If history judges society for how it treats those in need, so markets judge economies by the incentives they provide for private investment, the infrastructure that supports growth, and the burdens placed on job creation.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Economies are complex beasts that need people to do an extraordinary range of tasks.
Economics is mostly how humans rationalize who gets what and why. It's how we instantiate our preferences about status, privileges, and power.
The market system requires that people be committed and willing to work hard. Inherent with that is what I call a merit system, which I think gives people the greatest opportunity.
I think there's a lot of merit in an international economy and global markets, but they're not sufficient because markets don't look after social needs.
When you talk about the economic process of a society, sometimes we separate it into two stories. One is about monetary variables. But then, we very often assume the underlying arrangement, the other variable, is 'perfect competition,' which means people do whatever they are supposed to do.
There's a very good reason for why economics developed the way it did, and that is that in many situations, the assumption that people will exploit the opportunities available to them is very plausible, and it simplifies the analysis of how markets will behave.
The market is the creator of social wealth and the wellspring of self-sustaining economic development.
A society is not a market. It is a political community.
Markets are a good thing, and they are the best way of ensuring we have fairness.
The historical debate is over. The answer is free-market capitalism.