Comment by beedeebeedee
2 days ago
That is not accurate. There were many strikes in the industrial part of the US during the 1800's. That's how working conditions were improved in the mills. The free market would have crushed the working people had they not banded together and revolted to improve safety, reduce working hours, and increase pay.
Wikipedia has articles on the larger actions like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1835_Philadelphia_general_stri...
The rest of the US was primarily agricultural, and did not have major strikes until later, but the improvement in the lives of those people who lived there was not because of free markets. Their lives improved because of the immense natural resources that were literally being given away free to people to cultivate and exploit, after the Native Americans were subjugated and removed.
Strikes are not revolts.
> The rest of the US was primarily agricultural, and did not have major strikes until later, but the improvement in the lives of those people who lived there was not because of free markets. Their lives improved because of the immense natural resources that were literally being given away free to people to cultivate and exploit, after the Native Americans were subjugated and removed.
The same thing at the same time happened in Central and South America, yet prosperity and uplift never happened.
What's the difference? Free markets in the US. Unfree markets in Central and South America.
Japan, S Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong have no natural resources, but when they turned to free markets, it's boom time for their economies.
That is not accurate again. Not only did North America have much more available and abundant natural resources than Central America and South America, the immigration to North America was much higher, so there was a more able labor force to cultivate and exploit the land. Your reductionist stance about free markets is misleading. A free market is only one component of why these places prospered, and may be the least important. Civil liberties and political stability, in addition to the natural abundance already mentioned, were probably much more responsible for the prosperity of North America. Likewise, with post-war Asia you miss the mark. For example, you overlook Japan's pre-war industrial development as well as their embrace of defeat after the war to development their economy and civil society. I'm not arguing for planned economies (quite the opposite), but the lack of nuance in your argument means that you miss the mark.
Do you really believe that lack of resources in S America meant lack of prosperity? It's still composed of third world countries.
> and may be the least important
It's the only common thread. I provided numerous examples that refute the requirements you listed.
> Japan
Japan's pre-war industrial economy was not an economic powerhouse. Their soldiers were very lightly equipped. They built a handful of capital ships, and when those where sunk they couldn't be replaced. Curtis LeMay resorted to area bombing of Japan because their heavy industry was a collection of homes with drill presses (LeMays' characterization) so there weren't concentrated industrial targets.
What's the excuse for S Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?
Have you noticed that when China gave up on collectivism and turned to free markets, suddenly they became a very prosperous world power?
Yes, people preferred to immigrate to the US. Why would that be? Because it is free market and hence a land of opportunity, unlike any place else at the time.
China has an enormous population, but did not become prosperous until, again, free markets.