I was going to respond to a comment from Harvey in the thread from this week’s FFR, but quickly came to realize that I was writing more of an essay than a blog comment, so here we are. Harvey writes:

While Moore’s Law finds the World Economy, is it a good idea, to put the fate of human lives in the hands of the “free market”?

My gut answer is “yes,” but I’m interested in learning about any viable alternatives on the table. I don’t believe in letting people starve or go without housing or medical attention, but then I don’t know of anyone who does. As I suggested on the podcast a couple of weeks ago, I’d like to see us start approaching these issues from a standpoint of effectiveness, using as close to scientific analysis as possible rather than ideological boilerplate. I believe the evidence indicates that (more or less) free markets are the most effective tool to push us to an economic singularity.

It is estimated that 600 million people have been lifted from poverty in China over the past 25-30 years, resulting from a dramatic move by the Chinese government in the direction of free markets. I can think of no other example where so many lives have been improved so rapidly.

The digital revolution occurred in and has been driven by free economies. If the elimination of poverty requires driving to a new generation of information technology — one where physical goods are the output of information processing — then I favor taking the quickest route available. It’s not a question of whether we care for the sick, the poor, the homeless. It’s a question of getting the most help to the most people in the shortest amount of time.

I’m eager to use whatever approach will do that, irrespective of whether that approach gets labeled “capitalism,” “socialism,” “progressivism,” or “conservatism.” I just don’t care. I want to do what works. From where I sit — and as I said, I’m eager to learn about anything else that works — but from where I sit, free markets are the humane approach.