chris1089 wrote:At least personally, I don't think the free market is a solution. I think it is the least bad system. Socialism, communism and fascism have been tried and have failed numerous times around the world : think India in the 60s, China in the 50s, Russia, Venuzuela now, Failed strongmen in the middle east and Africa... the list goes on. By contrast, countries such as the UK, Netherlands, US, Germany who have adopted (classical) liberal values of freedom and allow entrepreneurship, free(ish) trade and only mainly regulate just for safety, the environment and most important services (such as health insurance, NHS) are very well off. Even by modern standards, ignoring millenia where the richest were in today's poverty, even those living on the minimum wage in these countries have a high standard of living. Many have a car, almost all have a TV, their quality of nutrition, particularly in the Netherlands, is high and they generally have a better life than most people in most other countries around the world.Goodspeed wrote:There are actually people who think an unregulated free market has a way of working out the solution for every problem. At least, the economic ones. But the second part of my post is not there for no reason; why is there this faith in the trickle down economy, where an unregulated free market has a way of (economically) benefiting everyone?
As for the trickle down theory, this is a misrepresentation of the free market used by (in the UK) the left.
I think you are throwing too many buzzwords into the same pot, mixing them up a bit. Free market, socialism, communism and fascism partially refer to entirely different political or economic concepts. They don't even exclude each other.
The trickle down theory is an economic concept with roots already in Adam Smith's works. Unfortunately, it became a highly politicized topic in the Reagan years as well as today with Trump. As with many economic theories, it has its merits, but should not be taken as the sole explanation for economic phenomena. It may be one mechanism among dozens of mechanisms which all work in the very same moment. The important question is always: is the mechanism that I am currently looking at really the right one to address to improve the situation?
As the real effect of trickle down economics is negligible (though still existing), it is seldomly a good idea to base far reaching policy measures on it.
Talking about poorer countries, I believe that the lack of historically grown institutions is the biggest obstacle for a successful development. Bureaucracy, though often condemned, is one of the most important aspects of todays advanced societies. E.g. the abilities to exert control over your territory, to regulate where it is necessary, and to measure precisely given the data accumulated by bureaucratic means allows a country to develop. Of course some of these abilities can be misused.
Controlling your territory can easily lead to controlling your citizens -> totalitatrian societies
Too much regulation can asphyxiate creativity -> stagnating societies
Nevertheless, you need all of them. The small government proponents often express their fear that a big government may lead to oppression. While that risk should not be downplayed, a small government is also much weaker against corporate interests and manipulation by the rich - both of which hamper economic and societal progress as well as, in the long run, the extent of available freedoms.