8 ms·

America's Dwindling Economic Freedom

30 points by f_salmon 13y ago

thecolorblue 13y ago
I think its two difficult to put the US and UK (as examples) on the same scale as other countries. Miller suggests that tougher regulation has caused the US to loose points. I would argue the US needs more regulation, compared to smaller countries, for stability.
- iterative 13y ago
  That's not an argument, it's an assertion.
- cmdkeen 13y ago
  I think the point being made is the blunt nature of the regulation - "entire industries" are being regulated. More regulation doesn't necessarily mean better regulation.
jasonkester 13y ago
Hmm. You know those dozen or so countries even further down the list than the US do sorta seem like nice places to live. Germany, Sweden, Japan and so forth. Maybe there are just a lot of countries in the world, and not everybody can be in the top 10 for everything every year. The reasons the author lists for why my freedom is suddenly so limited don't seem like they would really impact me all that much. So there's more health care regulation. And now I'm supposed to be panicking? Perhaps not.
- mpweiher 13y ago
  "...nice places to live...why my freedom is suddenly so limited don't seem like they would really impact me all that much" Economic freedom, that is the freedom of companies to do as they please, is often in conflict with individual freedom. For example, I find myself with much greater freedom as an employee or as a consumer in Germany than in the US, because the inherent imbalance in power between the two parties is leveled by regulations curtailing the corporations' freedom.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - Retric 13y ago
      Monopoly's and collusion are a clear counter examples where individual freedom and institutional freedom are at odds.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - tolmasky 13y ago
        I'm not really convinced of this at all. Especially since the fear of monopolies seems to magically vanish when its monopolies the government creates (and no I'm not talking about the water plant or whatever). For example, for all the fear mongering about Microsoft's monopoly in the 90s, the reality ended up being that the free market is a fickle mistress and Microsoft's power dwindled pretty quickly when mobile and web came around and changed the game on them (see: innovator's dilemma). Another great example is AOL/Time Warner. All those lawsuits and extensive government intervention were complete wastes of money, and I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now all the current "dominant players" have been overrun as well. Compare this to the monopolies granted and supported by the government in the form of patents and copyrights. Disney, while gaining its early success from taking from the public domain, enjoys Congress' approval to basically get indefinite copyright extensions and never have to relinquish any of their work. We the tax payer get to subsidize reducing Disney's competition. And hopefully here I don't have to go into the details of how detrimental technology patents have been to both consumers and new businesses (and arguably even the companies that hold the patents!). In other words, I'm actually not that scared of "natural" monopolies: i.e. monopolies that get to where they are legitimately through actually convincing 100% of consumers to buy their product, vs. by filing paperwork to the US government and then sending cease and desist letters to competitors. I also believe it would be much harder to attain such a "natural" monopoly in a patentless world. What scares me is the interaction between corporations and governments to establish monopolies that legally cannot be challenged, or alternatively, to augment their monopolies by influencing high ranking members of congress. I'd gladly trade the risk of doom-and-gloom potential monopolies for eliminating patents.
- alipang 13y ago
  If you're up for a longer read about Sweden's economic history, you can check out http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laisse.... There is of course some possible bias in this article that should be derivable from the domain name.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  New health care regulations significantly complicate the lives of those trying to start or grow a business (at least businesses smaller than big corporations). At the very early stage, the cost is high. I'm obligated to pay overinflated prices for insurance to support the life choices (pregnancy, drug addiction, fatness) of others. The cost is also highly unpredictable - it's based on my future income and the exchange website is designed to obfuscate it in order to avoid sticker shock. Good luck predicting future income if you don't work for the government/bigcorp. And there are all sorts of edge cases where the regulations don't even make sense. For example, I live outside the US, but if I enter the US for 31 or 36 days (different websites give different numbers), I'm obligated to buy 365 days of obamacare or pay the obamacare tax. This drastically curtails my ability to make sales visits. At the growing a business stage, it makes your 50'th employee very expensive.
  - cm2012 13y ago
    If your new business has lower than 50 employees, obamacare does not effect it in any way except to subsidize your low paid employees healthcare if they take their own plan.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      Re-read my post. I didn't claim otherwise.
  - Anechoic 13y ago
    New health care regulations significantly complicate the lives of those trying to start or grow a business (at least businesses smaller than big corporations). I must be missing something because as someone who is growing a small business, the ACA (and its Massachusetts predecessor) has significantly simplified my life.
- arethuza 13y ago
  What about Singapore - #2 on that list of economic freedom but it ranks pretty poorly in press freedom: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-falls-to-record-low-place-in-press-freedom-ranking-035131531.html http://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-falls-to-record-low-place... And they have rather brutal corporal punishment for quite trivial things (swearing on an airline flight??): http://www.news.com.au/national/beyond-excruciating-when-it-comes-to-brutality-singapore-canes-it/story-fncynjr2-1226560039163 http://www.news.com.au/national/beyond-excruciating-when-it-...
- cmdkeen 13y ago
  Except the US public debt requires growth to stop a very nasty hard landing when it comes home to roost. The article's assertion that economic freedom is tied to economic growth should cause worry in that regard. Germany and Sweden have anaemic 0.7% GDP growth for the year, Japan is at the end of a lost decade where there have been significant economic consequences. It isn't about what the quality of life will be like tomorrow or next year, it's the consequences a decade hence. Those countries all have significantly better social security safety nets. The US does not because it is supposed to be economically successful for the majority, if that ceases to be the case things like a lack of public healthcare is going to become a significant problem.
- ddeck 13y ago
  >those dozen or so countries even further down the list than the US do sorta seem like nice places to live Precisely. I'm not sure topping the economic freedom charts is such a desirable goal for the average citizen. Here in Hong Kong (#1 on the list) for example, I have the freedom to legally discriminate against employees based on age, appearance, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. I have the freedom to engage in anti-competitive mergers and monopolize the market. I have the freedom to pay peanuts, demand unpaid overtime, require a 6-day workweek, give one-week leave per year and not pay you for breaks. Freedom to run a toxic bus fleet and burn bunker fuel in my ship while anchored 24/7 1-mile from the center of town. One can argue cause and effect, but I don't think it's coincidence that Hong Kong has the highest income inequality in the developed world[1] and one of the unhappiest populations[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... [2] http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_onl...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - hc811 13y ago
    Don't you also have the freedom to not take a job you're not happy with?
    - zimbatm 13y ago
      What makes you think that other jobs would be better ? Not everyone is as well equipped in life as you are (an assumption based on the fact that you have a computer and time to post on HN). Freedom != opportunities
      - hc811 13y ago
        Hong Kong enjoys one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world among developed countries.[1] Maybe freedom leads to opportunities. [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/unemployment-rate
- magicroundabout 13y ago
  It is also worth noting that countries that are alleged to have spiralled downwards in terms of economic freedom are now far more pleasant places to live. From personal experience, I would cite Ecuador. The same streets of Quito that were mortally perilous are now must-see features of package tourism; the bus journeys that would have taken 14 hours across the country now take 8. Income taxes are still far lower than many who make the top of the index and even the wealthiest have enjoyed the benefits of sustained growth and a relatively stable political climate (given the country's previous history). Yes, it is starting to look like these 'crony-populist regimes' that threaten economic freedom actually make people a good deal freer in material terms.
vmsmith 13y ago
That's kind of a silly list. Look at the 11 countries above the U.S. in 'economic freedom'.. First, there's Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Mauritius -- Mauritius...?!?!? -- Ireland, Denmark, and Estonia. Really? You're really going to compare those postage stam...sorry, countries, and their so-called economic freedom to the U.S.? Really? Australia, Canada, Chile, and New Zealand...OK, I can perhaps buy that. Particularly Australia and Canada. Now look at the countries below the U.S. Included are: Taiwan, Germany, South Korea, Israel...all doing quite nicely on the capitalist front. Not to mention Norway, Sweden, Finland, and several other countries with arguably higher standards of living and qualities of life than the U.S. A silly list purporting to demonstrate an even sillier implication.
- Gigablah 13y ago
  > You're really going to compare those postage stam...sorry, countries I don't get it.
  - Patient0 13y ago
    he means that the countries are so small (in area) - the size is comparable to a postage stamp (i.e. hyperbole)
    - vmsmith 13y ago
      It's not just that they're small in size. They're small in almost everything. Take regulation, one of the things that's considered a measurement. Yeah, the U.S. has lots of regulations about, say, oil and gas and coal extraction. Do either Hong Kong or Singapore even have to think about oil, gas, and coal extraction? The U.S. has farms and ranches that are bigger than a few of those countries. Do those countries need to think about food regulation the way the U.S. does? That sort of thing. For the most part they're not even in the same universe economically. And yes, it was a bit of deliberate hyperbole.
- jedrek 13y ago
  A friend just moved back to the us from Denmark and can't shut up about how much better it is for business in the US.
bazzargh 13y ago
Huge pinch of salt and 'citation needed' on this. The Heritage Foundation is a self-described conservative think tank, and just seems to be relabelling 'low tax' as economic freedom here. The purported benefits: "Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity..." really? From 2000-2008, Ireland held 3rd or 4th spot in the list[1], and is now 11th. Worked out great for them, what with the recession, the bailout, and the 2nd highest level of household debt in the world[2]. To those who would reply 'but that's outside forces, economics is complicated,', well, exactly. Reducing it to a list like this is wishful thinking. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932013_Irish_financial_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932013_Irish_financ...
- DGrutt 13y ago
  It would take less than 5 minutes of research to learn that it was not just about low taxes. Also cherry picking one country on there does nothing to disprove the notion that in general countries with higher economic freedom have higher economic growth. I don't think they are trying to say it is the one and only factor as that would be ridiculous. If it were purely ideological the list would look nothing like that anyway so I don't see why people are getting bent out of shape.
- brc 13y ago
  I think the point there is not that fact that Ireland had a major economic crisis, but what the response to that crisis was. My memory on this is imperfect, but I recall all the banks getting nationalised and the losses being pinned on the taxpayer. That would demonstrate a loss of economic freedom in the way the index seems to weight it (lower public debt and lower taxes = higher economic freedom). So I don't see a particular problem there. If Ireland had followed more of the Iceland model post-crisis (dissolve the entities, prosecute the execs, reneg on debt) then I think the results for Ireland would probably be different.
  - bazzargh 13y ago
elipsey 13y ago
I'm annoyed. I came here to point out who the heritage foundation is, but bazzargh has it covered: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7062656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7062656 TFA complains about "marginal income rates of %43" as though this were the general case. For what it's worth, %43 is the highest capital gains rate, the highest income rate is %39, which is for incomes of over 1.8MM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States With that out of the way, the highest marginal tax rate was around %90 during the boom of the 50's and 60's, and is lower now than during Regan administration for example: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-... If one is a member of the very highest tax bracket, then one might be tempted to measure freedom by the myopic comparison of income tax rates. It would be unsurprising if the Heritage Foundation were concerned about the very highest tax rate in great disproportion to it's nominal consequence. There are other economic freedoms: freedom from excessive gov't granted monopolies (patent/copyright), freedom from protectionism, tariffs, limited work visas, etc. Even rich guys driven to distraction by high tax rates ought to be able to find something say about these sorts of things in an article about economic freedom, but no specific structural reforms are proposed. News flash: partisan think tank doesn't like taxes, president. For the rest of rest of us, real freedom also means not being imprisoned for interacting with other consenting adults in ways that are illegal, and not being denied due process in various ways such as: torte reform, civil asset forfeiture, being spied on by agencies who are immune from judicial review, etc. Could we take a break from wringing our hands about the welfare of the ultra-rich, and work some of that stuff too?
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  For the rest of rest of us, real freedom also means not being imprisoned for interacting with other consenting adults in ways that are illegal... You mean interactions like paying a consenting adult $7.24/hour to clean your bedroom? Selling a consenting knowledgeable adult a substance which has not passed FDA review? Paying a person without a medallion to drive you to a different location? As far as I know, you don't escape from patent/copyright or work visa issues by travelling to other nations. Incidentally, those things are included in the Heritage rankings, and collectively get more weight than tax/govt spend. http://www.heritage.org/index/about http://www.heritage.org/index/about
pessimizer 13y ago
tldr; Arbitrary number made up by conservative think tank not known for intellectual rigor is declared to have risen, press released.
DGrutt 13y ago
You can see a big difference when you look at Africa. Countries like Botswana and Mauritius really have seen great gains in economic growth through economic freedom, yet we think the whole continent is struggling. Compare that with Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbambwe at the bottom. For a while Botswana was outpacing Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea in economic growth rate.
spindritf 13y ago
Here's the actual index http://www.heritage.org/index/ http://www.heritage.org/index/ It's a pretty well made website. You can export filtered data in csv, there are profiles for each country, etc.
ChristianMarks 13y ago
Unscientific rubbish. Discourse about economic justice is "value laden" but talk of economic freedom is based on "economics without values."
xradionut 13y ago
Norway, which is the "happiest" country is ranked number 32 on this list.
nirnira 13y ago
Seems like bullshit. Australia has ludicrous regulations on competition, including a massive minimum wage, with all sorts of knock-on distortionary problems, yet it makes the top five.

30 points by f_salmon 13y ago

I think its two difficult to put the US and UK (as examples) on the same scale as other countries. Miller suggests that tougher regulation has caused the US to loose points. I would argue the US needs more regulation, compared to smaller countries, for stability.

iterative 13y ago
That's not an argument, it's an assertion.
cmdkeen 13y ago
I think the point being made is the blunt nature of the regulation - "entire industries" are being regulated. More regulation doesn't necessarily mean better regulation.

jasonkester 13y ago

Hmm. You know those dozen or so countries even further down the list than the US do sorta seem like nice places to live. Germany, Sweden, Japan and so forth. Maybe there are just a lot of countries in the world, and not everybody can be in the top 10 for everything every year. The reasons the author lists for why my freedom is suddenly so limited don't seem like they would really impact me all that much. So there's more health care regulation. And now I'm supposed to be panicking? Perhaps not.

mpweiher 13y ago
"...nice places to live...why my freedom is suddenly so limited don't seem like they would really impact me all that much" Economic freedom, that is the freedom of companies to do as they please, is often in conflict with individual freedom. For example, I find myself with much greater freedom as an employee or as a consumer in Germany than in the US, because the inherent imbalance in power between the two parties is leveled by regulations curtailing the corporations' freedom.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - Retric 13y ago
    Monopoly's and collusion are a clear counter examples where individual freedom and institutional freedom are at odds.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - tolmasky 13y ago
      I'm not really convinced of this at all. Especially since the fear of monopolies seems to magically vanish when its monopolies the government creates (and no I'm not talking about the water plant or whatever). For example, for all the fear mongering about Microsoft's monopoly in the 90s, the reality ended up being that the free market is a fickle mistress and Microsoft's power dwindled pretty quickly when mobile and web came around and changed the game on them (see: innovator's dilemma). Another great example is AOL/Time Warner. All those lawsuits and extensive government intervention were complete wastes of money, and I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now all the current "dominant players" have been overrun as well. Compare this to the monopolies granted and supported by the government in the form of patents and copyrights. Disney, while gaining its early success from taking from the public domain, enjoys Congress' approval to basically get indefinite copyright extensions and never have to relinquish any of their work. We the tax payer get to subsidize reducing Disney's competition. And hopefully here I don't have to go into the details of how detrimental technology patents have been to both consumers and new businesses (and arguably even the companies that hold the patents!). In other words, I'm actually not that scared of "natural" monopolies: i.e. monopolies that get to where they are legitimately through actually convincing 100% of consumers to buy their product, vs. by filing paperwork to the US government and then sending cease and desist letters to competitors. I also believe it would be much harder to attain such a "natural" monopoly in a patentless world. What scares me is the interaction between corporations and governments to establish monopolies that legally cannot be challenged, or alternatively, to augment their monopolies by influencing high ranking members of congress. I'd gladly trade the risk of doom-and-gloom potential monopolies for eliminating patents.
alipang 13y ago
If you're up for a longer read about Sweden's economic history, you can check out http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laisse.... There is of course some possible bias in this article that should be derivable from the domain name.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
New health care regulations significantly complicate the lives of those trying to start or grow a business (at least businesses smaller than big corporations). At the very early stage, the cost is high. I'm obligated to pay overinflated prices for insurance to support the life choices (pregnancy, drug addiction, fatness) of others. The cost is also highly unpredictable - it's based on my future income and the exchange website is designed to obfuscate it in order to avoid sticker shock. Good luck predicting future income if you don't work for the government/bigcorp. And there are all sorts of edge cases where the regulations don't even make sense. For example, I live outside the US, but if I enter the US for 31 or 36 days (different websites give different numbers), I'm obligated to buy 365 days of obamacare or pay the obamacare tax. This drastically curtails my ability to make sales visits. At the growing a business stage, it makes your 50'th employee very expensive.
- cm2012 13y ago
  If your new business has lower than 50 employees, obamacare does not effect it in any way except to subsidize your low paid employees healthcare if they take their own plan.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Re-read my post. I didn't claim otherwise.
- Anechoic 13y ago
  New health care regulations significantly complicate the lives of those trying to start or grow a business (at least businesses smaller than big corporations). I must be missing something because as someone who is growing a small business, the ACA (and its Massachusetts predecessor) has significantly simplified my life.
arethuza 13y ago
What about Singapore - #2 on that list of economic freedom but it ranks pretty poorly in press freedom: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-falls-to-record-low-place-in-press-freedom-ranking-035131531.html http://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-falls-to-record-low-place... And they have rather brutal corporal punishment for quite trivial things (swearing on an airline flight??): http://www.news.com.au/national/beyond-excruciating-when-it-comes-to-brutality-singapore-canes-it/story-fncynjr2-1226560039163 http://www.news.com.au/national/beyond-excruciating-when-it-...
cmdkeen 13y ago
Except the US public debt requires growth to stop a very nasty hard landing when it comes home to roost. The article's assertion that economic freedom is tied to economic growth should cause worry in that regard. Germany and Sweden have anaemic 0.7% GDP growth for the year, Japan is at the end of a lost decade where there have been significant economic consequences. It isn't about what the quality of life will be like tomorrow or next year, it's the consequences a decade hence. Those countries all have significantly better social security safety nets. The US does not because it is supposed to be economically successful for the majority, if that ceases to be the case things like a lack of public healthcare is going to become a significant problem.
ddeck 13y ago
>those dozen or so countries even further down the list than the US do sorta seem like nice places to live Precisely. I'm not sure topping the economic freedom charts is such a desirable goal for the average citizen. Here in Hong Kong (#1 on the list) for example, I have the freedom to legally discriminate against employees based on age, appearance, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. I have the freedom to engage in anti-competitive mergers and monopolize the market. I have the freedom to pay peanuts, demand unpaid overtime, require a 6-day workweek, give one-week leave per year and not pay you for breaks. Freedom to run a toxic bus fleet and burn bunker fuel in my ship while anchored 24/7 1-mile from the center of town. One can argue cause and effect, but I don't think it's coincidence that Hong Kong has the highest income inequality in the developed world[1] and one of the unhappiest populations[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... [2] http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_onl...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- hc811 13y ago
  Don't you also have the freedom to not take a job you're not happy with?
  - zimbatm 13y ago
    What makes you think that other jobs would be better ? Not everyone is as well equipped in life as you are (an assumption based on the fact that you have a computer and time to post on HN). Freedom != opportunities
    - hc811 13y ago
      Hong Kong enjoys one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world among developed countries.[1] Maybe freedom leads to opportunities. [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/unemployment-rate
magicroundabout 13y ago
It is also worth noting that countries that are alleged to have spiralled downwards in terms of economic freedom are now far more pleasant places to live. From personal experience, I would cite Ecuador. The same streets of Quito that were mortally perilous are now must-see features of package tourism; the bus journeys that would have taken 14 hours across the country now take 8. Income taxes are still far lower than many who make the top of the index and even the wealthiest have enjoyed the benefits of sustained growth and a relatively stable political climate (given the country's previous history). Yes, it is starting to look like these 'crony-populist regimes' that threaten economic freedom actually make people a good deal freer in material terms.

vmsmith 13y ago

That's kind of a silly list. Look at the 11 countries above the U.S. in 'economic freedom'.. First, there's Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Mauritius -- Mauritius...?!?!? -- Ireland, Denmark, and Estonia. Really? You're really going to compare those postage stam...sorry, countries, and their so-called economic freedom to the U.S.? Really? Australia, Canada, Chile, and New Zealand...OK, I can perhaps buy that. Particularly Australia and Canada. Now look at the countries below the U.S. Included are: Taiwan, Germany, South Korea, Israel...all doing quite nicely on the capitalist front. Not to mention Norway, Sweden, Finland, and several other countries with arguably higher standards of living and qualities of life than the U.S. A silly list purporting to demonstrate an even sillier implication.

Gigablah 13y ago
> You're really going to compare those postage stam...sorry, countries I don't get it.
- Patient0 13y ago
  he means that the countries are so small (in area) - the size is comparable to a postage stamp (i.e. hyperbole)
  - vmsmith 13y ago
    It's not just that they're small in size. They're small in almost everything. Take regulation, one of the things that's considered a measurement. Yeah, the U.S. has lots of regulations about, say, oil and gas and coal extraction. Do either Hong Kong or Singapore even have to think about oil, gas, and coal extraction? The U.S. has farms and ranches that are bigger than a few of those countries. Do those countries need to think about food regulation the way the U.S. does? That sort of thing. For the most part they're not even in the same universe economically. And yes, it was a bit of deliberate hyperbole.
jedrek 13y ago
A friend just moved back to the us from Denmark and can't shut up about how much better it is for business in the US.

bazzargh 13y ago

Huge pinch of salt and 'citation needed' on this. The Heritage Foundation is a self-described conservative think tank, and just seems to be relabelling 'low tax' as economic freedom here. The purported benefits: "Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity..." really? From 2000-2008, Ireland held 3rd or 4th spot in the list[1], and is now 11th. Worked out great for them, what with the recession, the bailout, and the 2nd highest level of household debt in the world[2]. To those who would reply 'but that's outside forces, economics is complicated,', well, exactly. Reducing it to a list like this is wishful thinking. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932013_Irish_financial_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932013_Irish_financ...

DGrutt 13y ago
It would take less than 5 minutes of research to learn that it was not just about low taxes. Also cherry picking one country on there does nothing to disprove the notion that in general countries with higher economic freedom have higher economic growth. I don't think they are trying to say it is the one and only factor as that would be ridiculous. If it were purely ideological the list would look nothing like that anyway so I don't see why people are getting bent out of shape.
brc 13y ago
I think the point there is not that fact that Ireland had a major economic crisis, but what the response to that crisis was. My memory on this is imperfect, but I recall all the banks getting nationalised and the losses being pinned on the taxpayer. That would demonstrate a loss of economic freedom in the way the index seems to weight it (lower public debt and lower taxes = higher economic freedom). So I don't see a particular problem there. If Ireland had followed more of the Iceland model post-crisis (dissolve the entities, prosecute the execs, reneg on debt) then I think the results for Ireland would probably be different.
- bazzargh 13y ago

elipsey 13y ago

I'm annoyed. I came here to point out who the heritage foundation is, but bazzargh has it covered: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7062656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7062656 TFA complains about "marginal income rates of %43" as though this were the general case. For what it's worth, %43 is the highest capital gains rate, the highest income rate is %39, which is for incomes of over 1.8MM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States With that out of the way, the highest marginal tax rate was around %90 during the boom of the 50's and 60's, and is lower now than during Regan administration for example: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-... If one is a member of the very highest tax bracket, then one might be tempted to measure freedom by the myopic comparison of income tax rates. It would be unsurprising if the Heritage Foundation were concerned about the very highest tax rate in great disproportion to it's nominal consequence. There are other economic freedoms: freedom from excessive gov't granted monopolies (patent/copyright), freedom from protectionism, tariffs, limited work visas, etc. Even rich guys driven to distraction by high tax rates ought to be able to find something say about these sorts of things in an article about economic freedom, but no specific structural reforms are proposed. News flash: partisan think tank doesn't like taxes, president. For the rest of rest of us, real freedom also means not being imprisoned for interacting with other consenting adults in ways that are illegal, and not being denied due process in various ways such as: torte reform, civil asset forfeiture, being spied on by agencies who are immune from judicial review, etc. Could we take a break from wringing our hands about the welfare of the ultra-rich, and work some of that stuff too?

yummyfajitas 13y ago
For the rest of rest of us, real freedom also means not being imprisoned for interacting with other consenting adults in ways that are illegal... You mean interactions like paying a consenting adult $7.24/hour to clean your bedroom? Selling a consenting knowledgeable adult a substance which has not passed FDA review? Paying a person without a medallion to drive you to a different location? As far as I know, you don't escape from patent/copyright or work visa issues by travelling to other nations. Incidentally, those things are included in the Heritage rankings, and collectively get more weight than tax/govt spend. http://www.heritage.org/index/about http://www.heritage.org/index/about

pessimizer 13y ago

tldr; Arbitrary number made up by conservative think tank not known for intellectual rigor is declared to have risen, press released.

DGrutt 13y ago

You can see a big difference when you look at Africa. Countries like Botswana and Mauritius really have seen great gains in economic growth through economic freedom, yet we think the whole continent is struggling. Compare that with Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbambwe at the bottom. For a while Botswana was outpacing Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea in economic growth rate.

spindritf 13y ago

Here's the actual index http://www.heritage.org/index/ http://www.heritage.org/index/ It's a pretty well made website. You can export filtered data in csv, there are profiles for each country, etc.

ChristianMarks 13y ago

Unscientific rubbish. Discourse about economic justice is "value laden" but talk of economic freedom is based on "economics without values."

xradionut 13y ago

Norway, which is the "happiest" country is ranked number 32 on this list.

nirnira 13y ago

Seems like bullshit. Australia has ludicrous regulations on competition, including a massive minimum wage, with all sorts of knock-on distortionary problems, yet it makes the top five.