"2 — Yesterday at 2:40 PM
You're completely off at the start: textbook economics clearly states that capitalism through markets (free ones) efficiently allocates resources. This isn't even up for debate in economic science.
You're going against basic knowledge we have about markets and scarce resources there
2 — Yesterday at 2:57 PM
You're also actually mixing up wealth inequality with standard of living. A society can be a lot more equal and still be a lot poorer overall - equality doesn’t automatically mean people are better off.
And that, sadly, actually happens. By politicians who claim to fight inequality.
2 — Yesterday at 3:07 PM
And we can be sure about that counterargument since we know the opposite is backed up by economic science- markets raise the standard of living, but also can create a kind of inequality of income.
So logically when you destroy that you lose the benefit - standard of living- and revert equality.
1 — 9:01 AM
Why do you throw statements like this as if it's objective truth and say it's not debatable this is literally wrong where do you get your resources from?

Are you studying eco 101 or something and you're assuming ideal conditions? Because textbooks emphasize market failures (monopolies / pollution / asymmetric information) where markets don’t allocate resources efficiently

If it's not heavily debatable it would be the opposite
Mainstream economists like krugman and stiglitz argue that real world markets frequently fail and require regulation

No serious economist claims free markets work in the real world
Even libertarians like friedman acknowledged some need for government
2 — 11:28 AM
Market failures are built on top of our understanding that market knows best by default, honestly you're talking out of your ass and you don't know economics.
I'm literally just quoting economists and the general accepted view by them.
The economists you're talking about like krugman and stiglitz are partisan , their >political< views don't necessarily align with conventional orthodox thinking. Stiglitz is much more ideological than krugman though
They have reputation by other things, not their political views.
Market failures (like monopolies, pollution, asymmetric information) are defined as deviations from that baseline. Markets “know best” unless there’s a reason they don’t - that’s foundational in economics
Your issue is that your intuition failed and think that because you found a mainstream economist that focuses on market failures, then that's the conventional thinking by most mainstream economists or the most sensible view. That's not correct.
2 — 11:39 AM
You can literally clearly quote economists and textbook economics -the hard quotes, that are accepted by most of them, and the conventional view that is taught in the entire world by universities- that markets are efficient and "know best".
You can also quote about market failures on top of that.
But you can't quote or mimick the political views of the economists that agree with you, thinking that that's standard, unless you have a reason to.

About your comment on "free markets", that's an extreme. No one is talking about zero intervention. Markets are connected to the existence of a state providing basic rules for all. I'm talking about free markets as in "not excessively regulated ones", that is, mostly free markets.
Hope that helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OkTw766oCs
The first class of an MIT economy class also refutes you.
26.02:
"Economics at its core is all about how the market knows best, and that basically governments only mess things up."
YouTube
MIT OpenCourseWare

Introduction and Supply & Demand
Image
And yes, it does talk about market failures aswell.
This is the sober up and serious version of agreed economics. Market knows best.
Other sources so you learn a bit, principle of economics by mankiw.
2 — 12:00 PM
I can easily debunk your ideas further if you want, i just dont wanna yap too much.
In my country, Stiglitz is seen as a clown for backing another clown who learned from him. He praised him, called it an "economic miracle," then had to walk it back. No surprise from someone who steers away from conventional orthodox economics.
2 — 12:10 PM
https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/nobelist-stiglitz-rebuffed-after-praising-argentinas-economic-miracle.phtml?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Buenos Aires Times
Nobelist Stiglitz rebuffed after praising Argentina’s 'economic m...
Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz is facing a wave of criticism from peers after he claimed crisis-prone Argentina is witnessing “an economic miracle.”
Joseph Stiglitz, economics professor at Columbia University and Nobel laureate, pictured in 2020.
2 — 12:44 PM
needles to say the government he supported started with 50% annual inflation and ended up in 300% annual inflation, an economic disaster.
1 — 1:19 PM
Ah just as I expected ofc your source is eco 101 you should pay more attention and you'll understand that markets knows best is only true under perfect conditions and not in practice
2 — 1:20 PM
"ECONOMICS AT ITS CORE is about how market knows best."
The ideal model you're talking about it's true, its a model, that doesnt take out the first statement
1 — 1:20 PM
Partisan = not mainstream??
2 — 1:20 PM
You're literally acting like the earth is flat in economics because of ideal models.
1 — 1:20 PM
No
My issue is that you take your dogmatic opinions and present them as scientific consensus
1 — 1:21 PM
Also I dare you to show me where they said governments only mess things up
2 — 1:22 PM
Mainstream economists can hold views, "opinions", that are heterodox, and are more aligned with an ideological stance.
You call that partisan because it's biased to certain beliefs, not to hard economics/standard orthodox thinking
2 — 1:22 PM
Bro that's kinda cringe. I literally PUT the timestamp for you with a direct quote.
Also ofc you misquoted me
I said "basically" and talking about economics at its core
That's not saying goverment only mess things up.
1 — 1:25 PM
What does that even mean
2 — 1:26 PM
You're trying to debunk the conventional orthodox thinking with "oh, its just based on perfect models".
Yeah, those perfect models aren't reality, but they are the tools that come closest to understand that reality.
1 — 1:26 PM
Also this is wrong
2 — 1:26 PM
According to you or according to what?
1 — 1:27 PM
That's not how it works man the guy was proposing an idea to implement in real life and you basically said capitalism efficiently allocates recourses and followed it with this isn't even up for debate
2 — 1:28 PM
because when you go to university THATS HOW ITS BASICALLY taught.
1 — 1:28 PM
How are you taking the "tool that come closest to understand reality" and treat it like real life
2 — 1:28 PM
i literally showed you a video of a teacher explicitly saying it, and its explicit in textbook economics
You have a cognitive bias here that's hard to crack.
1 — 1:28 PM
According to anyone who studied economics
Hell if you use chat gpt it will probably tell you that you're wrong
2 — 1:29 PM
Do, please.
1 — 1:29 PM
It doesn't even work irl give me one example where a country does it
2 — 1:29 PM
Don't do out of thin air affirmations, fundament them."
Short, no bullshit  (One line)  Who's more correct? (Take into account every comment)