Austerity to destroy public services is good? Deregulation to reduce worker and consumer rights is good? Privatisation to destroy publicly owned production is good?
Almost every country the IMF has imposed its terms on has higher levels of poverty than before.
I can’t even take trains in my country anymore, they cost more and never get maintained since they were privatised.
Reining in profiligate government spending is good. If the countries were actually being run sustainably, they wouldn't have needed bailouts in the first place.
> Deregulation to reduce worker and consumer rights is good?
Can you please point me to where and how this happened?
> Privatisation to destroy publicly owned production is good?
Publicly run enterprises in my country were and still are hopelessly ineffective. They continue to leech taxpayer money that could have otherwise gone towards healthcare, education and infrastructure spending. If it wasn't for private sector enterprise, many goods and services would simply remain unable to the ordinary public.
> Almost every country the IMF has imposed its terms on has higher levels of poverty than before.
Definitely not in my country. Poverty rates have been cut in half since the reforms.
It's a phenomenon that I find strange. Laissez-fairism has a holdout on HN, despite being a century dead in the real world. It's a position argued frequently here, which surprised me at first because it's sophomoric.
So far, I've been unable to reconcile holding that position with having any level of empathy. It's a position held by people with "mechanical efficiency" (not that Galtism is efficient) high on their list of values, but "collectivism" nowhere in the list. People who maxed their stats on technical attributes but have no calculus of human suffering. Dunning Kruger comes into play.
It's also the position held by bastards; but I don't get the impression that the hackerati are bastards, just... specialised.
1. Financially privileged people are emotionally and culturally incentivized to believe that their position in life has more to do with their effort than luck. There are a lot of of high earners here.
2. Many members here were active during the golden age of silicon valley startups. This brief period of new opportunity in online services allowed a lot of speculative money to flow to new businesses if you were lucky enough to experience it. This temporary and narrow band of economic opportunity for people in the industry at the time serves as their historical “evidence” that the system “works.”
3. The tech industry has had, so far, slightly fewer gatekeepers than other industries with high paying careers due to the temporary shortage of required labor. A lot of people have been able to come from marginalized positions in life and become financially successful, myself included. Survivorship bias is very high amongst those people, especially when it is encouraged by people and institutions of privilege.
It’s frustrating, but on the bright side younger generations of tech folk seem much less convinced by the mythology. You’ll find a lot more of them on Reddit. HN skews older, and the status quo of popular ideology is comfortable and convenient for people already established in their careers. “I learned to code and got a six figure job” is the next iteration of “I could pay for college by working summers.”
Or, those of us who grew up in socialist countries understand the folly of overarching government control of the economy. Nothing drives home the importance of price signals more than having to wait for years to buy a car despite having the money to pay for it.
Countries that were historically exploited and remained under siege by all capitalist countries after their socialist revolutions can’t be expected to have the same productive forces as the established industrialised countries that oppress them.
Don’t confuse the effects of imperialism with supposed shortcomings of planned economies.
> Countries that were historically exploited and remained under siege by all capitalist countries after their socialist revolutions can’t be expected to have the same productive forces as the established industrialised countries that oppress them.
Yet somehow the productive capacity of these countries skyrockets once they embrace free markets. It's almost as if they are somehow related.
They didn't, though? Look at the former members of the Soviet Bloc today. Higher infant mortality rates, lower education attainment, no industry of which to speak. Name one country doing better after an IMF loan!
I could talk about Argentina, Haiti, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Honduras, El Salvador... all of which have not been saved by "the invisible hand of the free market"
Almost every country the IMF has imposed its terms on has higher levels of poverty than before.
I can’t even take trains in my country anymore, they cost more and never get maintained since they were privatised.