Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?

[Politico]

Economic freedom leads to market diversity as opposed to government conformity. It should come as no surprise that market diversity, in turn, tends to produce greater social diversity.

The world's ecological system is incredibly diverse, but not without its problems. Likewise, the world's economic system is incredibly diverse, but not without its problems. In both cases, you need to largely let things work them self out rather than trying to control forces of nature (human nature in the case of economics).

[Politico]

Really, market economy does not imply necessarily tolerance or freedom. Look at China nowadays or Chile in the period 1973-1990. Both are fine examples of "free" market economy with horrible records in tolerance. In the first country we have a curious mix between the worst characteristics of capitalism and communism. Chile was an economic "experiment" sponsored by Milton Friedman and those Chicago Boys; everybody knows that freedom, in the actual meaning of the word, was out of question.

Another question is if a liberalization of the economy and the trade markets is good or bad. It's true that many countries around the world have improved, but the results are very different if we look at single economies. Compare Argentina under the "ultraliberal" Carlos Menem with Brazil under Lula. On the other hand macroeconomics is not always a good measuring system. Other socio-economic indicators like the Human Development Index must be kept in mind. It's well known that the Gulf countries are wealthy but not very good at tolerance. I suppose that they are "free" economies.

I think that tolerance (I prefer acceptance, but that doesn't matter) is related with social and economic development but not necessarily with concrete economic doctrines, at least not with Milton Friedman's.

The philosophy of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman has brought more prosperity and diversity to the world than any other philosophy in history. That's the historical record.

Adherence to Marxism led to the depravities of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc (e.g., Great Purge). In contrast, Smith's ideas powered America. Friedman's ideas led to market-driven globalization, which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other time in history.

[Politico]

Globalization is too complex to say if it's a good or a bad thing

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."
- Frédéric Bastiat (Disciple of Adam Smith and founder of the concept of opportunity cost)

The record shows that globalization ultimately promotes peace and prosperity.

[Politico]

The last time we turned away from a commitment to globalization, we ended up with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. No thank you. When goods cross borders, that's a serious impediment to soldiers crossing those same borders. Peace is reason enough for globalization.

[Politico]

I wonder if we are discussing about the same issues.

At least we can agree that the chick in your signature is hot.

[Politico]

The record shows that globalization ultimately promotes peace and prosperity.

For some.  The developed country workers have to accept drastically diminished standard of living for this plutocrat utopia, Politico.

Yes, because housing, TV sets, computers, food, medicine, cars, clothing, etc. in 1970 were so superior to what is consumed in middle America today *rolls eyes*

It all boils down to productivity, and we're second to none in that department.

[Politico]

You are destroying him, Gus.