> To the degree that there is inequality, there is opportunity for the poor to trade and excel. To the degree that there is disparity, there is success for all who collaborate in peace.
Could you elaborate on this exposition? Are you saying that the more inequality and disparity there is the more opportunity to excel and success by collaboration? This part feels very profound, but I'm slightly confused by it.
> There is a reason that 20th century South Koreans—not 10th century Anglo-Saxons—went from fettered agricultural poverty to relative global super power in less than three generations. They did so through the trade and competition and collaboration afforded by capitalist freedom. They did so without a sword in sight. And they could have only done so much so quickly as a result of the existing wealthy neighbouring nations competing for their business. They became rich because of economic inequality, not in spite of it. And for the betterment of everyone else, to boot.
Could you elaborate on this idea, that economic inequality is a _driver_ of wealth creation under freedom? How so? What's the mechanism? What business of impoverished farmers were South Korea's wealthy neighbours competing for?
Is the idea that, given freedom, opportunities open up other than farming? Or something in that ballpark?
> To the degree that there is inequality, there is opportunity for the poor to trade and excel. To the degree that there is disparity, there is success for all who collaborate in peace.
Could you elaborate on this exposition? Are you saying that the more inequality and disparity there is the more opportunity to excel and success by collaboration? This part feels very profound, but I'm slightly confused by it.
Fun read!
> There is a reason that 20th century South Koreans—not 10th century Anglo-Saxons—went from fettered agricultural poverty to relative global super power in less than three generations. They did so through the trade and competition and collaboration afforded by capitalist freedom. They did so without a sword in sight. And they could have only done so much so quickly as a result of the existing wealthy neighbouring nations competing for their business. They became rich because of economic inequality, not in spite of it. And for the betterment of everyone else, to boot.
Could you elaborate on this idea, that economic inequality is a _driver_ of wealth creation under freedom? How so? What's the mechanism? What business of impoverished farmers were South Korea's wealthy neighbours competing for?
Is the idea that, given freedom, opportunities open up other than farming? Or something in that ballpark?