Maybe. But in the long run we are all dead 
So it is also important how is it done.
There was a lot of debate about Chile and generally it revolved around the which is better, to produce more even if the distribution - in the statistical sense of the word - is quite equal, or produce less and distribute it - in the political sense of the word - more equally. I think neither. My point of view is the Aristotelean one: happiness is much more based on virtue, than circumstance. For me the most important thing about a political-economical system is to get the incentives right, to incentive people to engage in productive behaviour and to try to do it well. Basically, it’s something along the lines that usually the first incentive is a “consumptionary” one: one engages in productive work because one has desires to get, buy, acquire some nice things. But in the longer run, one discovers that excellence - even if it’s just that prosaic kind of excellence that of a factory worker, whose excellence lies in dutifully putting up with tedius, boring tasks and yet never ceasing to do it right, to it in a way he can be proud of his work - is a reward in itself, that producing, creating something of value is a great satisfaction in itself.
From this point of view a statist/socialist system is a great disincentive, but “crony capitalism”, an artificially created oligarchy is one too.
And when a bunch of young economist are endowed with practically unlimited power over the economy by a dictator, the incentive to cronysm becomes quite big.
Though one could argue that they are different kinds of the same coin: there isn’t really much difference between de jure legal robbery (socialism) and de facto legal robbery (crony capitalism). Agreed. What I am driving at is that liberty doesn’t really “scale”. Basically what I mean that, as a rough example, if socialism is a system with 10% liberty and crony capitalism is a system with 40%, it does not mean that crony capitalism is better. It might be that the shape of the curve is something like above 70% it’s increasingly better, under 70% it gets radically worse, it hits the bottom at 30% and actually at 10% it’s slightly better. (Of course these are just numbers pulled out of my backside, without any real meaning.) On the lower end of the liberty scale you might get better results with slightly less, than more liberty.
Or, for example, American healthcare. As far as see from this side of the pond it seems the state does a lot to drive up the cost of healthcare. Costly FDA licencing procedures, and even more importantly, doctors have to protect their backsides from predatory litigation therefore they do and bill a lot of unnecessary treatments that the patient does not really need, it’s just the doctor’s protection against frivolous lawsuits. When everything that’s not absolutely perfect and bleeding edge high tech, the absolutely latest and best , is considered a professional mistake and therefore grounds for litigation, you get and get to pay for, the best and latest. Logical enough. So probably we can agree that it would be best if the state would haul it’s fat backside out of the whole thing and would not drive up the costs. OK. But if it does not happen then maybe a partially socialized healthcare could be a lesser evil than this system, because this one is imbalanced: the state practically determines the costs, but you pick up the tab, they, from the point of view of their budget, don’t have to worry about the costs, don’t feel the consequences of it. That’s a clear moral hazard - if the state would get to pay for it (i.e. patients/taxpayers would pay for it indirectly, as opposed to directly) they would be incentived to stop driving up the costs.
It’s all a system of incentives, I think, and although liberty gives the best incentives, an imbalanced semi-liberty can given even worse incentives than a balanced lack of it.
Now it might sound weird, but let’s think about it. If I get to decide about my own matters: no moral hazard. State decides about the costs and state pays them from your taxes: there is a clear moral hazard, but still there are some semblance of sane initiatives, because they have to strike a balance between not making it too costly and not making it too low quality. Both extremes would cost votes. State decides about the costs but you pay for it directly: a huge moral hazard: in such a case why would they worry about the costs?
Something else. I have still not decided yet whether I should read up on Austrian or Chicago economics. My time is limited, probably can’t do both in the short run. What I like to do is this kind of “incentives analysis” I did above. It might be completely wrong but I think the method itself isn’t wrong. Is it closer to the Austrian or to the Chicago view?