> The data we have is 500 years of free markets in the western world and the verdict is overwhelmingly: Yes, more freedom means more winning.
No, more freedom means more winning to a point. Past that point it does not, and I'd argue that's where the US is.
> Just invite some incompetent bureaucrat over your house to dictate how you should cook and you'll quickly agree.
That's supposed to be convincing, somehow? Just invite some "competent" capitalist over to your house, and he'll sell your fishing rod in exchange for a short-term discount on fish at the supermarket, and see how well you win.
> "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" are words you like to hear?
They're definitely not "the nine most terrifying words in the English language." Government is a necessity and performs important functions: we'd be worse off without it. A libertarian utopia would actually be a dystopia, at least for the vast majority.
Some day, historians will ask: Why did China eclipse the United States? And the tl;dr answer will likely be: libertarians. Myopic enthusiasm for free markets has really degraded the US's ability to make strategic decisions to maintain its advantages, and it seems on track to walk down the value chain while a few people get really rich leading it that way.
> Some day, historians will ask: Why did China eclipse the United States?
Why do you need to make leaps to the future to find evidence for your claims? Anyone can simply look at the past 500 years and come to the opposite conclusion.
There's also not much evidence China will "eclipse" the United States (whatever that means). I hitchhiked mainland China in 2019 after studying the language in university precisely because I thought the country might "eclipse" mine.
I came back with the exact opposite conclusion.
If the definition of "eclipse" is more global cultural influence, I would challenge you to compare the number of American movies you've watched in the past year vs Chinese movies. Movies are just 1 dimension of this dynamic.
The country has simply too much history and insularity to propagate its influence throughout the world. The language is another key example- very few learn Chinese as a second language. Even the Chinese youth themselves often use the latin alphabet to write their own language on a keyboard.
No, more freedom means more winning to a point. Past that point it does not, and I'd argue that's where the US is.
> Just invite some incompetent bureaucrat over your house to dictate how you should cook and you'll quickly agree.
That's supposed to be convincing, somehow? Just invite some "competent" capitalist over to your house, and he'll sell your fishing rod in exchange for a short-term discount on fish at the supermarket, and see how well you win.