Wait so there was near universal outcry on the left about “Jan 6 insurrection” but assassination of public figures is actually fine if they have a low approval rating and allegedly negatively affect people’s lives? Guess what? Congress is lucky if 10% of people across the board think they AREN’T screwing up the country.
The worst metric obsession that defines things now is stock price, which really went into overdrive with the financialization of the 70s~80s. Of course financialization was downstream of the money supply and people seeking out returns on their savings in inflationary environments (modern economic theory that thinks never-ending inflation is just a law we must all accept and conform to), which is used a way to finance big government.
It's an outrage once you work at these companies and behold the sheer dysfunction and they're all getting paid wages native American citizens would take.
I guess I see this as an attempt or yearning to discredit him, but following in the work that sprung from Hayek and friends, the motivation for his work is clearly curiosity and wonder about how does anything get done in the world without coordination, never mind the wondrously complex things that are created nowadays.
His conclusion is that knowledge is dispersed, represented in prices that arise from markets which is simply understood as cooperation. Knowledge may frankly be expressed as whatever enables and motivates someone to offer something on the market. If that's too vague for your taste, too bad.
The wonder is that uncoordinated, independent cooperation gives rise to such abundant and sophisticated products. Not only that it's in a system that expresses everyone's individual preferences and competing interests. Central planning fails spectacularly to do this, and there's no reason to believe that it ever will even with fantastic computational power.
> Want to know what food and housing was like before regulation? Read the jungle.
Not convincing since you're reducing the entire time period to The Jungle which was sensationalized fiction, effectively political propaganda.
But to your broader point, things improved directly from capitalism and markets. My reading recommendation? Deirdre McCloskey "Why Liberalism Works" on the absurd increase in living standards brought about through innovation enabled by capitalism, we're talking some 3,000% in average income over the course of time you're referring to.
I don't disagree per se, but it seems from reading the article that they're bemoaning the shortage of qualified doctors and how they're all spent cause they have to work within the confines of centrally planned subsidy prices.
Really they should be charging as high as possible directly to consumers until doctors are attracted into the profession. Cut out the middleman, there is no reason that routine expenses like a sick visit that gets routine labwork or medication need to be insured.
It'd be better to reroute the software developers that construct complex systems to SERVE ADS and addict people to scrolling.
I think people will hit a breaking point and it will be undeniable that heavy regulation and subsidization is the root of dysfunction and deterioration of most important aspects of life.
It's hard not to see the parallel between healthcare and education where the parasitic overhead has been completely unchecked and enabled by federal subsidies. There's a similar deal with food, housing and other areas. It's absurd the amount of money that has been spent by the federal government in these areas with so little to show, the average person feels not only a lack of progress but decline.
> For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy.
You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking, so at least you recognize that you're unable to read anything that challenges your rigid precepts and offers an opportunity to expand your mind or engage in a real exchange of ideas.
And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly, like so many others nowadays, it's an amorphous stand-in that allows you to thoughtlessly discard opposition.
But "opinion journalism" isn't news, it's editorializing. So you accept news that is effectively propaganda as long as it's "independent" from the outlet ownership?
> It was unscientific to impose any mandates for COVID vaccines whatsoever.
Not only was it unscientific, to the point that they had to censor their opponents and coordinate the institutions to shun any dissenting scientists and experts, the mandate was found to be blatantly unconstitutional.