"1 — 5/6/2025 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 
1 — 5/6/2025 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. 
1 — 5/6/2025 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. 
2 — Yesterday at 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
1 — Yesterday at 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.
1 — Yesterday at 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
1. 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.
1 — Yesterday at 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. 
1 — Yesterday at 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.
1 — Yesterday at 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.
2 — Yesterday at 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
1 — Yesterday at 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
2 — Yesterday at 1:20 PM
Partisan = not mainstream??
1 — Yesterday at 1:20 PM
You're literally acting like the earth is flat in economics because of ideal models.
2 — Yesterday at 1:20 PM
No
My issue is that you take your dogmatic opinions and present them as scientific consensus
2 — Yesterday at 1:21 PM
Also I dare you to show me where they said governments only mess things up
1 — Yesterday at 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 
1 — Yesterday at 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.
2 — Yesterday at 1:25 PM
What does that even mean
1 — Yesterday at 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.
2 — Yesterday at 1:26 PM
Also this is wrong
1 — Yesterday at 1:26 PM
According to you or according to what?
2 — Yesterday at 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
1 — Yesterday at 1:28 PM
because when you go to university THATS HOW ITS BASICALLY taught.
2 — Yesterday at 1:28 PM
How are you taking the "tool that come closest to understand reality" and treat it like real life
1 — Yesterday at 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.
2 — Yesterday at 1:28 PM
According to anyone who studied economics
Hell if you use chat gpt it will probably tell you that you're wrong
1 — Yesterday at 1:29 PM
Do, please.
2 — Yesterday at 1:29 PM
It doesn't even work irl give me one example where a country does it
1 — Yesterday at 1:29 PM
Don't do out of thin air affirmations, fundament them.
2 — Yesterday at 1:30 PM
Do you understand what you're saying
You're taking perfect conditions and applying them irl
And Idc about that you're entitled to your opinion but the moment you act like it's scientific conscious you'll be held accountable for your claims
2 — Yesterday at 1:32 PM
Do you want me to fact check you using ai?
1 — Yesterday at 1:34 PM
Literally the thinking that market knows best doesn't refer to "ideal models", the ideal models are just tools. We see that market works best through the data. 
you're making a strawman bc ur bias is giant.
1 — Yesterday at 1:35 PM
You can ask AI who has a more correct stance according to orthodox economics.
2 — Yesterday at 1:36 PM
Markets knows best is true in foundations under perfect conditions but in this context you're making an ideological stance rather than an economical one
1 — Yesterday at 1:37 PM
No, it's the general rule we see in reality. You're bringing that up your ass. I just showed you a public, basic economy lesson that affirms it. It's also explicit in textbook economics 
Try again, grounding yourself better.
2 — Yesterday at 1:38 PM
This narrative is an ideologically capitalist pro free market one
2 — Yesterday at 1:38 PM
How is it true in reality when you showed me a theoretical class?
Do you want to talk reality give me an actual example
1 — Yesterday at 1:38 PM
You can be all poorer and more equal, it's literally a fact.
2 — Yesterday at 1:39 PM
It's a fact
The way you select facts is what a narrative is
1 — Yesterday at 1:39 PM
Because the teacher said "economics at its core". That is, the best way to understand economics, is about markets being efficient, and where they fail, which is not easy to assess, then that's the other part of economics
Without accepting that they're efficient, you're suscribing to the ideological stance
That's not our ideological stance.
You just don't wanna see it.
2 — Yesterday at 1:40 PM
That's all still theoretical
1 — Yesterday at 1:42 PM
No, it's how economics work. The "invisible hand" way of thinking about the market is what dominates economic science thinking. 
You're lying. 
2 — Yesterday at 1:44 PM
The hand is a capitalistic idea
You're taking ideological ideas and presenting them as objective science
Misleading at best dangerous as worst
2 — Yesterday at 1:46 PM
Also are you gonna keep avoiding giving actual examples
Where does the invisible hand work?
Give a country name
1 — Yesterday at 1:46 PM
Image
it's ECONOMIC SCIENCE. read a book, for fuck's sake.
1 — Yesterday at 1:47 PM
Literally every country that uses market forces, that is, most of them.
It's literally the core of economics, the invisible hand. Oh my god.
2 — Yesterday at 1:48 PM
Give a country name
1 — Yesterday at 1:49 PM
Yeh you're full blown ideological and can't see facts. 
2 — Yesterday at 1:49 PM
I didn't even present any ideology
Remember you're the one making claims
Do you have a name?
1 — Yesterday at 1:51 PM
I'm telling you the claim economic science does. You haven't refuted any of it. You're pretending to.
2 — Yesterday at 1:51 PM
So you don't have a name
1 — Yesterday at 1:52 PM
I said mostly every country uses market forces to produce and have good standards of living.
you can pick a country, probably is in.
You're just bringing things up your ass, open a book please.
2 — Yesterday at 1:53 PM
The guy was talking about real life idea and you started talking about free markets
1 — Yesterday at 1:53 PM
The guy talked about how to understand economics in the real world, and you're acting like he didnt.
Want another quote from a book used in unviersities?
Ok, fucker, here we go
Its translated from spanish, but same book
"What Smith asserts is that the actors in the economy are motivated by their own self-interest, and that the “invisible hand” of the market is what guides this self-interest to promote the economic well-being of society.

Many of Smith’s contributions form the core ideas of contemporary economic thought. The analyses we will carry out in the following chapters will allow us to express this thinker's conclusions with greater precision, and we will also be able to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the market’s invisible hand." 
2 — Yesterday at 1:54 PM
Wow you're just an arrogant intellectual wannabe
1 — Yesterday at 1:54 PM
You are bringing things up your ass.
2 — Yesterday at 1:55 PM
No you are
1 — Yesterday at 1:55 PM
I was talking about markets, mostly free ones.
2 — Yesterday at 1:55 PM
You have superficial theorical knowledge
1 — Yesterday at 1:55 PM
Refute then.
2 — Yesterday at 1:55 PM
There's no free markets cause all markets have some form of intervention
It's the same pattern all again you're talking perfect condition
And I'm talking real world
1 — Yesterday at 1:57 PM
Real world-market forces are efficient and make the high levels of production possible. That's basic economics, you're acting like because there's goverment regulation that it doesn't exist
Thats literally dumb as fuck
Can you read the economics book so you stop lying?=
2 — Yesterday at 1:57 PM
How's that even relevant to what I said
You're just stating theories again
2 — Yesterday at 1:58 PM
Stop lying?
Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar?
This is the same black and white us vs them mentality that you're running on when you have fake intellectual superiority and frame your opinions as scientific consensus
1 — Yesterday at 2:00 PM
I presented a book that's taught in basic economy classes. Clear book statements that support my view. You're bringing things up your ass.
2 — Yesterday at 2:01 PM
Okay buddy
Everybody is wrong except you
1 — Yesterday at 2:02 PM
So you can't answer when you're pressed.
You literally haven't done anything but provide skepticism and opinions without providing any real sources.
Plus, you use that skepticism against standard economic thinking.
"Today, most countries that once had centrally planned economies have aban
doned this system and are trying to develop market economies. In a market econ
omy, the decisions of a central planner are replaced by the decisions of millions of
 firms and households. Firms decide whom to hire and what to make. Households
 decide which firms to work for and what to buy with their incomes. These firms
 and households interact in the marketplace, where prices and self-interest guide
 their decisions.
 At first glance, the success of market economies is puzzling. After all, in a mar
ket economy, no one is looking out for the economic well-being of society as
 a whole. Free markets contain many buyers and sellers of numerous goods and
 services, and all of them are interested primarily in their own well-being. Yet,
 despite decentralized decisionmaking and self-interested decisionmakers, market
 economies have proven remarkably successful in organizing economic activity in
 a way that promotes overall economic well-being." 
Don't worry tho, it's wrong because you say so.
1 — Yesterday at 2:14 PM
Also thanks for accusing me of stating theories, as if science has something "better" than theories
full blown anti science right there
Literally what flat earthers do 
And other science denier groups and conspiracists"


--Short, no bullshit: Who seems smarter? Who is misunderstanding concepts? (One line for each)
(Take into account every comment)