TheDemonBuer

The paper that coined the term free market specifically referred to them as "well regulated". From the very beginning it was recognized that a functioning market requires government regulation, if for nothing else at least for contract enforcement and dispute resolution.

Many free market evangelists would agree that some state is likely necessary, to, as you point out, enforce contracts and mediate dispute resolution, as well as enforce private property rights. However, whether they would admit it or not, they only want said state to work for them, but never against them. They want all the protections that a state might offer, but none of the restrictions. They want laws that protect them but never bind them.

I'm not sure what measurement they would use to justify their position, or if they would try to justify it at all. I suppose that's what makes them evangelists: belief is the basis of their conviction.

Not enough people listen to Joseph Stiglitz. Even many economists don't listen to Stiglitz. That's the thing about economics: it's more philosophy than science, and like philosophy there are different schools of thought. If an economist doesn't like what Stiglitz has to say, that economist can just choose to listen to someone from a different school within economics.

For instance, Stiglitz has been quite critical of what he calls "free market evangelism," the popular idea that free markets are the most efficient method for distributing scarce resources, and so there should be minimal interference with markets from "outside" entities like the state. Economists like Stiglitz have pointed out that markets are not as efficient as the evangelists believe, but, obviously, they don't listen.

A recent meta-analysis of 30 studies involving 90,000 participants found that water chlorination levels common in the US and EU likely increase bladder cancer risk by 33% and colorectal cancer risk by 15%.

I find this particularly interesting because my dad died of bladder cancer and my aunt died of colon cancer. Needless to say, I'm going to continue to filter my water.

Alternatives exist but are costly. Experts recommend continued tap water use with effective filtration, such as granulated activated carbon.

Oh, well, if they're costly then it's fine. What are human lives compared to money, anyway?

This is a coup

Yeah, we know.

Musk became a fellow of the society — the world’s oldest science academy — in 2018 for his companies’ development of technologies such as space rockets, electric cars and brain implants.

Is this prestigious science academy aware that space rockets and electric cars existed long before Elon Musk was even born? Even if they think his companies have contributed important innovations in those technological fields, what evidence do they have that Musk was the initiator of those innovations? Musk isn't an engineer or scientist. He employs engineers. Is that their rationale? That because he owns and/or controls the companies, the innovations (assuming the innovations coming from these companies are even worthy of such recognition) should be attributed to him, even if those innovations only came about because of engineers, scientists, and technicians who are in his employ? If so, that is absolutely ridiculous. If their academy wants to award a fellowship to someone, award it to the scientists and engineers themselves, not the super rich guy who happens to be those scientists' boss.

Donald Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center has led to backlash, with several artists canceling performances or resigning from positions.

I don't blame them. I often think of resigning from being an American, these days.

I don't trust the government

Perhaps not, but a state is involved in every market economy on the planet, that I'm aware of. There is no stateless, laissez-faire, completely free market economy anywhere in the world, again, to my knowledge. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Frankly, I don't see how a market economy can exist without a state, to enforce private property rights, issue and maintain a currency, provide public infrastructure, and prevent the establishment of large monopolies.

Unregulated markets tend toward monopoly. We saw that in the 19th century, during the gilded age when a few robber barrons took near total control of several, entire key industries, like steel production and the railroads. The gilded age was also a time of massive inequality and major economic crises. The state had to step in and break up the monopolies, and enact laws to prevent new monopolies from forming.

"Communism" in this case means a centrally planned, command economy, administered by a Marxist-Leninist state. Essentially, the system that existed in the Soviet Union until it collapsed in 1991.

I don't think very many people are advocating for that exact system. Even the few countries that are still run by a communist party don't have that exact system anymore, China and Vietnam being the most obvious examples. They have hybrid, or mixed economies, that I think could best be described as "state directed market economies."

I don't know how you, personally, would rank that economic system, but it's hard to argue against its success. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty under a state directed, mixed, market economy.

It is a really obnoxious thing to say. It comes across as smug and arrogant.

the missed deadline adds to concerns that climate action has fallen down government agendas

I don't think there's any doubt about that. It's just not a priority in most countries.

I know I will never buy a Tesla.