Economics doesn’t guarantee absolute efficiency just a reasonable approximation of efficiency.
Moderate unemployment is one such inefficiency, but so is misallocated labor. A worker moving to a higher paying job is hypothetically a more optimal allocation of resources because they can only be paid more if they are creating more value. However, the real world is messy and therefore the price signaling around pay isn’t perfect just as stock pricing isn’t perfect either…
The bizarre thing is in practice capitalism works so well despite these issues even before you consider government intervention, monopolies, incentives misalignment etc. However at some point it’s less about the system than the people operating it.
>The bizarre thing is in practice capitalism works so well
Does it? It's exacerbating environmental destruction, it creates all manner of bullshit jobs that are an epic waste of human potential and it has created a massive underclass who can't even afford the roof over their head.
I dont think this economic system will be looked upon fondly in 500 years any more than we're impressed with the divine right of kings.
That massive underclass existed long before capitalism. Agrarian societies have had poor people going back longer than recorded history, they also generally had slaves and or some form of serfdom.
Humans also caused massive environmental devastation going back to the Stone Age and across all economic systems. In the Americas only 1 in 6 mega fauna species alive 50k years ago survived to 10k years ago. In Australia it was 1 in 8.
Things have gotten worse but that’s less that individual humans have become more destructive, it’s mostly the simple fact there are more humans.
In theory a better option could exist we haven’t actually implemented anything better, humanity has tried many systems not just feudalism, communism, and capitalism and it’s the clear winner by the overwhelming majority of metrics. Mercantilism, tribalism, etc all have some upsides for some segment of the population but don’t result in nearly the same levels of widespread prosperity.
What we consider extreme poverty was normal throughout most of the globe and most of human history.
At least initially feudalism was economically worse than the the Roman imperial system in terms of output per person. It’s stable politically, but not objectively better.
Output increased overtime as technique and technology continued to improve, but that’s not a function of the feudalism specifically.
The USSR suffered from the resource curse towards the end. Its an affliction that has destroyed many economies of all stripes. It's the same reason why most of Africa is an economic basket case.
The USSR was instrumental to mankind becoming a spacefaring species. The US wasnt even interested until the USSR started and lost interest once they landed a man on the moon and declared that they had "won" the race. Were they still around space exploration probably wouldn't have stalled.
They were also instrumental in keeping the US government in line. US elites were terrified that the USSR and domestic communists might join forces to overthrow them. Elite fear of communists is why people in the 1950s could easily afford college, medical care and a roof over their head and why they were guaranteed a job doing something meaningful like building a dam or a bridge.
You're probably right that it's better that our finest minds are dedicated to making people click on ads and take out loans, though. This truly is the pinnacle of civilization. You have a whole computer in your pocket. You might have been able to buy a house in the 1950s and not be bankrupted by medical bills, but you couldn't play flappy birds.
You’re incorrect in terms of the space program. The US and Great Britain etc where very interested in rocketry and therefore spending significant sums before Sputnik. Which is how the US was able to launch a satellite in 1958 a year after Sputnik.
You don’t go from knowing nothing about rockets to launching a satellite in a year.
Further, the US slowed down but didn’t abandon its manned space program. It was spending a frankly crazy amount of money on a publicly stunt to get people to the moon, but we’ve continued to invest in the space program over the long term. Actually going past the moon requires long term habitation in space thus the interest in space stations.
everybody was interested in rocketry ever since V2s demonstrated that a good rocket made a good weapon.
The US wasnt particularly interested in space exploration unless the USSR did it first though.
Just like the UK wasnt interested in setting up an NHS until it became glaringly evident how well the soviet NHS (also called the NHS) worked and the US won't set one up even though ~70% of the population want one.
Yes, I'd much rather be subjected to clicking on ads and playing flappy bird than being kept behind a wall and standing in bread lines in the Soviet Union.
Moderate unemployment is one such inefficiency, but so is misallocated labor. A worker moving to a higher paying job is hypothetically a more optimal allocation of resources because they can only be paid more if they are creating more value. However, the real world is messy and therefore the price signaling around pay isn’t perfect just as stock pricing isn’t perfect either…
The bizarre thing is in practice capitalism works so well despite these issues even before you consider government intervention, monopolies, incentives misalignment etc. However at some point it’s less about the system than the people operating it.