5 ms·

The U.S. Isn't As Economically Free As It Used to Be

26 points by daniel-cussen 17y ago

janzer 17y ago
Rather than just the simple ranking of all countries shown in the article it would be quite interesting to see some sort of graph showing the scores actually achieved. In particular I'm curious whether the scores achieved are fairly evenly spread out or are grouped together in somewhat separate 'tiers'.
- jbellis 17y ago
  there's a lot more data in pdf form at http://www.heritage.org/index/ http://www.heritage.org/index/
  - ahi 17y ago
    The index is mostly useless, just a collection of random quantifiers averaged together with little apparent thought put into variable selection, weighting or statistical methods. It is useful as a collection of data sources though.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Well, once you collect the data, you just list the countries in roughly the order that you want them in for unrelated ideological reasons. Then the weightings work themselves out - it's plug and play!
    - daniel-cussen 17y ago
      I think it maps rather closely to, "If I were really, really rich, what would the ranking of countries look like based on how much I wanted to live there?"
    - kiba 17y ago
      Is it possible to quantify the level of respect governments have for property right? Is it possible to quantify the level of regulations and rules made up by government?
      - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
        1) Define property rights, the ways governments can infringe on them and then assign values to those infractions. 2) In part, you can measure the amount of paperwork and time delay in achieving common tasks, like buying land, building a warehouse and incorporating. The sheer number of regulations may also be an indicator for the amount of friction the government is introducing. Defining "level of regulations and rules" is also important in order to come up with a good quantification scheme.
- tomsaffell 17y ago
  I thought exactly the same, so I made a chart: http://saffell.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dist.jpg http://saffell.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dist.jpg Sorry it's not a histogram, but you get a sense of the distribution. The full data is at: http://saffell.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/distribution-of-2010-index-of-economic-freedom/ http://saffell.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/distribution-of-2010... (3 countries below 30 are not on chart)
emilind 17y ago
I wonder if we can get some posts about death panels on HN while we're at it.
teilo 17y ago
And in other news, sources have confirmed that water is still wet. Film at 11. Is there anyone who actually believes that the US has not lost economic freedom, when the mortgage and auto industries are under government control, with healthcare shortly to follow?
sili 17y ago
"These policies have resulted in job losses" Can someone explain to me how the recent government policies have lead to job losses. I have always thought the opposite was true.
- camccann 17y ago
  There's plenty of explanations out there, if you care to look. Of course, there's also plenty of explanations about how government policies have created new jobs. Measuring results and identifying causal relationships is incredibly difficult in economics, and with all the associated political issues at stake it's hard to cut through all the bullshit.
  - Empact 17y ago
    Just to emphasize: incredibly difficult is an understatement. We're talking hundreds of millions of actors, making an uncountably large number of independent decisions from moment to moment, in constantly shifting circumstances. There is no control, there is only very broad "repeatability." We have only circumstances and the interpretation thereof. In macroeconomics, at least.
    - camccann 17y ago
      Well, that's what we have statistics and the scientific method for. Of course, that means lots of math, and lots of research, and lots of hard work, and having to actually to change your mind if your predictions are wrong, and--worst of all--it means not making simple, sound-bite pronouncements that fit someone's political agenda. You can't make a career writing editorials about how there's a 73% chance that raising taxes on widgets will reduce the annual productivity of the foobar industry by 1.3%.
      - Empact 17y ago
        I think you're understating the difficulty. No amount of math can tease apart the indiscernibly complex. We observe correlations naturally. Assumed relationships. The sort which suggested God wanted us to dance to bring on rain. But without controls, and without repeatable experimentation, we can not have a true scientific method. The scientific method requires hypothesis, predictions, and repeatable experimentations. One successful dance is an anecdote, many is a theory, decades of them is a law, still questionable. But how can you repeat an experiment which takes place over a whole society of people, millions strong, with life constantly intervening? This isn't only about soundbites, it's about having no means to achieve anything more definitive than soundbites.
ubernostrum 17y ago
Let me fix the lede: "Policies recently enacted by Democrats are ruining the country, according to a set of rankings released today by a conservative think tank which believes Democrats will ruin the country and a conservative newspaper which believes Democrats will ruin the country."
- Empact 17y ago
  So, would you say that "protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed 'too big to fail.'" from the past year are positive, or have increased economic freedom? If so, why not address those points rather than deploy ad hominems?
  - camccann 17y ago
    Probably because there's not really much substance to address. Most commentary on "economics" is barely-disguised political advocacy, starting with a conclusion and then working backwards to come up with arguments, and this article is even more egregious than most. Lots of argument-by-assertion and emotionally-loaded phrasing, and a general attitude of having all the answers. I expect it wouldn't be too hard to find a similar article from an "opposing position" with all the same muddled thinking and question begging, but what would that really accomplish? This sort of nonsense goes firmly in the "not even wrong" bin. Stuff like this is more about social status-seeking and in-group identity than about the ostensible topic.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    If so, why not address those points rather than deploy ad hominems? I don't see it as ad hominem. Talking about "economic freedom" is basically pointless unless one comes out and admits what definition of "economic freedom" is being used. The WSJ story notably doesn't do this, but it's not terribly hard to infer that the economic principles applied are likely informed by the strongly right-leaning political views of the institutions behind the study. Or, putting it another way: the study attributes the "loss" of economic freedom largely to the response to the recent economic crisis. Which corresponds with a time when the political opponents of the sponsoring organizations had just cemented control of two out of three branches of the federal government. If the New York Times and other politically-left-leaning organizations published a study which claimed a drastic decline at the precise moment the Republican Party gained the same level of control, would you assume objectivity on their part?
joubert 17y ago
Economic freedom isn't worth squat if you have no human rights.
- elidourado 17y ago
  Economic freedom is a human right.
  - camccann 17y ago
    ...but not the only one. For instance, #2 on the list there is Singapore, which is somewhat infamous as a semi-authoritarian society with, for instance, many restrictions on freedom of speech and laws criminalizing various types of undesired behavior, such as littering, jaywalking, chewing gum, and not flushing toilets. (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Singapore#Criminal_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Singapore#Criminal_law ) On the other hand, they have little corruption and low crime rates, so hey, if it works for them...
    - Empact 17y ago
      See also, the State of World Liberty index: http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/results.html http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/results.html http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html They attempt to get a broader view of freedom by including other indices. Their tops, from 2006: Estonia, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, Iceland, Bahamas, United Kingdom And then, finally, United States Singapore is ranked 49th, on account of being ranked 95th in the "individual freedom" category.
  - joubert 17y ago
    Less important that the ability to vote, the ability to marry, freedom of speech, ability to move freely, freedom of association, etc. Without any of these, there can be no economic freedom.
    - rms 17y ago
      I'm as big of an advocate for justice and human rights as anyone, but this just isn't true. Hong Kong and Singapore are the obvious examples. Do you mean that economic freedom is meaningless without broader human rights?

26 points by daniel-cussen 17y ago

Rather than just the simple ranking of all countries shown in the article it would be quite interesting to see some sort of graph showing the scores actually achieved. In particular I'm curious whether the scores achieved are fairly evenly spread out or are grouped together in somewhat separate 'tiers'.

jbellis 17y ago
there's a lot more data in pdf form at http://www.heritage.org/index/ http://www.heritage.org/index/
- ahi 17y ago
  The index is mostly useless, just a collection of random quantifiers averaged together with little apparent thought put into variable selection, weighting or statistical methods. It is useful as a collection of data sources though.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Well, once you collect the data, you just list the countries in roughly the order that you want them in for unrelated ideological reasons. Then the weightings work themselves out - it's plug and play!
  - daniel-cussen 17y ago
    I think it maps rather closely to, "If I were really, really rich, what would the ranking of countries look like based on how much I wanted to live there?"
  - kiba 17y ago
    Is it possible to quantify the level of respect governments have for property right? Is it possible to quantify the level of regulations and rules made up by government?
    - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
      1) Define property rights, the ways governments can infringe on them and then assign values to those infractions. 2) In part, you can measure the amount of paperwork and time delay in achieving common tasks, like buying land, building a warehouse and incorporating. The sheer number of regulations may also be an indicator for the amount of friction the government is introducing. Defining "level of regulations and rules" is also important in order to come up with a good quantification scheme.
tomsaffell 17y ago
I thought exactly the same, so I made a chart: http://saffell.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dist.jpg http://saffell.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dist.jpg Sorry it's not a histogram, but you get a sense of the distribution. The full data is at: http://saffell.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/distribution-of-2010-index-of-economic-freedom/ http://saffell.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/distribution-of-2010... (3 countries below 30 are not on chart)

emilind 17y ago

I wonder if we can get some posts about death panels on HN while we're at it.

teilo 17y ago

And in other news, sources have confirmed that water is still wet. Film at 11. Is there anyone who actually believes that the US has not lost economic freedom, when the mortgage and auto industries are under government control, with healthcare shortly to follow?

sili 17y ago

"These policies have resulted in job losses" Can someone explain to me how the recent government policies have lead to job losses. I have always thought the opposite was true.

camccann 17y ago
There's plenty of explanations out there, if you care to look. Of course, there's also plenty of explanations about how government policies have created new jobs. Measuring results and identifying causal relationships is incredibly difficult in economics, and with all the associated political issues at stake it's hard to cut through all the bullshit.
- Empact 17y ago
  Just to emphasize: incredibly difficult is an understatement. We're talking hundreds of millions of actors, making an uncountably large number of independent decisions from moment to moment, in constantly shifting circumstances. There is no control, there is only very broad "repeatability." We have only circumstances and the interpretation thereof. In macroeconomics, at least.
  - camccann 17y ago
    Well, that's what we have statistics and the scientific method for. Of course, that means lots of math, and lots of research, and lots of hard work, and having to actually to change your mind if your predictions are wrong, and--worst of all--it means not making simple, sound-bite pronouncements that fit someone's political agenda. You can't make a career writing editorials about how there's a 73% chance that raising taxes on widgets will reduce the annual productivity of the foobar industry by 1.3%.
    - Empact 17y ago
      I think you're understating the difficulty. No amount of math can tease apart the indiscernibly complex. We observe correlations naturally. Assumed relationships. The sort which suggested God wanted us to dance to bring on rain. But without controls, and without repeatable experimentation, we can not have a true scientific method. The scientific method requires hypothesis, predictions, and repeatable experimentations. One successful dance is an anecdote, many is a theory, decades of them is a law, still questionable. But how can you repeat an experiment which takes place over a whole society of people, millions strong, with life constantly intervening? This isn't only about soundbites, it's about having no means to achieve anything more definitive than soundbites.

ubernostrum 17y ago

Let me fix the lede: "Policies recently enacted by Democrats are ruining the country, according to a set of rankings released today by a conservative think tank which believes Democrats will ruin the country and a conservative newspaper which believes Democrats will ruin the country."

Empact 17y ago
So, would you say that "protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed 'too big to fail.'" from the past year are positive, or have increased economic freedom? If so, why not address those points rather than deploy ad hominems?
- camccann 17y ago
  Probably because there's not really much substance to address. Most commentary on "economics" is barely-disguised political advocacy, starting with a conclusion and then working backwards to come up with arguments, and this article is even more egregious than most. Lots of argument-by-assertion and emotionally-loaded phrasing, and a general attitude of having all the answers. I expect it wouldn't be too hard to find a similar article from an "opposing position" with all the same muddled thinking and question begging, but what would that really accomplish? This sort of nonsense goes firmly in the "not even wrong" bin. Stuff like this is more about social status-seeking and in-group identity than about the ostensible topic.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  If so, why not address those points rather than deploy ad hominems? I don't see it as ad hominem. Talking about "economic freedom" is basically pointless unless one comes out and admits what definition of "economic freedom" is being used. The WSJ story notably doesn't do this, but it's not terribly hard to infer that the economic principles applied are likely informed by the strongly right-leaning political views of the institutions behind the study. Or, putting it another way: the study attributes the "loss" of economic freedom largely to the response to the recent economic crisis. Which corresponds with a time when the political opponents of the sponsoring organizations had just cemented control of two out of three branches of the federal government. If the New York Times and other politically-left-leaning organizations published a study which claimed a drastic decline at the precise moment the Republican Party gained the same level of control, would you assume objectivity on their part?

joubert 17y ago

Economic freedom isn't worth squat if you have no human rights.

elidourado 17y ago
Economic freedom is a human right.
- camccann 17y ago
  ...but not the only one. For instance, #2 on the list there is Singapore, which is somewhat infamous as a semi-authoritarian society with, for instance, many restrictions on freedom of speech and laws criminalizing various types of undesired behavior, such as littering, jaywalking, chewing gum, and not flushing toilets. (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Singapore#Criminal_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Singapore#Criminal_law ) On the other hand, they have little corruption and low crime rates, so hey, if it works for them...
  - Empact 17y ago
    See also, the State of World Liberty index: http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/results.html http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/results.html http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html They attempt to get a broader view of freedom by including other indices. Their tops, from 2006: Estonia, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, Iceland, Bahamas, United Kingdom And then, finally, United States Singapore is ranked 49th, on account of being ranked 95th in the "individual freedom" category.
- joubert 17y ago
  Less important that the ability to vote, the ability to marry, freedom of speech, ability to move freely, freedom of association, etc. Without any of these, there can be no economic freedom.
  - rms 17y ago
    I'm as big of an advocate for justice and human rights as anyone, but this just isn't true. Hong Kong and Singapore are the obvious examples. Do you mean that economic freedom is meaningless without broader human rights?