441–450 of 476 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But does it result in better quality of life? Maybe competitiveness is not the best target to optimize for.
Broadly speaking, competitiveness is the source of quality of life improvements, through its effect of expanding capital and thereby raising productivity.
Then why does it seem to be the exact opposite?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's a cute hypothesis where's the proof
Your comment, for one. What device did you use to make it?
How are the citizens in the least regulated doing on that front?
Yea....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone is still claiming the main or only reason for inflation is "money printing", they really haven't being paying attention to the world for the past 3 years and it's a terrible idea to listen to them. Why are you ignoring a pandemic with associated measures such as lockdowns (although funnily, Sweden is very useful - they didn't lock down, they didn't print a ton of money, yet they're experiencing similar infl…
He labelled the cause as government policy, which clearly includes pandemic measures. Sweden didn't lock down but they did print a ton of money. Compare money supply growth for UK vs Sweden. It's the same and occurred at the same time. Lockdowns weren't the only pandemic spending measures unfortunately. All governments everywhere massively pumped the money supply to pay for "whatever it takes" and now the bill has co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Broadly speaking, competitiveness is the source of quality of life improvements, through its effect of expanding capital and thereby raising productivity.
If economic productivity is proportional to quality of life, why aren't most people doing everything they possibly can to maximize their productivity. E.g., working 20 hour days, foregoing children in order to produce more, trading vacation days for more work... I'd argue it's because economic productivity is not the only input into well-being and quality of life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Broadly speaking, competitiveness is the source of quality of life improvements, through its effect of expanding capital and thereby raising productivity.
Then shouldn't countries with the least regulations have the highest QoL? Then why does it seem to be the exact opposite?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If economic productivity is proportional to quality of life, why aren't most people doing everything they possibly can to maximize their productivity. E.g., working 20 hour days, foregoing children in order to produce more, trading vacation days for more work... I'd argue it's because economic productivity is not the only input into well-being and quality of life.
Lack of recreation and reproduction harms economic productivity in the long run. Everything valuable or good in life can ultimately be measured as contributing to productivity.
Put differently, do you think a lower quality of life is a worthwhile tradeoff if it raises productivity? What about the inverse?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then shouldn't countries with the least regulations have the highest QoL? Then why does it seem to be the exact opposite?
Some laws, like those against theft and violence, increase competitiveness. The ideal state has such laws - that establish a free market based on voluntary interaction - and little else. And indeed, states that get closest to this ideal have the best economic growth rates and trends in QoL improvements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These things may help reduce corporate profits, but it wouldn't change inflation.
reducing corporate profits would reduce inflation, since corporate profits account for almost half of inflation, according to the article
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then shouldn't countries with the least regulations have the highest QoL? Then why does it seem to be the exact opposite?
Some laws, like those against theft and violence, increase competitiveness. The ideal state has such laws - that establish a free market based on voluntary interaction - and little else. And indeed, states that get closest to this ideal have the best economic growth rates and trends in QoL improvements.
If fact, if you want competitiveness you need to prevent a fully free market.
No matter how many times this is explained, people still continue to make this incredibly simple and enormously consequential mistake.
If we're taking the reductionist view that economic output is the only important measure of society, then people need to understand that means maximizing competition not maximizing a free market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then shouldn't countries with the least regulations have the highest QoL? Then why does it seem to be the exact opposite?
Some laws, like those against theft and violence, increase competitiveness. The ideal state has such laws - that establish a free market based on voluntary interaction - and little else. And indeed, states that get closest to this ideal have the best economic growth rates and trends in QoL improvements.
Isn't this just a cleverly worded tautology? It's like saying healthy people tend to live longer and happier lives. But is it actionable information? Not really.