etc? I am not aware of any.
For me, the alternative ways to organize a society to capitalism with an open society, looks like excuses for a junta, to enslave the local population and steal everything.
Hi, yes, I agree, which is why I don't understand it when some people take an "anti-capitalist" stance.
But, I guess the key point I'm trying to make in my video is that I also don't understand taking an "anti-government" stance when actually many of the nice things you mentioned, (freedom of opinion, access to education/health) are not things that capitalist mechanisms are capable of delivering exclusively by themselves. Liberal, democratic governments are also an essential part of the package.
To have a flourishing, liberal society we need a healthy interplay between liberal democracy and market capitalism with a continual attempt to seek out and get rid of the worst aspects of both of them, but to also improve and champion the best bits of both of them.
@@Go-Meta Hmm... You seem to build a good case for the straw man position. It seems to me, that the logical next step for libertarians should be in political science -- like building theories about how a state can make it visible, when political parties do a regulatory capture and start misusing resources to stay in power. Which is quite funny.
Any work to help shine a disinfecting light on the worst abuses of state power would be great. While I champion the role of the liberal, democratic state, I certainly agree that there are many aspects of it that need to be radically improved.
“Great job!” That’s what I said to myself about my hard trying self that had listened to this compote for 5 min. Yeah, that was not easy because it insulted my intelligence.
Sorry my dish wasn't to your taste this time, I'll try to deliver some tasty doughnuts in my next videos!
Please give us an alternative. Seems you are only posing questions. There is a great quote from Chomsky when he was asked about his opinion on capitalism, to which he responded “Ghandi was once asked what he thinks about western civilization, and he said maybe it would be a good idea. And you can say the same about capitalism, we’ve never had anything remotely resembling it.”
I'm not at all suggesting that we should scrap capitalism, and indeed it's an interesting quote you mention from Chomsky as it seems to imply a similar thought to one that I've had, which is that progressives should actually encourage proper functioning markets for certain sectors of the economy. What we often have instead is more like corporatism supported by a captured (corrupted!) government, so a genuine competitive market place would often be an improvement.
I guess my overall point in the video is to encourage "anti-government" libertarians to recognise the essential role of government, and indeed "anti-capitalists" to recognise that capitalism can be a very effective way to organise certain parts of the political economy. They both have problems, but they both have strengths too and we need them both, working together.
But if that didn't come across in my video then I need to improve my scripting 😀 as I certainly don't want to come across as just asking questions. At the very least I hope I am hinting at the route towards solutions 😀
Thanks for the comment.