* Much of the empirical literature cited in this article was helpfully compiled by George Mason University economist Vincent Geloso, whose public thread on the subject served as a valuable resource.
"In 2023 he coauthored an article in which he argued that before the emergence of capitalism, extreme poverty had been virtually nonexistent or rare, while economic freedom was catastrophic for living standards of the vast majority of people in Europe and globally."
The only way I can make sense of this is that he means some kind of relative "extreme poverty", so when 90% of the population was barely scraping by, there was little or no extreme poverty. It does jibe with how so many socialists are more scared of income inequality than low average incomes.
It seems so very self-evident to me that liberty is more important than almost anything else, since anything else is one-size-fits-nobody and coercive. How can people do their best when others constrain their activities and steal the fruit of their labor? I just do not understand people who think telling everybody else what to do will not backfire and come back to haunt them in spades, and they will not like it one bit.
A point many people make is that they associate economic freedom with a decline of solidarity, the decline of social bonds/institutions, and atomization. Any evidence out there to adjudicate this?
I must report to you that, after two months of vetting, your substack has passed with flying colors. You're no longer under suspicion of being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Congratulations.
Thanks for the in depth data you offer to prove the point. However, the class of people I belong to; the working class/ blue collar bunch; the ones who build the world- repair and maintain it, have sufficient common sense to reject the premise of the BMJ article out of hand. What shit-for-brains the author must have to dish such drivel.
Nice writeup, and thanks for referencing my paper on Hickel and Sullivan (2023). :)
You might be interested in my recent autopsy of Hickel et al.'s BMJ paper and the additional quick-and-dirty causal reanalysis of their main claims: https://statsandsociety.substack.com/p/looking-under-the-hood-of-hickels
"In 2023 he coauthored an article in which he argued that before the emergence of capitalism, extreme poverty had been virtually nonexistent or rare, while economic freedom was catastrophic for living standards of the vast majority of people in Europe and globally."
The only way I can make sense of this is that he means some kind of relative "extreme poverty", so when 90% of the population was barely scraping by, there was little or no extreme poverty. It does jibe with how so many socialists are more scared of income inequality than low average incomes.
It seems so very self-evident to me that liberty is more important than almost anything else, since anything else is one-size-fits-nobody and coercive. How can people do their best when others constrain their activities and steal the fruit of their labor? I just do not understand people who think telling everybody else what to do will not backfire and come back to haunt them in spades, and they will not like it one bit.
No, he just made shit up. And got published.
A point many people make is that they associate economic freedom with a decline of solidarity, the decline of social bonds/institutions, and atomization. Any evidence out there to adjudicate this?
I must report to you that, after two months of vetting, your substack has passed with flying colors. You're no longer under suspicion of being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Congratulations.
Thanks for the in depth data you offer to prove the point. However, the class of people I belong to; the working class/ blue collar bunch; the ones who build the world- repair and maintain it, have sufficient common sense to reject the premise of the BMJ article out of hand. What shit-for-brains the author must have to dish such drivel.