4 ms·

I used to think that too, but the data seems to show that more economic freedom (unregulated capitalism) the better off the people are (per capita GDP, etc) ht

I used to think that too, but the data seems to show that more economic freedom (unregulated capitalism) the better off the people are (per capita GDP, etc) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GM_-_Countries_by_Economic_Freedom_Index.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GM_-_Countries_by_Eco... http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/e/ec/economic_freedom_charts.png http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimage... If unregulated capitalism was just as bad as communism you'd expect this chart to have a bell curve type shape, rather than it's upward curve: http://www.investmentu.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/20060123iub.gif http://www.investmentu.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/200601... You can explore the relative economic freedoms of each country here: notice that the US is only the #6 free-est economy in the world): http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx

chrischen 17y ago
What about the days when we let monopolies roam free??? Perhaps the data only indicates that the equilibrium is shifted a little more towards the capitalism side? I don't understand how your second link argues that less gov control means higher standards. I think what we see in the world right now is that there are many more 3rd world countries with ineffective governments and less economic freedom than there are countries who are doing well enough to have an economy to not regulate. So in other words it's much harder for a country to go from poor, low economic freedom to prosperous than it is for a country that already has a strong unregulated economy to adopt some regulation and go to prosperous. http://www.investmentu.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/20060123iub.gif http://www.investmentu.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/200601... The graph there probably doesn't exhibit a bell curve because as soon as a country leads too far right towards pure economic freedom, it jumps back really fast. And I think enough time has passed that all the most developed countries have hit that mark and popped back left a little. Also I think you should consider the size of countries like Hong Kong and Singapore, since different principles probably govern economies of different sizes. Can you name me one 1st world country without economic regulations? I think this is evidence enough that there must be some slope leading down to the state of America in the early 90s, even if that slope is almost vertical.
- lupin_sansei 17y ago
  > I don't understand how your second link argues that less gov control means higher standards. It's missing it's legend unfortunately. Red means economically unfree and green means economically free. > as soon as a country leads too far right towards pure economic freedom, it jumps back really fast. I'm not aware of Hong Kong or Singapore (as the 2 leaders of economic freedom) historically jumping sharply away from economic freedom. The UK and the US slowly moved away from it in the early to mid 20th century, then moved back towards it since the 1980s. Also don't confuse "the right" with economic freedom. Some of the right tends to support economic freedom to a degree these days, but that hasn't always been the case. > Can you name me one 1st world country without economic regulations? There's no countries anywhere without economic regulations, but with the data available it appears that the less economic regulations the better the outcome for people in that society.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    It does not have to be a sharp jump, and as I pointed out previously, the jump from pure capitalism to ideal economy (equilibrium) may not even be a large one at all. When I said right and left, I meant literally the right and left of that chart. My point was that both pure capitalism and pure communism dont't work, and that a balance must be struck between the two. The graph may not resemble a bell curve, but I'm sayig that it should. I explained previous why current data may not show a bell curve and it's that the data set is too small. The fact that trends show That more economic freedom leads to better life simply means that more countries are on the right side of the economic spectrum (more regulation) moving left than there are left moving right, and I explained the possible cause to this too (remember a country had to be more developed in order to even have an economy worth regulating, so more developed countries were closer to the perfect balance already). I'd also like to add that if equilibrium is indeed closer to the capitalism side, it too would explain why the data shows more economic freedom=better life. And this is because given equal distribution across the spectrum among countries, you would see more moving left to right if equilibrium is towards the right. But I already suggested that less developed countries tend to be less economically free, which means more of those countries start on the left in our current times. Now i'm not saying that civilizations start out with regulations and moves towards the right, simply that current data shows less developed countries with less economic freedom (according to your data, if true). As for civilizations I believe the position on the continuum oscillates left to right as the civilization advances until it settles towards equilibrium. In the end you cannot claim the data shows an unregulated economy to be better than a completely regulated one. They both suck. :) Thanks, Chris

chrischen 17y ago

What about the days when we let monopolies roam free??? Perhaps the data only indicates that the equilibrium is shifted a little more towards the capitalism side? I don't understand how your second link argues that less gov control means higher standards. I think what we see in the world right now is that there are many more 3rd world countries with ineffective governments and less economic freedom than there are countries who are doing well enough to have an economy to not regulate. So in other words it's much harder for a country to go from poor, low economic freedom to prosperous than it is for a country that already has a strong unregulated economy to adopt some regulation and go to prosperous. http://www.investmentu.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/20060123iub.gif http://www.investmentu.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/200601... The graph there probably doesn't exhibit a bell curve because as soon as a country leads too far right towards pure economic freedom, it jumps back really fast. And I think enough time has passed that all the most developed countries have hit that mark and popped back left a little. Also I think you should consider the size of countries like Hong Kong and Singapore, since different principles probably govern economies of different sizes. Can you name me one 1st world country without economic regulations? I think this is evidence enough that there must be some slope leading down to the state of America in the early 90s, even if that slope is almost vertical.

lupin_sansei 17y ago
> I don't understand how your second link argues that less gov control means higher standards. It's missing it's legend unfortunately. Red means economically unfree and green means economically free. > as soon as a country leads too far right towards pure economic freedom, it jumps back really fast. I'm not aware of Hong Kong or Singapore (as the 2 leaders of economic freedom) historically jumping sharply away from economic freedom. The UK and the US slowly moved away from it in the early to mid 20th century, then moved back towards it since the 1980s. Also don't confuse "the right" with economic freedom. Some of the right tends to support economic freedom to a degree these days, but that hasn't always been the case. > Can you name me one 1st world country without economic regulations? There's no countries anywhere without economic regulations, but with the data available it appears that the less economic regulations the better the outcome for people in that society.
- chrischen 17y ago
  It does not have to be a sharp jump, and as I pointed out previously, the jump from pure capitalism to ideal economy (equilibrium) may not even be a large one at all. When I said right and left, I meant literally the right and left of that chart. My point was that both pure capitalism and pure communism dont't work, and that a balance must be struck between the two. The graph may not resemble a bell curve, but I'm sayig that it should. I explained previous why current data may not show a bell curve and it's that the data set is too small. The fact that trends show That more economic freedom leads to better life simply means that more countries are on the right side of the economic spectrum (more regulation) moving left than there are left moving right, and I explained the possible cause to this too (remember a country had to be more developed in order to even have an economy worth regulating, so more developed countries were closer to the perfect balance already). I'd also like to add that if equilibrium is indeed closer to the capitalism side, it too would explain why the data shows more economic freedom=better life. And this is because given equal distribution across the spectrum among countries, you would see more moving left to right if equilibrium is towards the right. But I already suggested that less developed countries tend to be less economically free, which means more of those countries start on the left in our current times. Now i'm not saying that civilizations start out with regulations and moves towards the right, simply that current data shows less developed countries with less economic freedom (according to your data, if true). As for civilizations I believe the position on the continuum oscillates left to right as the civilization advances until it settles towards equilibrium. In the end you cannot claim the data shows an unregulated economy to be better than a completely regulated one. They both suck. :) Thanks, Chris