itch.io

Probably could've been more clear, but I was specifically asking for proof of free markets have a specific correlation to prosperity above all other kinds. Even more specifically, concrete proof that said prosperity couldn't be matched or outdone by a market with at least SOME degree of regulation to ensure that wealth-hoarding doesn't happen.

However, the sources you provided actually kinda preclude that notion entirely: Singapore, top-ranked on the Economic Freedom Index (EFI from here on 'cuz I don't feel like typing it every time) only places 16th on the Prosperity Index (assuming no weighted values are changed, which they haven't been since your point speaks to general prosperity rather than a specific type). Conversely, Denmark is 1st on the PI but 7th on the EFI. Even more starkly, Norway's second-place PI ranking contrasts heavily with being 28th on the EFI. Granted, those are but two examples, but one would expect that the first and second in prosperity would be very nearly the first and second in economic freedom if your statement were to hold true.

On another note, of the top 10 on the prosperity list, only half of them are described as totally free markets. Denmark, Norway,  Sweden, and the Netherlands are all listed by Wikipedia as "mixed economies", which- to save you a google- is "variously defined as an economic system blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economies, free markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise." Germany, in 8th place, is a social market- your dreaded Socialism boogeyman. 

With all of that said, of course it bears remembering that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation: we could both be blowing smoke out our asses speaking purely on where statistics do and don't line up. There's many factors at play, especially with systems of this scale, so trying to attribute any given trait to one policy is kind of a fool's errand in the first place.

Also, I mentioned it earlier but I'm acting under the assumption that you're talking general, across-the-board prosperity here. If you're speaking to economic prosperity, then maybe it's a different story, but that's where you lose me anyway- as far as I'm concerned, economic prosperity is secondary to actual quality of living for the average person. What good is money if it doesn't serve to make everyone's lives better, after all? Through that lens, Socialism is a far more sensible choice, because by design it's meant to keep money where it belongs: circulating through the populace's hands, rather than gathering dust and interest in equal measure in some billionaire's bank account.

You're conflating Socialism with Totalitarianism, and these two things are neither synonyms nor inextricably linked to one another. The whole point of Socialism is that the "means of production"- as in, the capacity to produce food, basic necessities, commodities, and so forth, lies with the people as a whole, rather than a handful who can then exploit their effective monopoly on these things to increase their profits. (You talk about greatness, but isn't one of the basic tenets of the country you're fetishizing "By, Of, and For the People"? )That has nothing to do with your allusions to censorship. Having a non-zero amount of regulation on keeping things affordable doesn't somehow inherently remove anyone's right to create, or put forth their creative endeavors towards the world. If anything, it should HELP- making resources more accessible across the board would give more people an opportunity to do so.

Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. You're making broad, sweeping assumptions about the nature of certain economic systems based on the way you were taught about specific examples of them- by a country that stood in opposition to those specific examples, and actively benefits from you and everyone else believing that they WILL all be like that. Like, seriously, do you even understand how our political system works as it is right now? How much money factors into things? Between lobbying, donations to fund campaigns... do you honestly think the people with the money to influence things at that scale AREN'T going to try to sway opinions in favor of keeping the status quo, which is skewed so heavily in their favor?

It honestly sounds like you're arguing in bad faith, with no intention to form a coherent point beyond regurgitating things you've been told in service of a system that's BY DEFINITION screwing over everyone who doesn't have the resources to game it themselves.

"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Like, literally, that's the dictionary definition of Capitalism. Google it. The "for profit" point is important. If that's the focus, the crux of our system, then everything happens in service of that goal. Raising prices, cutting corners, keeping wages as low as possible... all of that ups profits, and if you'd get your head out of the proverbial sand and open both your eyes and a damn history book, you'd be aware that the only reason things aren't WORSE than they are today as far as that goes is because of people who've had to fight tooth and nail to keep themselves and everyone else from getting eaten alive by capitalism. 

If that's what you think a "functional" and "great" economic system is, then it's no wonder you can't- or won't- get your head around Socialism.

Care to cite your evidence? Present any kinda source to your claim? Surely if all the evidence points to it, that's not too big of an ask.