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?
The profit motive drives profit, not development. See: rapid enshittification and exploitation.
The important thing there is ‘how are incentives aligned?’
With a lightbulb factory, both the capitalist and the public wins if they’re making better, cheaper lightbulbs. Because incentives are aligned, both the capitalist and the public wins when they figure out how to improve the factory. Look at the prices of LED bulbs or TVs over the last few decades.
Enshittification is due to the public being the product. The public does worse when the capitalist does better.
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?
I feel like you’re pointing at a Ferris Wheel, trying to explain why the top-most cage is actually held there permanently by physics.
What lifts people, development or individuals owning tools, rather than the collective? You seem to think it’s the latter.
The profit motive drives profit, not development. See: rapid enshittification and exploitation.
Prove the inefficiency in Communism and Anarchism, this is a baseless claim.
Development drives material conditions, not individuals owning tools.
All in all, you’re full of it.
The important thing there is ‘how are incentives aligned?’
With a lightbulb factory, both the capitalist and the public wins if they’re making better, cheaper lightbulbs. Because incentives are aligned, both the capitalist and the public wins when they figure out how to improve the factory. Look at the prices of LED bulbs or TVs over the last few decades.
Enshittification is due to the public being the product. The public does worse when the capitalist does better.
The profit motive is fundamentally a mixed bag.