Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?

[Torie]

Do more market oriented economies have anything to do with our values when it comes to tolerance?An academic ran a regression analysis, and found that it appears to - at least when it comes to homosexuals. Just why, I am not sure, because I assume the wealth factor (which is probably  correlated with free markets) has been teased out (I can understand how wealth could cause a society to become more gay friendly, at least intuitively). I have not downloaded the study and read it yet. For this sort of thing, one needs to look very carefully at the methodology, and whether all the "noise" has been teased out, and after it has been, just how many data points are left, and whether there are enough of them to get some kind of statistical significance. Anyway, if you get bored reading the 2012 Presidential Election Board, and fights over what will trend where and by what percentage come this November, you might read this article for surcease if interested in this sort of thing.

[Torie]

If by "economic freedom" you mean policies that result in income inequality, then the answer is certainly no.

Maybe we both should read the paper first.

[Torie]

If by "economic freedom" you mean policies that result in income inequality, then the answer is certainly no.

Maybe we both should read the paper first.

I just scanned and find it to be sketchy but I'll read it later tonight.

Good man. I am in the mood myself for something a tad less intellectually taxing actually.

[Torie]

Thanks Gustaf for the bottom line, which still leaves the task of flyspecking his methodology. Free markets foster tolerance if you have an honest traffic cop to contain sharp practices. Does having a social safety net, or the scope of it, count as a variable here, or is that by itself irrelevant?  Was that addressed in the article?  The idea being that without it, the "losers," or those who feel vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the market, might feel screwed, and lash out at certain cohorts in the society, perhaps an identifiable group that seems to be doing better than others.

[Torie]

I shall elaborate later but for now I will just ask: If it is the case that market economics and trade help boost tolerance towards, say, homosexuals why was it the golden era of laissez faire capitalism (ie. the late 19th Century) was the era that some of the worst oppression towards homosexuals in the history of western society? In fact, it was the era that thanks to Kraft-Ebbing, saw the disemanation of "homosexuality" as concept as distinct to "heterosexuality" and was conceived as primarily biological in nature (with "homosexuality" being seen often as due to faulty biology).

And if the first statement is in fact the case, why was it that the movement for homosexual rights (or at least in US terms the post-stonewall movement) grew out of social tendencies which were ranged from very hostile to at least indifferent towards "Capitalism" as it actually existed at the time?

It probably is a mistake to take a crack at a regression analysis across not only space, but time, I would think.

[Torie]

I would also argue, actually, that the the neo-liberal "globalization" of economic markets creates conditions that foster inequality, divisiveness, suspicion, xenophobia, an increase in religious bigotry, ethnic clashes, and other oh-so-wonderful things.

This is more evident when you consider that conditions for the poor and working classes of much of the world have not improved, but have overall deteriorated since the age of globalization, deregulation, and privatization began.

But hey, a small portion of the world's population have improved their standing enormously, so it's all good, right?

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

[Torie]

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

So?  Why on earth should an american electorate care one whit about that?

What has that got to do with the price of potatoes?  Anyway, the "american electorate" should care about it if they have a clue about anything.