6 ms·

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.

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.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - brc 13y ago
        Exactly. I have never had anyone show me an example of a monopoly that didn't have a supporting government framework. Even in a patent-filled world, nobody is getting to a monopoly state, because nimble entrepreneurs will find a way around. I also find it very odd that people develop a government-monopoly blindspot- Microsoft monopoly = bad and evil, Government monopoly =benign and good. Both are just groups of people, and subject to the same capture by good or bad intentions.
    - brc 13y ago
      But monopolies can really only exist through regulation, which is low economic freedom. You will have most economic freedom where the existence of monopolies are the lowest. Existence of monopolies is one of the strongest arguments for limiting the size of government, which limits the size of regulations.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- brc 13y ago
  Economic Freedom is the freedom for you as an individual to follow your own path. It has nothing to do with individuals vs corporations. Regulations do not make you free. How free are you to start up a company in any given field? To earn income doing a task of your choosing? To spend your income on items of your own choosing? That is the essence of economic freedom. In the details it shows that the USA is still very high in certain areas - like personal freedom in labor mobility - but is getting marked down for continued and excessive debt. I think the list is somewhat imperfect (Hong Kong is no longer a country, despite it's commendable history of low taxation and personal freedoms, now lost to being a chinese micro-state). The discussions around healthcare seem to muddy the waters - although it is a hot topic I don't think it really counts for much as most of the countries above the USA have much more regulated or state owned health care.
  - Jare 13y ago
    > Regulations do not make you free Regulations prevent more powerful others from removing my own freedom as they want.
    - brc 13y ago
      See my other reply, but the only 'more powerful other' that has the ability to remove your economic freedom is a government. A large corporation cannot remove your ability to change jobs, spend your income how you like or start up a new business unless they do it through the government. Microsoft or Apple can't prevent me from starting up a new company or buying some other product unless they get the government to regulate my other choices out of existence - which means they can only harm me by decreasing my economic freedom. The exact opposite to what people seem to be trying to say here.
  - twobits 13y ago
    "Economic Freedom is the freedom for you as an individual to follow your own path. It has nothing to do with individuals vs corporations." On the right, we have the toddler. He is 2 years old. On the left, we have the heavy weights world champion. Ladies and gentlemen, please make your bets. The fight is about to begin!
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  > Economic freedom, that is the freedom of companies to do as they please, is often in conflict with individual freedom. These seem orthogonal to me. You can have individual economic freedom.
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.

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.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - brc 13y ago
      Exactly. I have never had anyone show me an example of a monopoly that didn't have a supporting government framework. Even in a patent-filled world, nobody is getting to a monopoly state, because nimble entrepreneurs will find a way around. I also find it very odd that people develop a government-monopoly blindspot- Microsoft monopoly = bad and evil, Government monopoly =benign and good. Both are just groups of people, and subject to the same capture by good or bad intentions.
  - brc 13y ago
    But monopolies can really only exist through regulation, which is low economic freedom. You will have most economic freedom where the existence of monopolies are the lowest. Existence of monopolies is one of the strongest arguments for limiting the size of government, which limits the size of regulations.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
brc 13y ago
Economic Freedom is the freedom for you as an individual to follow your own path. It has nothing to do with individuals vs corporations. Regulations do not make you free. How free are you to start up a company in any given field? To earn income doing a task of your choosing? To spend your income on items of your own choosing? That is the essence of economic freedom. In the details it shows that the USA is still very high in certain areas - like personal freedom in labor mobility - but is getting marked down for continued and excessive debt. I think the list is somewhat imperfect (Hong Kong is no longer a country, despite it's commendable history of low taxation and personal freedoms, now lost to being a chinese micro-state). The discussions around healthcare seem to muddy the waters - although it is a hot topic I don't think it really counts for much as most of the countries above the USA have much more regulated or state owned health care.
- Jare 13y ago
  > Regulations do not make you free Regulations prevent more powerful others from removing my own freedom as they want.
  - brc 13y ago
    See my other reply, but the only 'more powerful other' that has the ability to remove your economic freedom is a government. A large corporation cannot remove your ability to change jobs, spend your income how you like or start up a new business unless they do it through the government. Microsoft or Apple can't prevent me from starting up a new company or buying some other product unless they get the government to regulate my other choices out of existence - which means they can only harm me by decreasing my economic freedom. The exact opposite to what people seem to be trying to say here.
- twobits 13y ago
  "Economic Freedom is the freedom for you as an individual to follow your own path. It has nothing to do with individuals vs corporations." On the right, we have the toddler. He is 2 years old. On the left, we have the heavy weights world champion. Ladies and gentlemen, please make your bets. The fight is about to begin!
ahomescu1 13y ago
> Economic freedom, that is the freedom of companies to do as they please, is often in conflict with individual freedom. These seem orthogonal to me. You can have individual economic freedom.

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.