
The U.S. Isn't As Economically Free As It Used to Be - daniel-cussen
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011684172064228.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
======
ubernostrum
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
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
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.

------
janzer
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
there's a lot more data in pdf form at <http://www.heritage.org/index/>

~~~
ahi
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.

~~~
kiba
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
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.

------
sili
"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
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
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
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
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.

~~~
camccann
_No amount of math can tease apart the indiscernibly complex._

If there's any structure at all, you can find it with enough math and enough
data; that's exactly the purpose of statistics.

 _But without controls, and without repeatable experimentation, we can not
have a true scientific method. The scientific method requires hypothesis,
predictions, and repeatable experimentations._

No, this misunderstands science. All the scientific method requires is
_testable predictions_. Predicting the outcome of a controlled experiment is
merely a very efficient way to go about it. There are plenty of scientific
fields where simple controlled experiments aren't really viable, and people
get by. It's just more difficult, and requires more discipline from
researchers.

------
teilo
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?

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

~~~
elidourado
Economic freedom _is_ a human right.

~~~
camccann
...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> )

On the other hand, they have little corruption and low crime rates, so hey, if
it works for them...

~~~
Empact
See also, the State of World Liberty index:
<http://stateofworldliberty.org/report/results.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.

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

