Whoever legally owns them, again. I buy a plot of land from someone else in a voluntary arrangement, its mine, because the ownership transferred from them to me with the agreement.
>Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective
I asked for an example. The IMF has no room to criticize private capital as having inefficient outcomes for the general welfare, considering how brutal the conditions are in countries that face restructuring, as opposed to the power of markets lifting a billion people out of poverty. Look at the time-price of goods, its very clear what affect government intervention has over your ability to aquire goods.
"Externalities are among the main reasons governments intervene in the economic sphere." - IMF
Absolutely true though, Ill give them that, government intervention is a function for externalizing the cost of buying votes with new spending plans.
> Absolutely true though, Ill give them that, government intervention is a function for externalizing the cost of buying votes with new spending plans.
Again, that is not a logical argument, it is not even politics, it is dishonest propaganda. An insult to even economists.
Its a joke. You dont respect the field of economics but cite the IMF, have you heard of restructuring? You dont seem to understand the basic premises of property rights, you cant provide an example of a market failure actually occuring in absence of government intervention (you probably could have googled a response thats worthy of arguement), you cant even define the line between "pollution" and inflicting that pollution on others without consent. You simultaneously treat economics like its a cult for greedy people, and something that can be rigidly calculable by the omniscient government.
There is nothing I can say that will convince you if you dont have a basic understanding of economics, but here, its christmas. Subjective value, marginal utility, time preference, supply and demand, greshams law, specialization, price signals, revealed preference; those are principles and laws in economics because they are true regardless of how anyone feels about them, and if you understand them then it becomes immediately obvious why the wealth of a market based society will always grow absent things like war. People like nice things, people will trade for those nice things, and according to subjective value theorem that trade increases the wealth of both parties, because they both had to value the thing they traded for more than the thing they traded away, or they wouldnt have traded at all. If you let people vote themselves ownership over someone elses nice things they will, if politicians realize this then they will promise to redistribute those nice things from their owner to those who voted for them. Whatever the economic system is, everyone is self interested, sometimes people value the psychic profit of good will more than the material wealth; for the vast majority of the world, that choice equates to starvation, its a privilege usually only relatively wealthy people engage in. The government levies taxes and extends fiduciary credit for the money you are required to pay taxes in, and if you dont pay up then they will lock you in a cage, that is extortion, they have not entered a voluntary agreement, instead they initiate violence against peaceful people to intimidate everyone else into compliance, thats immoral. When resources are freely traded they flow to the highest bidder, they are the highest bidder because they create the most value, we know they create the most value for because people are willingly trading their goods and services to aquire the product (this is in the ERE, which markets always trend towards, its not necessarily the case at every moment, it is always the case directionally); its about what the consumer wants, people, you, me, we can all say we dont like amazon, but the decisions people actually make, also known as revealed preference, tell a different story. When individuals are free to take in the price signals and perform economic calculation, you are leveraging the whole of society in all its discrete facets to find the most efficient outcome; when the government is responsible, they have qualitative deficiencies compared to their free market counterparts, namely they have nothing at stake (or much worse and far more often, their incentives are corrupt), and they lack the granular price signals that an individual or business would have.
The government is by its nature immoral and inefficient, and market based societies will always trend towards growth. There is more to say on what drives interest rates, marginal utility, economies and diseconomies of scale, but thats all the christmas spirit I have for the day.
Whoever legally owns them, again. I buy a plot of land from someone else in a voluntary arrangement, its mine, because the ownership transferred from them to me with the agreement.
>Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective
I asked for an example. The IMF has no room to criticize private capital as having inefficient outcomes for the general welfare, considering how brutal the conditions are in countries that face restructuring, as opposed to the power of markets lifting a billion people out of poverty. Look at the time-price of goods, its very clear what affect government intervention has over your ability to aquire goods.
"Externalities are among the main reasons governments intervene in the economic sphere." - IMF
Absolutely true though, Ill give them that, government intervention is a function for externalizing the cost of buying votes with new spending plans.