Did the free market ruin our economy? A Soho Forum debate

Binyamin Appelbaum and Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "Free market ideology is largely responsible for the dismal performance of the US economy over the past few decades."
-------------
For the affirmative: Binyamin Appelbaum is the lead writer on business and economics for the New York Times editorial board. He previously worked as a Washington correspondent for the Times. He is the author of The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets and the Fracture of Society (2019).
For the negative: Gene Epstein is the Director of the Soho Forum and former Economics and Books Editor of Barron's, a position he left in January 2018 after a 26-year stint. His last published book was Econospinning: How to Read between the Lines when the Media Manipulate the Numbers. He has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John’s University, and worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He has defended the negative at six Soho Forum debates. His November 2019 debate on socialism with Prof. Richard Wolff has had more than five million views on KZbin.

[@midi510]

Please remaster this with the proper sound level.

[@Tespri]

This... It was so annoying to do anything else in the background since I needed to put volume to the max.

[@milembemutaho]

Yes volume is really low

[@DegreesOfThree]

Lol, we haven't had a free market since at least 1913. Interest rates aren't set by central planners in a free market.

[@OriginalRialZ]

interest rates are set by the lender in the united states

[@trystdodge6177]

@@OriginalRialZ interest rates are set by the fed. The ones that matter. If you're referring to pay day lending or whatever, sure. The original money, the borrowing rates, are set by the fed the rest is downstream.

[@OriginalRialZ]

@@trystdodge6177 when you borrow money from the feds you pay their interest rates. if you want them to stop playing with their own rates advocate for them to print less of it.

[@OriginalRialZ]

@@erikaoliver2591 yes, the federal government loans money. however, they do not possess all money. to insinuate that the feds have a hold on every firm that loans money is ridiculous.

[@trystdodge6177]

@@OriginalRialZ when a crack head uses crack just advocate for the crack to stop using crack. 👍

[@homewall744]

What does it mean to say "markets decide"? Markets are just us trading. You can trade freely, or you can have government doing much of the trade via tax and spend (and deficit and inflationary money printing).

[@garbonomics]

I can’t believe this is a serious question. I think the actual question is how much the lack of free market principles practiced in the economy have hurt us.

[@Baconmanperson]

Really disappointed that central banks were not brought up

[@partydean17]

It makes the whole system muddied

[@JD.Martin]

I'd be really interested in knowing how Applebaum defines capitalism, because he's not talking about capitalism.

[@siggyincr7447]

Can you elaborate?

[@davidng2699]

GO on ... :0

[@DaveS859]

Capitalism according to socialists : "everything I don't like, especially those things involving money“

[@seaofseeof]

Socialists identify capitalism through a one-drop rule. If a society is 99% centrally planned with almost all businesses owned by the state and controlled by labor unions, but there's some degree of private ownership and free exchange of products or labor, then that society is capitalist.

[@DanHowardMtl]

He's a commie who should be parachuted to North Korea.

[@ExPwner]

And he is wrong again about unemployment and minimum wage. We have plenty of evidence to show that minimum wage laws create unemployment.

[@yuki-sakurakawa]

Child labour laws also raise unemployment. Perhaps we should get rid of that too

[@ExPwner]

@@yuki-sakurakawa given how outlawing child labor in places that are destitute turns into child prostitution and death from poverty, yes. Parents overwhelmingly choose to not have their kids work once they can afford to do so as shown by the economic history of various countries and societies.

[@vinuwijemanna7076]

If the government asks you whether you are in a Cartel, if you say 'yes', they will leave you alone, if you say 'no' , they will investigate you. There is only one logical answer.

[@Dennis-xj8nh]

3 business owners are in a communist jail. That ask each other what they are in for. Person 1: "I set my prices lower than my competitors, and got sent to jail for price dumping!" Person 2 "I set my prices higher than my competitors and got sent to jail for price gouging!" Person 3 "I set my prices to be the same as my competitors and got set to jail for price fixing!"

[@ExPwner]

Markets do work fine by themselves.

[@Joel_E]

Great debate, but the sound was very quiet. KZbin's Stats for Nerds gives a content loudness of -22.6 dB!

[@johningram4359]

Starts at 3:53

[@MA-go7ee]

Debates like this aggravate me. Why is trade the one aspect of human interaction that people have decided for some reason it is appropriate to control? Nowadays you'd never see a debate like 'the freedom to divorce has made society worse, should we get rid of it!???!!!!' because everyone understands it doesn't matter what it does to some vague concept like 'society' when liberties are at stake.

[@redridingcape]

This is a good point that I haven't seen before, or at least said in this way before. There are plenty of choices that people and/or businesses make that could be argued against with the same arguments that people use to justify curtailing their freedom to trade. Thanks for your input.

[@mouseutopiadystopia24601]

I am basically an an-cap, so don't misconstrue what I am about to say as a call for regulation, but the freedom of no-fault divorce has made society significantly worse.

[@redridingcape]

@@mouseutopiadystopia24601 Agreed, I think we need some more tradition/shame/bullying, and we need to stop men from simping. That would be a good start for fixing the mess that the dating market has become.

[@mouseutopiadystopia24601]

@@redridingcape Yes. Family structure was destroyed by the development of novel technology, government intervention, and cultural decay. We cannot uninvent technology (e.g. birth control and social media). We can remove maladaptive incentive structures created by government intervention (e.g. welfare, state jobs, state-regulated marriage, biased family courts, alimony, child support, affirmative action, etc.). Theoretically, we can bring back shame/guilt, traditional moral standards, social shunning, etc. Unfortunately, women (collectively) will reject all of the above, since women (collectively) perceive women (collectively) as the primary beneficiaries of the status quo, and they are mostly correct.

[@redridingcape]

@@mouseutopiadystopia24601 My hope is that as we start to see the extreme rise of older, single, and very, very unhappy women caused by the dating culture and their choices ("find yourself" in young, fertile years, then frantically try to settle down before the wall hits) that are being encouraged by the feminists, that women will wise up and realize something needs to change. That's probably stupidly optimistic, but oh well. If more men get redpilled and stop simping it would almost certainly help the situation at least.

[@JoeBizzle]

This dude used the RONA to show how well and how important government oversight is?? Really??

[@sethuhla9002]

I'm surprised more people didn't catch this. Praising the government for an absolutely abysmal response to a pandemic they caused via gain of function research is near peak progressive stupidity

[@ExPwner]

Inequality is not itself a bad thing. It is hilarious that he tries to cherry pick to say that France is better. Bro, their 1% doesn’t look like it did so much better because they tried to pass a wealth tax and the rich left. Not to mention that growth numbers mean little when our standard of living is still much higher.

[@baph0met]

Inequality is inevitable and natural, humans are not robots and don't live on a one single type of soil.

[@Tespri]

His argument about China falls apart when you raise up the question why do companies move to china in the first place.

[@homewall744]

Government's role in markets is to deal with contract disputes and crime. And it can tax negative externalities. Some regulation (to make regular proven solutions, not to restrict or promote)

[@carlwatts1230]

Would be nice if regulation transformed into recommendation. Recommendation and freely available information ought to be sufficient to regulate human behaviour. These "dogooders" so quickly want to use force to regulate people. These "dogooders" seems to always think that controlling other people is how we get to prosperity. Whether you like it or not. They want to regulate you, and it is for your own good. "We'll just go ahead and regulate you for your own good. We won't ask you convince you recommend to you. Oh you don't want to give money for these projects? You don't want your taxes raised? No problem. we'll just print some more of this thing we say is money and we'll steal from you that way. You'll thank us later. The fact these transactions are not voluntary or democratic does not matter so much."

[@Floccini]

That was a great question at the end where the questioner pointed out that opioid use and obesity are much more likely to be the result more wealth that of inequality. It you look critically at the data that is what you see. I'm pretty sure that Angus Deaton was wrong. The following is from a blog post I wrote: New Hampshire was the highest earning state in 2016 and number 2 in opioid OD deaths. Dear Angus Deaton with all due respect you might consider reassessing your deaths of despair theory. It never made much sense to me, there is in fact some evidence that people drink and drug more when they have more income and therefore access to booze and drugs, which is BTW a problem for my advocacy of legalization but I thin the positives would out weigh the negatives. Related: Health Insurance Might not be Good for Everyone Added 2018-01-08 see here In the preferred estimates, changes in economic conditions account for less than one-tenth of the rise in drug and opioid-involved mortality rates. The contribution of economic factors is even less when accounting for plausible selection on unobservables, with even a small amount of remaining confounding factors being sufficient to entirely eliminate the relationship. Added 2022-10-19 Some people seem to miss that variance among people means that prosperity can lead some people to engage more in behaviors that people like Angus Deaton and me consider destructive. This is from Freakonomics post called Retirement Kills. Josef ZWEIMULLER: I mean, actually, what we find in our study is that among blue-collar workers, we see that workers who retire earlier have higher mortality rates. And these effects are pretty large. ... Mo WANG: Working actually gives you a way to structure life and that’s very important. Usually, it’s interesting you see people travel right after they retire, but then after like one or two years, people just sit at home watching TV. This relates to opioid deaths in that fentanyl has made opioids cheapar and more accessible, which is a wealth effect, and so we should expect more use among those who like opioids. Also this tweet from Robin Hanson seems applicable: I missed this when it out a year ago, but this article pointed me to this key result: Per capita US drug deaths have steadily doubled every decade 4 times in a row, R^2=0.99! Even as particular drug death rates far from steady. This graph from here takimag.com/article/white_privilege_vs_white_death_steve_sailer/ makes it seem like the trend started with cohorts born after 1945. Which suggest the trend has actually been going for ~55 years, which suggests it will continue for another ~3 decades, after which mortality will be ~8x higher! The trend looks much more a result of growing prosperity than of Despair. Shout it form the house tops.

[@JonathanRossRogers]

21:25 WTF is Appelbaum talking about? Individuals make choices in markets, not societies.

[@carlwatts1230]

How the f can a person think that financial markets have become less regulated. Central bank intervention has only increased. Does that not count as regulation? It certainly is a form of government intervention.

[@oskarrogg]

Say what you will, but Appelbaum was about as polished a debater as you will see. Gene was a bit more of an attack dog - I would hate to argue economics with him, because he absolutely knows his stuff, but Binyamin had the polish and skill to make even questionable points sound convincing, and Gene lost a little on style points. When I say questionable points, Binyamin is the type of leftist whose visceral distrust of free markets leads him to blame them for any and all ills, be it inequality or drug abuse or sluggish growth, yet is smart enough to begrudgingly admit that they may have some virtues... as befits a NY Times "economics" columnist, any praise for free enterprise is inadvertent or back-handed.... the result of having exhausted all other explanations. He has an evident hard-on for Milton Friedman - apparently free market economics didn't exist before Friedman invented it...I was surprised Gene let him get away with that. It is always interesting to see how comparably smart people with different value systems construct diametrically opposite narrative from the same set of facts. Still, great debate and as always, thanks to Gene for putting it on.

[@mrmidas1398]

What free market? It hasn't happened yet.

[@ADAMREES-GRITGYM]

It’s scary that the first guy is serious

[@joemiller6161]

Hard times all around the crypto market especially with the collapse of BTC, yet I still acquire $21,000 every 14 days from my investment with a platform in town.

[@kevinthor5266]

I invest in various prolific investments by compound interest & leveraging and as well; operating with an investment professional Mr Benjamin Moore. So far I’ve attained returns over $35k

[@carlosiyke2787]

I am currently earning $13,000 a month. God bless Benjamin and his platform. He has been a blessing to my family.

[@elizabethtehilla3026]

I’m totally confused especially in this current economic situations that is affecting the market. How could you earn that much?

[@lutherrice6339]

I believe every trade has secrets and to make the most returns of investment, it’s the experts in that trade that knows it

[@davidmilito924]

I'm happy to see Mr Benjamin mentioned here. My spouse recommended him to me after investing $6500. He has really helped us financially especially during COVID-19 lockdown here in Australia.

[@Mrbobinge]

Markets or Marxists? That, is the question.

[@naturgrel]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 There is NOTHING "free" about our market! Like a bunch of Carnival barkers screeching "Come try your luck!" while EVERYONE knows it's rigged for you to lose your shirt. What did God say about dishonest weights? 🤨

[@doomstare8427]

how is our market free?

[@theily1724]

To the socialist who decides to comment here, I just want you to know something. I appreciate your work in providing an open, honest dialogue instead of allowing the comment section to become an echo chamber. You’re doing the Lord’s work.

[@seniorbob2180]

@@theily1724 Sure, but there's a better one where he's on the bridge.

[@ExPwner]

Socialists do not provide open honest debate. Michael Mappin is a socialist who has been spamming the Epstein/Wolff debate with lies and petty insults for like 3 years now.

[@ExPwner]

@@seniorbob2180 yep you nailed it

[@carlwatts1230]

Arguably the most important system that mediates markets, namely Money, is being manipulated by governments. Lots of asymmetric advantages and risks result form this government intervention in Money. Most of them bad and all of them ill-gotten.

[@robertnewshutz1081]

sound is way too low

[@JonathanRossRogers]

1:09:25 Gene's almost old enough to be president.

[@C-Note21]

Damn, Gene doesn't pull any punches. 😳

[@hernantz]

In a profit and loss system, profits encourage taking risks, losses encourage prudence

[@davidng2699]

Anyone here in the comments section read Binyamin's book, The Economist's Hour?

[@husile5]

Just clicked the video and hasn’t yet got to the content. But already loving the music!

[@Davidsavage8008]

PLEASE .....' Free ? Market....... Can't even get a patent on free or new energy motors in a so called free market....more like great fear market.!!.

[@sbishopvt4650]

Isn't he supposed to argue why cronyism is good... I'm confused

[@carlwatts1230]

Might hope be decreased when government intervention in money causes savings to become worthless, and wages to lose purchasing power? Wages not increasing because government manipulates the CPI number and so cpi-indexed wages still lose purchasing power. CPI does not represent the real big costs in life.

[@wolfsden3]

A man is an indentured servant to U.S. oligarchs 13 years longer than those in other developed nations is what he meant to say.

[@JonathanRossRogers]

14:56 Maybe cartels were very common. Maybe companies decided that government protection would benefit them if they said they were in cartels.

[@stevewill3572]

The only reason we have an economy is because free markets. Fucked now isn't it

[@atmac2162]

Well considering the US hasn’t had a free market since the 1940s, I’d say it’s pretty safe to say no. Corporate capitalism screwed us over. (It’s also very different from free market capitalism in that it’s not a free market)

[@AgoristsRising]

The way I see it, the free market exists anytime there are voluntary transactions. The government just gets in the way. It may have tried, but the government cannot monitor, restrict, tax and/or ban every human interaction and exchange, at least not yet (nor should we let it).

[@atmac2162]

@@AgoristsRising government too is a big problem. However it’s also in the pockets of corporations. Studies showed that something like 30% of semitones would take bribes from corporations. Recent studies. Corporations do not exist in a truly free market. And a free market does not necessarily mean a market without regulations.

[@AgoristsRising]

@@atmac2162 of course, government is a problem. It monopolizes regulations by force, and operates by initiating aggression and theft.

[@atmac2162]

@@AgoristsRising yea, we are very much on the same page here

[@AgoristsRising]

@@atmac2162 good to know 🤗

[@derekrethman5834]

Common Gene W

[@realwalterwhite1958]

12:55

[@minionsystems]

If economic study was a real science, it would isolate the variables and test the results. Since we have not had free markets, they have not been tested as a single variable. Therefore we cannot know what would happen if we did. This debate is speculative because it is non-scientific in that respect. I suspect freedom in the markets is not as impactful to inequality as is government authoritarianism and cronyism.

[@juaecheverria0]

I have to agree. It wasnt until the 1960's regulation era that this country was turned upside down. If people had the FREEDOM in making their own homes, thered be a lot less homeless. We would be a lot less financially dependent. Thats the issue today. It is the ability of free creation that the country was so profound for. Today, we just arent free to create anymore. We have only the govt inerference to blame for that. Some basic regulation was great. Like yes, force these companies to label their dam ingredients. It should be ILLEGAL to feed people something they did not consent to eating. That was a foundational piece of legislation... But CA? They go overboard with the FDA rules. They do. Its no wonder homelessness is so widespread, and why there is such a vast gap between the rich and the poor in such a regulatory state like CA. HOW is that not evidence enough...? It baffles me.

[@seniorbob2180]

Economics is not a real science and can never be a real science because it can't control the economy; it cannot isolate two variables and control the others. There's a reason why Austrian Economists call economics praxeological. If ever there was a lesson that humanity learned in the 20th century, it is that you cannot control the economy.

[@LegalAutomation]

The period of time when the United States had its fastest and longest period of growth was before 1913, which was before the advent of the federal reserve and before government dogpiled regulation onto the economy through programs like Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, and the behemoth of other regulations that burden businesses and individuals.

[@mlangbert]

The Gini coefficient measures income inequality, and there is a positive correlation between the amount of government intervention and income inequality. More government means more inequality. There was less inequality in the mid-twentieth century, when there was less regulation. Government has expanded since the 1960s, and so has income inequality.

[@JonathanRossRogers]

I think the biggest disagreement is about the meaning of "performance," which neither participant defines AFAICT.

[@JonathanRossRogers]

12:15 It's truly bizarre that Appelbaum uses the end of conscription as an example. I'm not even sure what he meant it to be an example of since he doesn't seem to be a proponent of the draft.

[@JonathanRossRogers]

17:32 I'm sure glad the FDA was in charge of tests.

[@moribundmurdoch]

I wish Fred Foldvary could've debated this too.

[@JonMI6]

No virtual after party?

[@JonMI6]

@@CryptoZone295 piss off, spammer

[@protectedmethod9724]

Why make the assumption our economy is ruined? I would argue the 2019 economy was potentially the strongest in history

[@ExPwner]

The 2008 crash was not caused by deregulation. Dude is just straight up lying at this point.

[@ExPwner]

@AppleScab (Venturia inaequalis ) that makes little sense to me. The point being that the mortgage industry was heavily regulated and manipulated by Fed policy and a promise of bailouts.

[@jeronimotamayolopera4834]

LOVE GOD.

[@L0_V]

Isn’t it an oxymoron. Free and Market , more like ‘buyer beware. But I’ll be quiet and listen

[@gretariordan4831]

THE ECONOMY does nothing for the environment which is dying and then there will be sod all economy!

[@cumicon]

governments are the biggest polluters in the world

[@ianphillips3512]

A totally deregulated market is ripe for corruption and volatility. Prove me wrong.

[@hawkinsfarr1791]

Politicians, a position only available due to governmental existence, are where corruption occur. If they lie, they get higher office. If a CEO lies, he gets fired. The government is ripe for corruption and volatility.

[@ianphillips3512]

@@hawkinsfarr1791 This is a fair response. What would your checks and balances be for corporate consolidation, monopolization, and the consequential market manipulation without a regulated market?

[@hawkinsfarr1791]

@@ianphillips3512 Competition will prevent those activities. Often all of those terms you described are due to governmental privileges. Corporate consolidation is not a problem whatsoever, though it is encouraged by the Federal government due to tax reasons. Us economists do not say "market manipulation." It is a very normative statement with no real definition other than people being fearful of a boogie man.

[@ianphillips3512]

@@hawkinsfarr1791 What do you consider mass sell-offs of bitcoin for example if not market manipulation

[@hawkinsfarr1791]

@@ianphillips3512 It's individuals selling a commodity they possess for a price they deem to be valuable. While someone is purchasing said commodity from them at a price they deem appropriate. There is no manipulation, it's just two people voluntarily exchanging at a price they agree on.

[@aajpeter]

"yes"

[@AgoristsRising]

"No."

[@redlightmax]

The term "free market" is a euphemism for "lawless market" - and a lawless market is just as unworkable as a lawless society.

[@AgoristsRising]

It was lawful to practice chattel slavery back in the day. Nowadays, government is just a euphemism for the institution of labored slavery.

[@ExPwner]

No it isn’t.

[@lybardhoppe6961]

Free markets, as endorsed by libertarians, who are the only ones actually favoring free markets, are a huge network of consensual exchanges for mutual benefit of the exchanging parties. The exchanging parties can include whatever contractual provisions they wish - which would be enforceable.

[@mlangbert]

No free market is possible without law, but in a socialist state there is no law to constrain the state. Law is only possible when the state is separated from economic actors and serves as an umpire. If the laws are defined in advance and do not change to attack one or another actor, then free markets are possible. I suggest reading Hayek's work, The Constitution of Liberty and The Road to Serfdom. He elucidates the concept of the rule of law and the difference between legislated law and judicial law. The least law-abiding states are socialist--left or right--because under socialism the state is unconstrained by predefined rules. Hitler called this fuhrerprinzip and Marx called it the dicatorship of the proletariat. There is no law under socialism; there is law under free-market capitalism.

[@DanHowardMtl]

For anyone actually interested this is all explained easily here /watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc Keynes vs. Hayek - Economics Rap Battle