
US Economic Liberty Has Been Sinking for Sixteen Years - andrenth
https://mercury.postlight.com/amp?url=https://fee.org/articles/us-economic-liberty-has-been-sinking-for-sixteen-years/
======
millstone
Here's what "economic liberty" apparently means:

    
    
        size of government: expenditures, taxes, and enterprises
        legal structure and security of property rights
        access to sound money
        freedom to trade internationally; and
        regulation of credit, labor, and business
    

And, reading further, buying into this means you agree that a large "size of
government" is inherently bad, that "inflation is a a monetary phenomenon,"
and that all regulations reduce freedom.

This is of course a libertarian point of view. Personally, I have found that
Obamacare subsidies have given me the freedom to start a business without
putting my family at risk, that inflation can be rooted in technological
supply-side or demand-side shocks, and that regulations like nutritional
information requirements make me more free by giving me more information.

With this understanding, the USA is more "economically free" than at any point
in my lifetime.

~~~
olalonde
The colloquial "freedom" you refer to is subjective and can be used to mean
anything. Robbing a bank would give me the freedom to start a business without
putting my family at risk. Going to jail would make me more free by not having
to worry about food. Microsoft Windows gives me more freedom to get my work
done because Linux has poor support for Word documents.

Freedom or liberty has to be defined negatively (e.g. absence of constraints)
and precisely to have any objective meaning at all.

~~~
jacobolus
“Economic freedom” per the Kochs and their network of libertarian think tanks
means your freedom as an industrialist to bring government soldiers in to help
you forcibly suppress worker strikes. It means your freedom to dump whatever
you want into the local river, without pesky interference from the EPA. It
means your freedom to create propaganda venues masquerading as news with no
accountability. It means the freedom to force all dispute resolution out of a
publicly accountable court system into private arbitration. It means your
freedom to funnel money secretly to university-affiliated “scientists” to
publish bogus studies casting doubt on climate change or the harmful effects
of particular products. It means the freedom to secretly donate unlimited
amounts of money to political campaigns, and make sure the law supports your
hiring politicians and government officials at high salaries after they leave
public office. Etc.

The “robber barons” are their heroes and their dream is a return to the Gilded
Age.

Labeling this “freedom” is a pretty cute bit of rhetorical gymnastics.

~~~
mikaeluman
Such nonsense.

You may want to study property rights (protection from pollution) and freedom
of speech (publishing studies).

I don't know about the Koch bros, but libertarians are the most anti-corporate
people you can find, precisely because government and corporations collude to
destroy individual rights and freedom.

You may want to stop reading your lefty media if you are to retain any
intellectual capacity.

~~~
aidenn0
The Koch brothers strategically encourage libertarianism to help them repeal
only the regulations they want repealed.

They'll push for repealing environmental protection laws, but not for the tort
laws that reduce their liability for polluting. They'll push for repealing
regulations that are advantageous for unions, but not "Right to Work" laws
that prevent unions and businesses from forming contracts requiring all
laborers to be part of the union.

------
surfmike
In many ways I found Scandinavian countries more economically free than
America when I lived there. A strong social safety net is not necessarily
incompatible with an economically free country.

~~~
zanny
I'd argue the only way you get maximal economic liberty is with a strong
safety net.

The most significant "lawful" forces that hurt economic liberty are
regulations, price fixing, and certification. They vary in intensity from
having to put ingredients on the bottle to outright banning incandescent
lightbulbs, from corn subsidies to fixed rates in medicare, and from getting a
drivers license to getting an MD.

But they are all barriers to economic participation and malleability. But they
exist for reasons - to reduce exploitation in the system.

Those social safety nets, that in theory could be taking an economically
uniform portion of productivity and thus have their minimal impact, also
reduce the ability for people to _be_ exploited. Loan sharks and get thin
quick schemes are modern, legal forms of exploitation, but historically bad
food products, dangerous housing and machinery, and outright extortion were
all exploitation schemes the regulation machine reduces.

But if you have a strong enough safety net to keep people out of the
desperation trap of _needing_ money or resources to sustain their livelihood
you can also eliminate swathes of the regulation that restricts markets
without negatively harming those at most risk for being taken advantage of,
because the state institution provides a floor on what the worst possible
outcomes can be.

It is very similar to how easy credit creates business opportunity. Without
credit, you cannot have a foundation to start out on if you have nothing in
the first place. In the same way, either Scandanavian style socialism or the
UBI proposals floating around can provide the foundation to enable more
general economic freedom above it.

It is impossible to feel free when you are restricted to the bottom of
Maslow's heirarchy. Maximal freedom comes from the top, where you have access
to the full breadth of your potential. But any time you slip down to the
bottom rungs again you are forced to contend with those, because survival
trumps self-actualization. If you want to maximize for personal liberty of all
forms, including economic, you need to make sure nobody is getting trapped
down there.

~~~
mikaeluman
Sigh...

This is what happens when you start with faulty definitions.

Orwellian at best.

~~~
dang
That's not a civil way to address another commenter, even if that commenter is
completely wrong. If you see an error, it would be better to explain what it
is, not call names. Interjections like "Sigh..." are an internet-forum form of
rolling one's eyes, which isn't nice.

We all know from experience how much harder and more time-consuming it is to
correct errors than make them in the first place—that's a big problem with
internet discourse in general—but posting uncivil and/or unsubstantive replies
isn't a solution.

Edit: unfortunately looks like you've been doing this repeatedly. This one is
worse:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12519373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12519373).
Please stop posting like that.

------
steveax
Consider the source:
[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fraser_Institute](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fraser_Institute)

~~~
johncole
What should we be considering here?

~~~
refurb
If a study forms a conclusion you don't agree with, then you look at the
source and automatically assume it's biased.

If it's something you agree with, then no need to check and see who did the
work. It stands on its own.

~~~
dash2
How do you know he doesn't consider the source of reports he agrees with also?

------
wyager
One remarkable thing that most Americans don't seem to know; the US is one of
two countries (the other being Eritrea) that takes income tax on income earned
_while living outside the US_. While there are some tax credits that lessen
this burden, the only way to free oneself of US income tax is to renounce
citizenship. Renouncing citizenship requires a fee of over $2000 and several
years of extensive tax records at the IRS's request.

~~~
JDDunn9
You can exclude the first ~$100k of your income when working abroad.
[https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-
taxpayers/fore...](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-
taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion)

~~~
brobinson
You still have the filing burden, though.

More annoying than that is that it's extremely difficult to open a bank
account overseas because of FATCA. It's less costly to deny Americans service
than to comply with the US' reporting requirements.

~~~
MandieD
And the irony is, while foreign banks will figure out how to deal with an
American who wants millions handled, my middle-class retirement account is not
worth the hassle. I'm just thankful to still have a current (checking) account
so I can receive my pay.

------
skybrian
Before panicking, perhaps ask what's the criteria for the these ratings.

------
rch
> The full data set, including all of the data published in this report as
> well as data omitted due to limited space, can be downloaded for free at
> [http://www.freetheworld.com](http://www.freetheworld.com). The data file
> available there contains the most up-to-date and accurate data for the
> Economic Freedom of the World index.

 _Actually_ that site sends me to another site [-] which asks for an email
(over plain http). That's as far as I'm willing to take it, but I'm curious to
know if anyone is able/willing to pull the dataset.

\- [http://efwdata.com/](http://efwdata.com/)

------
ap22213
What does this even mean? When I think of 'Liberty' I think of freedom of
movement and action. But, over the last 16 years, I have not noticed any
changes in how I can move or spend my money. And, I have a lot more than I
used to have.

Or, is this only relevant to the very rich?

Or, is it similar to how Fox News characters talk about 'freedom'? (that is,
much different than what I think of freedom).

------
jernfrost
Do these kind of rankings even say anything meaningful relevant to this world.
I notice my own country Norway being far down, below countries like Romania,
Jordan Qatar etc. Countries I know have far less effective governments and
private property rights. It is not unknown that people the swindled away from
their property in Romania due to the rife government corruption. On paper
economic freedom is rather pointless if you got a poorly managed government
and buried in corruption and incompetence. All the money Norway has sent to
Romania to deal with the roma people has disappeared in a big black hole. How
long does it take to start a business in these countries? It takes twice as
long to do it in Romania and United Arab Emirates than in Norway.

I suspect these sorts of rankings is just made to further a libertarian
agenda.

------
vacri
The UAE at #9? It's a modern-day slave state, that entices workers from the
subcontinent, takes their passports, and then forces them to work without pay.
Not sure how that is 'economic liberty'.

~~~
jernfrost
Yeah, I noticed how my home country Norway is way below such an authoritarian
regime. Just shows how ridiculous the whole notion of economic freedom is. I
guess if freedom is determined in terms of freedom to economically exploit,
then the slave owning southern states of old would have been at the very top
of this index.

After all putting in restrictions, like you can't own people, is restricting
economic "freedom" in some way :-D

It is a they say, economists know the price of everything but the value of
nothing.

------
gumby
I always like ratings like this that put Singapore near the top of the list.
It feels like the raters have never been there. It's a very controlling
society (not authoritarian at all, but very controlling).

Personally I wouldn't want to live there any more but I think the government
generally has the support of a large majority of the population and it's
definitely raised the standard of living dramatically and sustainably.

It's easy to look at its free port tax regime and say "liberal!" But it's
economically very illiberal.

------
mrtree
What does economic freedom even mean?

~~~
dcgudeman
too hard to google? Here you go:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom)

------
autokad
its hard to take seriously any indicator that's lead by island nations and
city states.

~~~
wyager
Why? Those are often quite free.

~~~
JDDunn9
Small city-states can use strategies that don't scale. Being a tax haven
essentially leeches businesses from neighboring countries, but if everyone was
a tax haven, then no-one would be. Economies based on tourism or oil also are
not duplicatable.

~~~
refurb
Offering a more friendly business climate is leeching?

So if I open a store and sell you a computer for less than the next store
over, am I leeching from my neighbors?

~~~
JDDunn9
If those countries were so business friendly, why aren't companies started
there? Where is the Silicon Valley of Ireland or Singapore? Those businesses
were built and grew because of the quality of infrastructure and supports
provided by taxes.

A better comparison to your computer analogy would be a company that sells
knock-offs and counterfeit products. Trying to just reap the rewards without
doing the hard work to get there.

------
mikaeluman
The word "freedom" refers to freedom _from_ coercion. This is why a big
government, that takes your income, inherently reduces economic freedom.

Consider the opposite.

"Now with free education and free golf lessons I have so much more freedom".

This is essentially nonsensical. This concept of "freedom" can be taken to
mean anything you like, and deliberately hides the other side of the
transaction. Namely, the tutors who are coerced to teach you math and golf.
Or, if they are paid, the people who are taxed to pay for your "freedom" while
receiving no benefit whatsoever.

The same goes for social safety nets and the rest. It is telling that these
basic moral concepts are not spread in our society today. This year US may
well get Trumped. Next time it will be Berned (literally).

~~~
lazaroclapp
Free education means free as in price, not as in freedom. It is also
understood by almost anyone who suggest it to not be free to society at large,
but free to the person receiving it and paid for by society at large, same for
health. At the level of a society, it makes sense because you want to live in
a more educated capable society, which increases your own opportunities and
standard of living regardless of what you do, given that society is
interconnected. At the most individualistic level, you can consider the
benefits to yourself of receiving free education when you are young, then
paying for it in the form of taxes over the future and realize that public
institutions tend to work better for this case than for profit loans in most
cases.

Regarding the whole freedom from coercion argument. My question would be:
isn't private property itself essentially enforced by government coercion? How
is the freedom to not pay taxes any more sacred than the freedom to not being
stopped by police if I steal from someone else?

Taxation is constitutive of the concept of a modern state. Now, we can discuss
the pro's and con's of specific programs, the amount of taxation needed to
fund them, how progressive such taxation needs to be and whether the benefits
are worth the costs. I can say that I think socialized education is definitely
worth it, and you can tell me that you don't believe it is, and tax policy
results from democratic compromise among many such points of view. But the
whole "taxation is morally wrong because it implies state coercion" argument
is absurd, private property implies state coercion too and I have seen few
libertarians suggest it should go away (in that sense, I believe full-on
Anarchists have a more self-consistent view, even if I still don't agree with
it).

~~~
Chinjut
> isn't private property itself essentially enforced by government coercion?

Yes. Absolutely. This point (which was first made so clear to me by Matt
Bruenig) needs to be repeated over and over, loudly, over the delusions of the
libertarian crowd (whose ideology might more accurately be named
"propertarian"...).

