Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This according to the Fraser Institute economic freedom report this year.
FTA: Hall explained there are “lots of reasons” the United States has declined in the economic freedom ranking since 2000. Three areas he noted are an increase in government spending, expanding regulation and declining security of property rights and rule of law.
I could also post a finding. Now days they are like opinions;everyone has one. Few dispute that US is the most dynamic economy in the world otherwise.
They have been doing this since 1980. I would think nearly 35 years of doing this gives them some credibility. When people don't like seeing the decline of the US compared to other countries they attack the messenger.
OECD PISA scores are attacked as well.
For some reason we don't want to face the truth that we are in decline.
The Daily Caller is an ultra-conservative rag. It has less credibility to me than Fox News has. If someone wants to make this argument, they better first get a respectable source, like the Wall Street Journal first.
One of the criteria is mystifying to me. I don't see what the level of government spending has to do with economic freedom. One of the biggest complaints that has been made during this recession is all the deficit spending going on. It may not be desirable to run such deficits, but if the spending is not the result of additional forced taxes, I don't see how that impinges on anyone's economic freedom.
The increased regulation complained of probably consists of laws like Dodd Frank which were necessitated because of serious abuses committed within the financial industry that helped lead to the Great Recession of 2008. Interestingly, other laws like Sarbanes-Oxley are probably claimed to deprive groups of their "economic freedom" but were enacted by a Republican President, George W. Bush, by a Republican dominated Congress. Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted because of fraud and other abuses committed by large corporations that lead to the bankruptcy of huge corporations like Enron and World Com. These bankruptcies lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost honest investors literally billions of dollars. Regulation due to Obamacare? Unlike some, I don't put my head in the sand and pretend we could have left our health care system the way it was. Change was necessary. You can argue over whether Obamacare was the right thing to do. You can't argue that there was a huge problem that needed to be fixed.
I'd have to review the third criteria about "decline of property rights" to comment much about it. Government has always had constitutional powers to take private property for public purposes under the power of eminent domain. Its how we build highways, public projects, and accomplish urban renewal in the cities. Government has always been and always will be required to pay fair compensation for such a taking of private property. Perhaps, more than this is meant, but I don't see this as any systemic change.
The Daily Caller is an ultra-conservative rag. It has less credibility to me than Fox News has. If someone wants to make this argument, they better first get a respectable source, like the Wall Street Journal first.
One of the criteria is mystifying to me. I don't see what the level of government spending has to do with economic freedom. One of the biggest complaints that has been made during this recession is all the deficit spending going on. It may not be desirable to run such deficits, but if the spending is not the result of additional forced taxes, I don't see how that impinges on anyone's economic freedom.
The increased regulation complained of probably consists of laws like Dodd Frank which were necessitated because of serious abuses committed within the financial industry that helped lead to the Great Recession of 2008. Interestingly, other laws like Sarbanes-Oxley are probably claimed to deprive groups of their "economic freedom" but were enacted by a Republican President, George W. Bush, by a Republican dominated Congress. Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted because of fraud and other abuses committed by large corporations that lead to the bankruptcy of huge corporations like Enron and World Com. These bankruptcies lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost honest investors literally billions of dollars. Regulation due to Obamacare? Unlike some, I don't put my head in the sand and pretend we could have left our health care system the way it was. Change was necessary. You can argue over whether Obamacare was the right thing to do. You can't argue that there was a huge problem that needed to be fixed.
I'd have to review the third criteria about "decline of property rights" to comment much about it. Government has always had constitutional powers to take private property for public purposes under the power of eminent domain. Its how we build highways, public projects, and accomplish urban renewal in the cities. Government has always been and always will be required to pay fair compensation for such a taking of private property. Perhaps, more than this is meant, but I don't see this as any systemic change.
Very little about what you just said is true, and shows you have never really looked into how economic freedoms are calculated. It is, however, amazing how you twisted something like this into an excuse to launch a partisan attack. Greater government interaction in an economy always leads to less macro level economic growth. That is a relationship that is all but impossible to dispute. Government interaction is sometimes a necessary evil to protect micro level economic balances, but it always is harmful at the macro level.
There are many, many sources showing that the US is declining over time in terms of economic freedoms.
The Daily Caller is an ultra-conservative rag. It has less credibility to me than Fox News has. If someone wants to make this argument, they better first get a respectable source, like the Wall Street Journal first.
One of the criteria is mystifying to me. I don't see what the level of government spending has to do with economic freedom. One of the biggest complaints that has been made during this recession is all the deficit spending going on. It may not be desirable to run such deficits, but if the spending is not the result of additional forced taxes, I don't see how that impinges on anyone's economic freedom.
The increased regulation complained of probably consists of laws like Dodd Frank which were necessitated because of serious abuses committed within the financial industry that helped lead to the Great Recession of 2008. Interestingly, other laws like Sarbanes-Oxley are probably claimed to deprive groups of their "economic freedom" but were enacted by a Republican President, George W. Bush, by a Republican dominated Congress. Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted because of fraud and other abuses committed by large corporations that lead to the bankruptcy of huge corporations like Enron and World Com. These bankruptcies lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost honest investors literally billions of dollars. Regulation due to Obamacare? Unlike some, I don't put my head in the sand and pretend we could have left our health care system the way it was. Change was necessary. You can argue over whether Obamacare was the right thing to do. You can't argue that there was a huge problem that needed to be fixed.
I'd have to review the third criteria about "decline of property rights" to comment much about it. Government has always had constitutional powers to take private property for public purposes under the power of eminent domain. Its how we build highways, public projects, and accomplish urban renewal in the cities. Government has always been and always will be required to pay fair compensation for such a taking of private property. Perhaps, more than this is meant, but I don't see this as any systemic change.
There ya'go making logical debate. You are right, government spending during the downturn has nothing to do with economic freedom. Much of that extra spending were in safety net programs designed to cushion the downturn. If those were absent, we'd be in a depression and we would learn what loss of economic freedom was really like.
Hnsq says that "government interaction ... Is always harmful at the macro level". When the government acts as demand of last resort, that is positive and boosts GDP, which employees the unemployed.
There ya'go making logical debate. You are right, government spending during the downturn has nothing to do with economic freedom. Much of that extra spending were in safety net programs designed to cushion the downturn. If those were absent, we'd be in a depression and we would learn what loss of economic freedom was really like.
Hnsq says that "government interaction ... Is always harmful at the macro level". When the government acts as demand of last resort, that is positive and boosts GDP, which employees the unemployed.
There's a lot more to "economic freedom" than the government spending money.
When we were high on the list there were no complaints.
But now that we've fallen there are a myriad of excuses as to why this study is now flawed.
And we do the same thing to the OECD PISA scores. When we were high on the list we gloated.
Now that we've fallen we're full of excuses and want to discredit them.
None of these studies/data gathering lists are new. They've been done for over a decade now.
There ya'go making logical debate. You are right, government spending during the downturn has nothing to do with economic freedom. Much of that extra spending were in safety net programs designed to cushion the downturn. If those were absent, we'd be in a depression and we would learn what loss of economic freedom was really like.
Hnsq says that "government interaction ... Is always harmful at the macro level". When the government acts as demand of last resort, that is positive and boosts GDP, which employees the unemployed.
It is positive in the short term, but causes long term harm. You don't seem to have any concept of deadweight loss.
Do you want a bandaid and an asprin so that things are easier today, or do you want some pain today so that we have a sustainable system in the future? You continually pick the former, whereas I choose the latter.
There's a lot more to "economic freedom" than the government spending money.
When we were high on the list there were no complaints.
But now that we've fallen there are a myriad of excuses as to why this study is now flawed.
And we do the same thing to the OECD PISA scores. When we were high on the list we gloated.
Now that we've fallen we're full of excuses and want to discredit them.
None of these studies/data gathering lists are new. They've been done for over a decade now.
That doesn't make them any more legitimate today than more than a decade ago. I could create a list "proving" that the US is improving in "economic freedom" if I used my own selected criteria and interpreted the data based on assumptions that fit my ideology. That's what all these lists ever do, whether they're about "economic freedom" or "best places to retire" or "top new mid-sized cars".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
It is positive in the short term, but causes long term harm. You don't seem to have any concept of deadweight loss.
Do you want a bandaid and an asprin so that things are easier today, or do you want some pain today so that we have a sustainable system in the future? You continually pick the former, whereas I choose the latter.
You seem to think you're immune to economic calamity. Guess again.
There's plenty of reasons for the drop since 2000, Huge growth in entitlement programs like the prescription drug plan and Obamacare. The Fed's constant QE, pumping, the US Govt. constant deficit spending. Remember when the Supreme Court said that a property owner could be force to sell his land to a developer so that the government could charge higher taxes on the condo's he wanted to build. That's not a public use of land like a road. That's stealing the land. Plus there's been the huge increase in the EPA and regulations on private businesses, and the increased regulation of the banking industry. The last one I can remember is the govt. stepping in and changing the normal procedures in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy. Plus you now have the government getting involved in the medical industry in an even bigger why with Obamacare. None of this is good for economic growth, and if you want to look at a major reason why our economy is still not growing, this is a good start.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
