I wish there had been more specific evidence here than just a few charts. A little light on the hard evidence here. I feel like I just ate a freedom burger made with tofu meat.
Interesting video. However, it would have been more interesting to have some sort of set criteria demonstrated for "economic freedom", and how changes in those criteria affect that country. Also, comparisons between countries that have high economic freedom overall, but lower compared to other such countries, and the consequences of such subtle differences (e.g., country with low corporate tax but strict environmental regulations, vs. country with high corporate tax, but lax labor laws).
I just love how some people have no faith in people when they act privately, but suddenly have complete faith when those same people act as gov't agents.
for one thing, under conditions of economic freedom, private property is staunchly defended and people like trees. If their property is secure, people are more likely to keep it up and plant trees, gardens, etc. Secondly, industries that use trees to make their products have a strong self-interest to not destroy the long-term source of their profits. This is true both from a public image standpoint and a resource-management standpoint.
is it possible that you add your sources in the video description because some people may directly question these and it may be useful to me in debates
@Daniel Gilliland @@vinuzo9548 Best ask Koch Ind, Americans for Prosperity and The Heritage Foundation etc www.heritage.org/about-heritage/mission they own the index www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2020/book/index_2020.pdf
Correct. But positive correlation does imply the absence of negative causation. The story we are told is that free markets cause exploitation and income concentration. The data show a correlation in the opposite direction. Hence, the data contradict the claim against free markets.
How was economic freedom calculated in the studies used in this video? what economic factors were taken into consideration when developing the conclusions reached in this video?
What matters is whether the difference is statistically significant (something that you can't determine by looking at the difference alone). The appropriate test is a difference of means test. In this case, the p-value is virtually zero, indicating that the 3 percentage point difference is not due to random chance.
Correlation does not equal causation. Countries with greater economic freedoms aren't necessarily freer when freedom is considered a multifaceted outcome of policy in a given state. Goatee's argument that "freer" countries have higher income on average compared with less free countries seems to conflate development and prosperity with liberal free market policy, which if anything, diminishes personal freedoms and allows multi-national organisations to monopolise markets and reduce the freedoms of individual consumers. Economic freedom? Sure, if you're rich. The reason why income appears to be higher on average in these countries is because high-earners earn more than the vast majority and offset the overall income in their favour. And, of course, when you look at the most developed nations versus the least developed nations there is definitely going to be a greater income distribution than not. But this cannot solely be attributed to economic freedoms. As I've outlined, the freer the market the more it can be geared against individual agents and the less choice consumers have at the point of purchase. Economic Freedom cannot be derived from or made synonymous with a "free market" as the mass accrual of wealth prevents some individuals from participating. A far more equal society would allow not just upper class, elites and mega-rich to flourish but would also seek to level the divide between classes. A society that allows individuals to flourish economically is therefore one that prioritises social policy over profit.
@@BunningsSausages you are coming with arguments already fabricated yet there is no explanation, or examples, of anything you have said, plus your argument for inequality is proven wrong in the video itself
@@BunningsSausages economic freedom only for the rich? sure: china, chile, india, indonesia, south korea, taiwan, japan, spain, eastern germany, singapur, peru, uruguay, ethiopia, botswana. I suppose none of them happened or existed or were related to increase of economic freedom
The only question I have is where did the comment on America becoming economically less free come from. What study/survey/think tank did that statistic come from? I've never heard of any organization keeping track of that type of statistic.
The vertical axis is clearly marked (as you've noted), and the difference is statistically significant. What is remarkable about the graph is what we *aren't* seeing. Conventional wisdom has it that free markets encourage child labor. Not only is this graph not showing that, it is showing the opposite.
I compared economic liberties to civil liberties in a discussion the other day. the other person said they had never heard of economic liberties. I tried a quick explanation about self-ownership with regards to property rights, but thought it would be better if y'all spelled out what you (LearnLiberty) mean by economic freedom.
Fraser generates the economic freedom data, not the outcome data (i.e., child labor rates, etc.). They are very clear as to what criteria they consider in constructing their freedom indices. Yes, it would be nice to cross-check with alternate indices. The problem is that there aren't that many. Freedom of the 50 States (from the Mercatus Center) is a shorter data set, and yields the same results. I imagine that anti-market groups wouldn't be interested in measuring economic freedom.
I find the one point they don't drive home is the more free you are the less resources you need, and the more efficient those resources can be distributed or even allocated. In the form of deforestation the more laws around safety measures forces them to over produce to make a profit which actually leads to more resources being used to turn a profit. I wish more people understood that being a conservative on resources is a very environmentally friendly idea.
Would you by any chance happen to be confusing freed markets (an economic condition where all transactions occur voluntarily absent of state coercion) with capitalism (a coercive socio-economic system bent upon widescale economic and political exploitation)?
The difference is 8% (3 percentage points) and the difference is strongly statistically significant (i.e., not the result of random chance). The source for the freedom data is shown on each graph (freetheworld com). Their site shows in detail each of the circa 40 factors they measure in compiling the freedom indices. FWIW, the same analysis using Freedom of the 50 States (which looks at different metrics) yields similar results.
While there are exceptions, if you look at the evidence, the general rule is that one obtains far more profit from cooperating with others rather than from stealing. It's similar to the "teach a man to fish" argument. When you steal, you make profit today but people learn and won't deal with you tomorrow. When you engage in voluntary exchange, you profit by providing value for others. That value encourages others to come back and deal with you again.
What were the reasons causing the economic freedom to fall between 2000-2008? Was that due to the stricter scrutiny over economy to fight potential terrorism? Does anyone know?
Well with everything going on I believe quite a few Americans need to revisit the idea of freedom. There are plenty who get it but especially in the last year or two have forgotten how important it really is. This applies to many different subjects too I.E. Guns, healthcare, NDAA, Drones . . . .
The trouble is the term "economic freedom" is not once defined in this entire video. The entire video is about an undefined, abstract concept. I would like a solid definition of what is considered economic freedom, so that I may take away something from this video.
Awesome. Thanks again. The worst is when freedom is reduced but the populace thinks either it isn't being reduced or it's for a "good reason". We've gone from regulating truly extreme issues (which may actually be necessary for a "good reason") to regulating everything which will not help us.
Right!?! I cannot tell you the number of times that I've reached someone's limit on how small government should be, and then they say, "Well we have to have _____". And I always respond, "Well if people want ______ then they can pay someone to do it, the only difference is that they have to provide good service otherwise they get fired." Without fail, the next line is, "Government providers of _____ are not beholden to anyone, and go into that service because they care."
This is my favorite professor on this chanel. He always has some of the most interesting data and ways of explaining that data. Keep up the good work Learning Liberty
Ken, pretty much any conservative you talk to will care about those things just as much as you do. However, we believe there is a better way to fund those things. Schools: local taxes. Also moral issue of not making excuses for children who don't grow year by year/refuse to learn. (Even those who are not at grade level can catch up) Hospitals: Charity and free markets (support for people who needed it, then lower prices overall).
This is my last reply. I just say my opinion did not want to argue about it. I agree that with a lot of changes we may get to economy freedom that work. I'm not fighting against it, but I think that many people that want economy freedom want to get some restriction off so they can make more for them self and if you free the market immediately it will go into chaos. I hope people find the right way to do it. Thank you for the civilized conversation.
Not all of us are willing to go all the way to libertarianism. I merely believe that free markets are the best. Our regulations can be narrowed down to the ones that prevent truly heinous practices and free up our economy to really grow.
I believe you are missing the point. A counterargument to free markets is that they promote exploitation. If this counterargument were true, then we should see child labor rates *rising* as economic freedom rises. Not only are we not seeing that, we are seeing the reverse. The 3 percentage point difference may seem small to your eyes, but it is highly statistically significant and, more importantly, moves in the opposite direction the counterargument predicts.
Show your work on this. Many of the countries where there is much deforestation have almost no "multinational bank" presence at all... which makes sense, considering that frequently their legal environments are totally toxic for any potential outside investment.
Just few days ago a engineering friend of mine that works in a hospital where i currently live. told me that the laser machine they use to treat cancer is so old 10 years over its life time(and most of the machine are that old its not just this one). it some times treats the wrong area due to clogged rotors. And its not due to lack of funding they get more money than most US hospitals for its size it just vanish into bureaucracy. And the best thing its the country only hospital.
The argument for greater govt involvement in the economy utterly destroyed in one simple video using simple facts... Thank you. Now the big hurdle is to get more people to watch this.
I don’t think making lobbying illegal would solve the problem; it would just drive it underground. The problem lies with having a government that is too powerful. Reducing the power of the government reduces the power of politicians to grant favors to lobbyists.
Firstly this money doesn't sit in a vault; it's lent out to business ventures as start up capital. This is how it stimulates the economy. The interest it accumulates is your share of the profit from that loan. This then allows you to spend more money later on; ie, less consumption now, much more later. Your second point shows us exactly why bailouts are a bad idea. Shielding banks from the negative consequences of risk taking means they'll keep doing risky practices, leaving us to foot the bill
Haha. It really takes the pressure off of liberals when you guys own yourselves 😆 The social democracies of Western and Northern Europe work exceptionally well, have higher standards of living than in the US and higher growth per year. Try again!
all these "social democracies" you are talking about, are countries with a more free market than the US has, just with bigger safety nets. you can only have either of them: or you say bernie is a dem socialist, or you say that these countries are. even the prime minister of denmark, a country often referred to by bernie as "social democracy", specifically responded to bernie's claims with "we're not socialist, we're capitalist". a bigger safety net is not social democracy--next to that, these countries are, bit by bit, decreasing this social safety net. try again!
Because it has so much oil, Venezuela has never bothered to produce much else. It sells oil to other countries, and with the dollars it earns, imports the goods Venezuelans want and need from abroad. Hopefully the Venezuelans are relearning the law of the harvest and the importance of self-sufficiency. These two ideas are the foundation of socialism as an ideology. As a state policy, it usually arises amidst economic strife but crudely in the hands of the state rather than individual organization. Venezuelans have more of a nationalism problem than a socialism problem.
Okay, that's something I can chew on for a while. I am confused though, how does money that sits and collects dust (interest) stimulate the economy? Are you suggesting that in the hands of the bankers it will do more good; you know the same people that gave us the fiascoes a couple yrs ago. They were writing predatory loans and offering irresponsible loans at the same time; and they got rewarded for it with the bailout. I don't know if that's what you mean, but I'm keen here more.
I still think some regulations are necessary, I don't believe in an absolutely FREE market. The only question I have is how France has low deforestation with somewhat low economic freedom. Also, countries with high economic freedom may not have deforestation problems, but they do have excessive carbon emissions. Look at the US, Hong Kong, Germany, and Canada. Then look at Hong Kong and the U.S. in terms of income inequality, there has to be some regulation to prevent this right?
You can read all the sources for the data, including complete definitions of what is meant by "economic freedom" at the Frasier Institute's "Economic Freedom of the World" site. It's actually fairly clear, and has been studied for decades.
I was in Greece for the summer of 2011 and i learn a loot while i was there. Of all the horrible things i saw there one story sticks the most. I was on a small island and the locals told me that the hospital where there was 1 doctor and 2-3 nurses 1 janitor and 8 gardeners, an i sayd wow that must be one big garden. And the told me thats the thing there is no garden.
Destructive economic freedom is when big businesses get more than their fair share of it because they get tax loop holes and subsidies from governments. They even get special laws to crush their competition. All federal laws should be made to effect everyone. State and local can deal with specifics. When you get these special rules for certain people or groups you open the door for all kinds of inequality.
There are so many facts that point to a certain direction. If this was in a science classroom, this would no doubt be classified in the same category as the general theory of relativity, Newtonian theory, and theory of evolution. Its been proven time and time again, but because this is treated differently, there will always be people who say "correlation does not equal causation"
@@serpent268 Bud, you really shouldn't let propagandists do your thinking for you. Economic freedom is directly proportional to economic power. The more money, the more power. Government regulation is required for the structure of the economy in general. And certainly to construct and maintain anything remotely resembling a level playing field. The libertarian dogma touts unregulated capitalism which is the freedom for us all to be driven into economic slavery by those with more economic power. As Janis Joplin noted, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."...in an economic sense. The GOP elitists shill for big business and have hijacked conservatism pretending to care about people and what they think. They lie. All the while they say their shenanigans are "good for us" because making the rich richer will somehow trickle down. They lie. This has all been seen before, history knows. They are fascists. Fascism is equal to Corporatocracy by definition. The GOP at the top are just shills for the economic elite pretending to be conservative as they dogwhistle their base...and give deep pockets everything they want regardless of why they want it. Money has power whether we do or not. We either maintain 'we the people' government at a strong national level, or money takes over by hook, crook and subversion. It's been going on in earnest since the Powell Memo of 1971, look it up. And see Bill Moyer's article on it. They can't help themselves, they are one trick ponies and civilization is not something they think about, at least on the more radical authoritarian and rich right. Again, money has power whether we do or not. We either control them, or they will control us...for nature abhors a vacuum. We didn't fight a war of independence against a king, we fought a war against the British East India Company, of which the king was the major stockholder screwing us at will. The founding fathers did their best to give us avenues to prevent hostile takeover of we the people. But they can't do it for us...their dead. But they left us clues, all they could. When Ben Franklin was ask, coming out of the Constitutional convention by a woman what we had, a democracy or an monarchy, he replied "A republic, if you can keep it." Big money even then had sought elitist control. So make up your mind, freedom is power to the people, we either control them...or they will control us...and convince us it was our own idea by the likes of Faux news talking heads, the worst of which get paid tens of millions a year to spin vitriol and bullshit. They have several that try to be real news people on their attempts at real news shows, but they get shot down if they stray too far, like Shep Smith. Chris Wallace tries, but he's not as well versed as his dad Mike Wallace was. Though Frump is getting under more skins even there these days...save for the sycophants laughing all the way to the bank while screaming about a commie behind every liberal bush.
@George Roberts Bruh, I said that because I’m mutualist. I hate capitalism as much as the next guy. Big businesses are caused by government and company bureaucracy. A free market, disallows government and unjust hierarchies. I think worker co-ops with high economic freedom is a good idea. Imo, capitalism is statist and anarcho-capitalism should not be called anarchy. This is because in capitalism has prerequisites to the state being unjust hierarchy. I define unjust hierarchies as hierarchies that are built unnaturally.
You can always make the case that capitalism is not what economic freedom truly is. However, these statistics were not merely contrived from the air. Rather, these statistics were obtained by the Fraser Institute who substituted the word economic freedom with what they were really measuring, namely the degree to which capitalism existed and was present in different countries. The categories and methodologies utilized by the Fraser Institute were to test capitalism undoubtedly if you look at the questions they asked and tried to get a score for. For example, the extent to which private property rights exist, the extent to which government regulations in the economy are absent, the extent to which taxes are absent, etc from one country to another, or any of the sort that people would surely agree are the aspects that define capitalism. So what they are really measuring is the degree of capitalism, but you can always argue that capitalism does not truly guarantee or provide economic freedom as a semantic point. But the economic freedom index itself is using the degree of capitalism as their real guide so every time the word economic freedom is mentioned, that is what they really mean.
@@sayebkhan8406 My apologies Sayeb, my earnest reply developed into a late night rant against the radical right trying to take over democracy in this fascist coup orchestrated by right wing radical authoritarian fascists: I notice you have a standardized view of 'capitalism'. The constraints by the defined and packaged view of the term "capitalism" is brought to us by those that are myopic in their power structure requirements, by one trick ponies. Commerce is variable as defined by society. When it is defined by the elite to serve themselves, it has a predictable effect contrary to the benefit of society as a whole. It's we the people, not we the corporations or we the monied elite. Capitalism derives it's moral authority from (democratic) regulation, which is why it must be regulated. The right lied about what Adam Smith said about markets regulating themselves. Why? Because it's what they do. End justifies the means. Milton Friedman's Supply Side economics was touted as genuine by deep pockets for decades in justification. To seek to cast out millions of votes of the populous at the present time as irrelevant by claiming half our population are cheating commies is an authoritarian fascist takeover attempt by those with more propaganda than comprehension, and no supporting facts. The radical right has been using a scam that's been going on since the aforementioned Powell Memo of 1971 for which vitriol and scapegoating have been tools. Abe Lincoln noted that if the next centuries did not find us a free nation, it would be because we destroyed ourselves, for no outside power could accomplish it. (Short of nukes, which is a planet stopper) He made this observation from the actions of the big bankers empowered by civil war spending from which the bankers showed their true colors. There are two scathing statements he made concerning these bankers. He noted in one that he had two enemies near the end of the civil war, the confederacy in front of him and the bankers at his back lying, spinning and conspiring to maintain it against any who dared to contest their newly acquired power, for which truth and we the people was of no concern. It's what they do, they can't help themselves. They are one trick ponies for which the ecosystem of civilization and the stewardship of life on the planet are not in their purview. Mankind must have a broader view if we are to survive our technical adolescence as the great species our sophomoric egos imagine ourselves to be. Trump is not a lunatic in the literal sense, he's a sociopathic conman, crook and pathological liar for which the fascist agenda of the radical right at the top now shows it's true colors in his support. At the end of this election, it will be time to prosecute him and the traitors that are pushing for this unrest which may end in bloodshed and division if the lying lunacy cannot be stopped. Democracy lives in the middle of the bell shaped curve and dies at either extreme. Scapegoating is a standard fascist tool, but any authoritarian effort uses it. Faux news and the various mobs whipped into emotional certitude marching to the tune of special interest propaganda with pitchforks in hand claiming commie takeover by lightweight liberals is oxymoronic. You can't have it both ways. But emotion tops logic, which is why the string pullers use it. So we don't think too much while they point us in the direction they like...against each other. It's not right vs. left, it's the super deep pockets ...against everyone else from the glitter of gold and power, both of which elicit a similar endorphin rush...drug high. This is an orchestrated takeover of democracy that's gotten out of hand by even those that instigated it. Mobs are like that. But once you've drunk the koolaid, it seems nearly impossible to change that mind set, facts be damned. They have their own, and it's a full set. Covers all the bases...as long as you don't look too deep while thinking for yourself. Authoritarians have formed a club that pretends to care about conservative values. Hence, conservatism has been hijacked to use in manipulation and cover, to hide in plain sight when not underground completely maintaining secrecy. Democracy is now under it's first serious ideological threat since the civil war...if you don't count the fascist coup plot in '33 against FDR in which two dozen 'business' people tried to employ General Smedley Butler, retired. He nearly single handedly squashed that effort. Look it up. Big money goes radical fast when it suits them. So...it's time to figure out what's real and what's a pack of lies. I'll give you a hint: Authoritarians, spinners and liars using end justifies the means for the benefit of deep pockets are not the good guys as they try to nullify millions of votes simply because they were mailed in in a pre-determined effort to try to easy the pandemic burden...but which were also primarily done by liberals and the poor. They also claim said pandemic isn't 'real'...or not serious enough to stop the cash flow to the top anyway. What's a few million dead peons. If our limited healthcare capacity is overwhelmed, and our already overworked and under appreciated nurses and doctors start dying off, all bets are off regarding the death toll in this country thanks to idiots with an agenda. One side decided decades ago that the other is the enemy, instead of the opposition, requiring end justifies the means tactics and vitriol against our fellow Americans, for the sake of unregulated capitalism that was tired of interference from pesky voters that don't like slave labor conditions and feudalism. In truth, this comes down to differing brain lobe enlargement as you can identify liberals and conservatives with 71% accuracy with a simple brain scan. We are like two halves of the same brain. Left and right need each other to cover all the bases. For authoritarians pretending to be conservatives to see themselves as the "permanent party in power" and liberals as evil scum is stupid beyond belief. So we either find our moderates in the middle of the bell shaped curve and re-instate democracy or the fascist authoritarians take over. That will be interesting. They don't seem much for actually "governing". After all, they say democratic government is the problem. Hence, their "screw things up, then point" scenario to strip the power of pesky democracy and it's rules and norms. Have fun.
Cause their own economic freedom? Possible yes, but we can watch the trajectories and see that's not the American pattern and not the pattern in some other societies.
Charles Murray pointed out another benefit of economic freedom in his book Human Accomplishment: Higher rates of great accomplishment in the arts and sciences. That's certainly nothing to sneeze at.
interesting video. awesome manipulative graph @2:45 that proves the difference of child labor is only 3% from the poorest and least free to poorest and most free nations. The real problem here is there is no provided definition of what makes a nation more or less free, so this information is clouded in nebulous conceptions about what political platforms we feel provide us with freedom. this is of course summed up by the final question, which asks us implicitly to change our current politicians
You can find the details at freetheworld com. They look at 10 factors including government spending, taxation (rates and the levels at which they apply), labor laws, wage controls, union density, etc.
I agree. There's so much more wealth to be created. If people want to create wealth, then they should be allowed to do it. But those who want to remain at their current level of wealth would be free to do so in a free society.
No one paid 91%, Ken. Kennedy and Reagan tax policies showed that the federal coffers benefited from lower tax rates. There is a point where clear thinking individuals will decide it is better to take vacation than accept slave labor compensation.
yes, i understand that the 3% total difference is much greater when comparing them to each other, as you said 8%. my complaint is how the graph exaggerates this difference with the y axis. i do not dispute that there are positive effects from growth, and that growth is often associated with increased economic choice. but the purposeful emphasis of this video is to advocate for totally free markets, ergo far more prosperous outcomes. that is a facade, a phantasy.
Very interesting. In my opinion, the data in this video however would not justifiy capitalism and could be used as an argument against capitalism, since there would be more economic freedom in a market consisting of only democratic institutions, without ultra-vertical tyrannical institutions. Or not?
he didn't even go into what he's defining economic freedom as. But if it means less regulation, that is happening in my country, Brazil, right now and everybody is watching the amazon burn like never before.
That's the general idea. Of course certain laws pertaining to water rights, environment, etc would have to be worked out. As well a certain laws to protect children. But I think 99% of law can all fall under properties rights, especially when you consider each person has the property ownership of their own body. I think the system needs to be simple so that everyone understands what is going on, but versatile enough to apply to a board range of issues.
I propose we have a one term limit for all politicians. One six year term as senator, one two year term as rep. a one-term presidency. That would solve many of our current problems. That would give power back to the people, who ought to have the power right now and yet... we are found wanting.
I agree. However, I offer this collection of data as a counterargument to the claim that more freedom results in reduced quality of life. If that claim were true, then we wouldn't be seeing the data we see here, regardless of whether the relationships are causal or correlational.
Government consumptions expenditures as a fraction of GDP. Transfers and subsidies as a fraction of GDP. Social Security payments as a fraction of GDP. Total tax revenue as a fraction of GDP. Top marginal income tax rate and the threshold at which it applies. Indirect tax revenue as a fraction of GDP. Sales tax revenue as a fraction of GDP. Minimum wage legislation. Government employment as a fraction of total employment. Union density.
Correlation does not equal causation. Countries with greater economic freedoms aren't necessarily freer when freedom is considered a multifaceted outcome of policy in a given state. Your argument that "freer" countries have higher income on average compared with less free countries seems to conflate development and prosperity with liberal free market policy, which if anything, diminishes personal freedoms and allows multi-national organisations to monopolise markets and reduce the freedoms of individual consumers. Economic freedom? Sure, if you're rich. The reason why income appears to be higher on average in these countries is because high-earners earn more than the vast majority and offset the overall income in their favour. And, of course, when you look at the most developed nations versus the least developed nations there is definitely going to be a greater income distribution than not. But this cannot solely be attributed to economic freedoms. As I've outlined, the freer the market the more it can be geared against individual agents and the less choice consumers have at the point of purchase. Economic Freedom cannot be derived from or made synonymous with a "free market" as the mass accrual of wealth prevents some individuals from participating. A far more equal society would allow not just upper class, elites and mega-rich to flourish but would also seek to level the divide between classes. A society that allows individuals to flourish economically is therefore one that prioritises social policy over profit.
Everyone pays a flat rate of 35%. Everyone gets a tax rebate of $10,000. There are no entitlements, subsidies, or other federal taxes. (you can play with the numbers a bit, its just an example) The remainder can pay for a few programs like the military and a few regulatory agencies. The only law is that you cannot harm other people or their property. Courts would have to work to define harms. Again, state and local governments could have more specific laws.
People in both free and unfree economies have incentives to cut down trees. But people in free economies also have incentives to plant trees. If I can make money selling you cut trees, then I have an incentive to replace the cut trees so that I have trees to sell you in the future. If cutting and selling trees is illegal, I have less of an incentive to plant trees because if the government finds my operation, it will shut me down. My incentive is to cut the trees, sell them, and move on.
The greatness of capitalism is that it helps all. Hiring employees, people benefiting from innovations like your laptop and creating excess to give to people in need is the only economic way that benefits all of society.
Firstly, lowering taxes improves social mobility. If you allow the rich to keep their money, things like college degrees become more profitable and worth doing. Secondly, not taxing the rich means that more of their money stays in investments or bank deposits. This means that their money ends up stimulating the economy in a way that a central planner can't. Finally, lower taxes on the rich mean that less try elaborate ways of tax evasion meaning that you actually end up with a higher tax income.
Point well taken. I have much to think about. Thank you. And thank you too learnliberty; believe it or not I'm a long time subscriber and always enjoy more information. Cheers!
Several orgs keep track of it, actually. The one referenced for the video is the Frasier Institute's "Economic Freedom of the World" reports, released from 2000-2012. You can find them at "freetheworld" dot com.
USA is not a free market, it is corporatism. A free market does not need constant expansion. If everybody is satisfied with what they have at the moment they will be free to maintain that lifestyle instead of expanding. The depression is due to a lack of freedom in financial markets and the fact that we have central banks who have a monopoly on money. I can assure the situation is much worse in countries with less economic freedom. So why fight economic freedom?
"THEIR FORESTS ARE GROWING !" 3:09
Weird edit makes funnytime!
I wish there had been more specific evidence here than just a few charts. A little light on the hard evidence here. I feel like I just ate a freedom burger made with tofu meat.
Check description, there is a link to page with all sources there
Interesting video. However, it would have been more interesting to have some sort of set criteria demonstrated for "economic freedom", and how changes in those criteria affect that country. Also, comparisons between countries that have high economic freedom overall, but lower compared to other such countries, and the consequences of such subtle differences (e.g., country with low corporate tax but strict environmental regulations, vs. country with high corporate tax, but lax labor laws).
How do you define "economically free"?
Whatever makes a graph aligned with their view.
Basically, Less government interference and unjust hierarchies in economics means more economic freedom.
I just love how some people have no faith in people when they act privately, but suddenly have complete faith when those same people act as gov't agents.
This channel is at least better than prageru
for one thing, under conditions of economic freedom, private property is staunchly defended and people like trees. If their property is secure, people are more likely to keep it up and plant trees, gardens, etc. Secondly, industries that use trees to make their products have a strong self-interest to not destroy the long-term source of their profits. This is true both from a public image standpoint and a resource-management standpoint.
is it possible that you add your sources in the video description because some people may directly question these and it may be useful to me in debates
What is a "least free state"? How is it calculated? Chart at 0:44.
economic freedom index
@Daniel Gilliland
@@vinuzo9548
Best ask Koch Ind, Americans for Prosperity and The Heritage Foundation etc www.heritage.org/about-heritage/mission they own the index www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2020/book/index_2020.pdf
Correct. But positive correlation does imply the absence of negative causation. The story we are told is that free markets cause exploitation and income concentration. The data show a correlation in the opposite direction. Hence, the data contradict the claim against free markets.
The link to the sources says it doesnt exist
On all of their old videos the links seem to be broken. They cite their sources during the runtime of the video so you can just Google them.
How was economic freedom calculated in the studies used in this video? what economic factors were taken into consideration when developing the conclusions reached in this video?
What matters is whether the difference is statistically significant (something that you can't determine by looking at the difference alone). The appropriate test is a difference of means test. In this case, the p-value is virtually zero, indicating that the 3 percentage point difference is not due to random chance.
Best single source explanation of FREEDOM I've seen yet. +2 thumbs
What is a "least free state"? How is it calculated? Chart at 0:44.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Countries with greater economic freedoms aren't necessarily freer when freedom is considered a multifaceted outcome of policy in a given state. Goatee's argument that "freer" countries have higher income on average compared with less free countries seems to conflate development and prosperity with liberal free market policy, which if anything, diminishes personal freedoms and allows multi-national organisations to monopolise markets and reduce the freedoms of individual consumers. Economic freedom? Sure, if you're rich. The reason why income appears to be higher on average in these countries is because high-earners earn more than the vast majority and offset the overall income in their favour. And, of course, when you look at the most developed nations versus the least developed nations there is definitely going to be a greater income distribution than not. But this cannot solely be attributed to economic freedoms. As I've outlined, the freer the market the more it can be geared against individual agents and the less choice consumers have at the point of purchase. Economic Freedom cannot be derived from or made synonymous with a "free market" as the mass accrual of wealth prevents some individuals from participating. A far more equal society would allow not just upper class, elites and mega-rich to flourish but would also seek to level the divide between classes. A society that allows individuals to flourish economically is therefore one that prioritises social policy over profit.
@@BunningsSausages you are coming with arguments already fabricated yet there is no explanation, or examples, of anything you have said, plus your argument for inequality is proven wrong in the video itself
@@BunningsSausages economic freedom only for the rich? sure: china, chile, india, indonesia, south korea, taiwan, japan, spain, eastern germany, singapur, peru, uruguay, ethiopia, botswana. I suppose none of them happened or existed or were related to increase of economic freedom
The only question I have is where did the comment on America becoming economically less free come from. What study/survey/think tank did that statistic come from? I've never heard of any organization keeping track of that type of statistic.
The vertical axis is clearly marked (as you've noted), and the difference is statistically significant. What is remarkable about the graph is what we *aren't* seeing. Conventional wisdom has it that free markets encourage child labor. Not only is this graph not showing that, it is showing the opposite.
I am curious what metrics where used for forest land area?
I compared economic liberties to civil liberties in a discussion the other day. the other person said they had never heard of economic liberties. I tried a quick explanation about self-ownership with regards to property rights, but thought it would be better if y'all spelled out what you (LearnLiberty) mean by economic freedom.
It's a 3 percentage point difference, not a 3% difference. A 3 percentage point delta on a 38 percentage point base is around an 8% difference.
Can you please provide it?
Fraser generates the economic freedom data, not the outcome data (i.e., child labor rates, etc.). They are very clear as to what criteria they consider in constructing their freedom indices. Yes, it would be nice to cross-check with alternate indices. The problem is that there aren't that many. Freedom of the 50 States (from the Mercatus Center) is a shorter data set, and yields the same results. I imagine that anti-market groups wouldn't be interested in measuring economic freedom.
I find the one point they don't drive home is the more free you are the less resources you need, and the more efficient those resources can be distributed or even allocated. In the form of deforestation the more laws around safety measures forces them to over produce to make a profit which actually leads to more resources being used to turn a profit. I wish more people understood that being a conservative on resources is a very environmentally friendly idea.
Would you by any chance happen to be confusing freed markets (an economic condition where all transactions occur voluntarily absent of state coercion) with capitalism (a coercive socio-economic system bent upon widescale economic and political exploitation)?
The difference is 8% (3 percentage points) and the difference is strongly statistically significant (i.e., not the result of random chance). The source for the freedom data is shown on each graph (freetheworld com). Their site shows in detail each of the circa 40 factors they measure in compiling the freedom indices. FWIW, the same analysis using Freedom of the 50 States (which looks at different metrics) yields similar results.
While there are exceptions, if you look at the evidence, the general rule is that one obtains far more profit from cooperating with others rather than from stealing. It's similar to the "teach a man to fish" argument. When you steal, you make profit today but people learn and won't deal with you tomorrow. When you engage in voluntary exchange, you profit by providing value for others. That value encourages others to come back and deal with you again.
Finally, a Learn Liberty video that's actually about liberty.
What were the reasons causing the economic freedom to fall between 2000-2008?
Was that due to the stricter scrutiny over economy to fight potential terrorism?
Does anyone know?
Where are the sources for this data?
what are these ten factors?
heritage.org/index/ranking here it's says 10th place ?
No, they don't give the whole story. But they do provide a solid start to a real conversation.
"THEIR FORESTS ARE GROWING." Best. Quote. Ever.
Economic freedom data is cited at the bottom of each graph. The indices come from the Economic Freedom of North America.
The term is clearly defined at freetheworld com. Frasier constructs their freedom index based on 10 socio-economic factors.
Well with everything going on I believe quite a few Americans need to revisit the idea of freedom. There are plenty who get it but especially in the last year or two have forgotten how important it really is. This applies to many different subjects too I.E. Guns, healthcare, NDAA, Drones . . . .
The trouble is the term "economic freedom" is not once defined in this entire video. The entire video is about an undefined, abstract concept. I would like a solid definition of what is considered economic freedom, so that I may take away something from this video.
Awesome. Thanks again. The worst is when freedom is reduced but the populace thinks either it isn't being reduced or it's for a "good reason". We've gone from regulating truly extreme issues (which may actually be necessary for a "good reason") to regulating everything which will not help us.
Right!?! I cannot tell you the number of times that I've reached someone's limit on how small government should be, and then they say, "Well we have to have _____". And I always respond, "Well if people want ______ then they can pay someone to do it, the only difference is that they have to provide good service otherwise they get fired." Without fail, the next line is, "Government providers of _____ are not beholden to anyone, and go into that service because they care."
This is my favorite professor on this chanel. He always has some of the most interesting data and ways of explaining that data. Keep up the good work Learning Liberty
Ken, pretty much any conservative you talk to will care about those things just as much as you do. However, we believe there is a better way to fund those things. Schools: local taxes. Also moral issue of not making excuses for children who don't grow year by year/refuse to learn. (Even those who are not at grade level can catch up) Hospitals: Charity and free markets (support for people who needed it, then lower prices overall).
This is my last reply. I just say my opinion did not want to argue about it. I agree that with a lot of changes we may get to economy freedom that work. I'm not fighting against it, but I think that many people that want economy freedom want to get some restriction off so they can make more for them self and if you free the market immediately it will go into chaos. I hope people find the right way to do it. Thank you for the civilized conversation.
Not all of us are willing to go all the way to libertarianism. I merely believe that free markets are the best. Our regulations can be narrowed down to the ones that prevent truly heinous practices and free up our economy to really grow.
Actually, what you really care about is how trustworthy the data are. You'll see the citation for each data set under each graph.
I believe you are missing the point. A counterargument to free markets is that they promote exploitation. If this counterargument were true, then we should see child labor rates *rising* as economic freedom rises. Not only are we not seeing that, we are seeing the reverse. The 3 percentage point difference may seem small to your eyes, but it is highly statistically significant and, more importantly, moves in the opposite direction the counterargument predicts.
Show your work on this. Many of the countries where there is much deforestation have almost no "multinational bank" presence at all... which makes sense, considering that frequently their legal environments are totally toxic for any potential outside investment.
Just few days ago a engineering friend of mine that works in a hospital where i currently live. told me that the laser machine they use to treat cancer is so old 10 years over its life time(and most of the machine are that old its not just this one). it some times treats the wrong area due to clogged rotors. And its not due to lack of funding they get more money than most US hospitals for its size it just vanish into bureaucracy. And the best thing its the country only hospital.
The argument for greater govt involvement in the economy utterly destroyed in one simple video using simple facts... Thank you. Now the big hurdle is to get more people to watch this.
I don’t think making lobbying illegal would solve the problem; it would just drive it underground. The problem lies with having a government that is too powerful. Reducing the power of the government reduces the power of politicians to grant favors to lobbyists.
Firstly this money doesn't sit in a vault; it's lent out to business ventures as start up capital. This is how it stimulates the economy. The interest it accumulates is your share of the profit from that loan. This then allows you to spend more money later on; ie, less consumption now, much more later. Your second point shows us exactly why bailouts are a bad idea. Shielding banks from the negative consequences of risk taking means they'll keep doing risky practices, leaving us to foot the bill
You should vote for Bernie Sanders and make your economy even less free. Go for socialism and become Venezuela.
feel the bern
in your wallet
and on your books
and in your crematoriums
national SOCIALIST party of the united states.
Haha. It really takes the pressure off of liberals when you guys own yourselves 😆
The social democracies of Western and Northern Europe work exceptionally well, have higher standards of living than in the US and higher growth per year. Try again!
all these "social democracies" you are talking about, are countries with a more free market than the US has, just with bigger safety nets. you can only have either of them: or you say bernie is a dem socialist, or you say that these countries are. even the prime minister of denmark, a country often referred to by bernie as "social democracy", specifically responded to bernie's claims with "we're not socialist, we're capitalist". a bigger safety net is not social democracy--next to that, these countries are, bit by bit, decreasing this social safety net. try again!
Because it has so much oil, Venezuela has never bothered to produce much else. It sells oil to other countries, and with the dollars it earns, imports the goods Venezuelans want and need from abroad. Hopefully the Venezuelans are relearning the law of the harvest and the importance of self-sufficiency. These two ideas are the foundation of socialism as an ideology. As a state policy, it usually arises amidst economic strife but crudely in the hands of the state rather than individual organization. Venezuelans have more of a nationalism problem than a socialism problem.
Vuvuzela lol
learnliberty, why don't you talk about foreign policy?
Okay, that's something I can chew on for a while. I am confused though, how does money that sits and collects dust (interest) stimulate the economy? Are you suggesting that in the hands of the bankers it will do more good; you know the same people that gave us the fiascoes a couple yrs ago. They were writing predatory loans and offering irresponsible loans at the same time; and they got rewarded for it with the bailout. I don't know if that's what you mean, but I'm keen here more.
it makes rich people richer. thats why its so great (for rich people)
And the poor are getting richer as well.
@@sebastienholmes548 i wish you were right!
@@TheSuperLegoMan100 i am right.
@@sebastienholmes548 if only you were!
@Jesus él McNuggetCunt the stadistics shows that the number of people living in poverty Is going up.
Another outstanding vid by Professor Davies. I really wish I had a prof like that in college.
More people have to see this.
Fantastic video.
I still think some regulations are necessary, I don't believe in an absolutely FREE market. The only question I have is how France has low deforestation with somewhat low economic freedom. Also, countries with high economic freedom may not have deforestation problems, but they do have excessive carbon emissions. Look at the US, Hong Kong, Germany, and Canada. Then look at Hong Kong and the U.S. in terms of income inequality, there has to be some regulation to prevent this right?
Freedom. That is what we should do.
You can read all the sources for the data, including complete definitions of what is meant by "economic freedom" at the Frasier Institute's "Economic Freedom of the World" site. It's actually fairly clear, and has been studied for decades.
I was in Greece for the summer of 2011 and i learn a loot while i was there. Of all the horrible things i saw there one story sticks the most. I was on a small island and the locals told me that the hospital where there was 1 doctor and 2-3 nurses 1 janitor and 8 gardeners, an i sayd wow that must be one big garden. And the told me thats the thing there is no garden.
Destructive economic freedom is when big businesses get more than their fair share of it because they get tax loop holes and subsidies from governments. They even get special laws to crush their competition. All federal laws should be made to effect everyone. State and local can deal with specifics. When you get these special rules for certain people or groups you open the door for all kinds of inequality.
There are so many facts that point to a certain direction. If this was in a science classroom, this would no doubt be classified in the same category as the general theory of relativity, Newtonian theory, and theory of evolution. Its been proven time and time again, but because this is treated differently, there will always be people who say "correlation does not equal causation"
The Herritage Foundation does its own independent economic freedom index and the results are roughly the same.
I'm using the Economic Freedom of North America and Economic Freedom of the World Indices.
Nonsense...define economic freedom...specifically.
George Roberts less government interference and unjust hierarchies in the economy means more economic freedom.
@@serpent268 Bud, you really shouldn't let propagandists do your thinking for you. Economic freedom is directly proportional to economic power. The more money, the more power. Government regulation is required for the structure of the economy in general. And certainly to construct and maintain anything remotely resembling a level playing field. The libertarian dogma touts unregulated capitalism which is the freedom for us all to be driven into economic slavery by those with more economic power. As Janis Joplin noted, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."...in an economic sense.
The GOP elitists shill for big business and have hijacked conservatism pretending to care about people and what they think. They lie. All the while they say their shenanigans are "good for us" because making the rich richer will somehow trickle down. They lie. This has all been seen before, history knows. They are fascists. Fascism is equal to Corporatocracy by definition.
The GOP at the top are just shills for the economic elite pretending to be conservative as they dogwhistle their base...and give deep pockets everything they want regardless of why they want it. Money has power whether we do or not. We either maintain 'we the people' government at a strong national level, or money takes over by hook, crook and subversion. It's been going on in earnest since the Powell Memo of 1971, look it up. And see Bill Moyer's article on it. They can't help themselves, they are one trick ponies and civilization is not something they think about, at least on the more radical authoritarian and rich right. Again, money has power whether we do or not. We either control them, or they will control us...for nature abhors a vacuum.
We didn't fight a war of independence against a king, we fought a war against the British East India Company, of which the king was the major stockholder screwing us at will. The founding fathers did their best to give us avenues to prevent hostile takeover of we the people. But they can't do it for us...their dead. But they left us clues, all they could. When Ben Franklin was ask, coming out of the Constitutional convention by a woman what we had, a democracy or an monarchy, he replied "A republic, if you can keep it." Big money even then had sought elitist control.
So make up your mind, freedom is power to the people, we either control them...or they will control us...and convince us it was our own idea by the likes of Faux news talking heads, the worst of which get paid tens of millions a year to spin vitriol and bullshit. They have several that try to be real news people on their attempts at real news shows, but they get shot down if they stray too far, like Shep Smith. Chris Wallace tries, but he's not as well versed as his dad Mike Wallace was. Though Frump is getting under more skins even there these days...save for the sycophants laughing all the way to the bank while screaming about a commie behind every liberal bush.
@George Roberts Bruh, I said that because I’m mutualist. I hate capitalism as much as the next guy. Big businesses are caused by government and company bureaucracy. A free market, disallows government and unjust hierarchies. I think worker co-ops with high economic freedom is a good idea. Imo, capitalism is statist and anarcho-capitalism should not be called anarchy.
This is because in capitalism has prerequisites to the state being unjust hierarchy.
I define unjust hierarchies as hierarchies that are built unnaturally.
You can always make the case that capitalism is not what economic freedom truly is. However, these statistics were not merely contrived from the air. Rather, these statistics were obtained by the Fraser Institute who substituted the word economic freedom with what they were really measuring, namely the degree to which capitalism existed and was present in different countries. The categories and methodologies utilized by the Fraser Institute were to test capitalism undoubtedly if you look at the questions they asked and tried to get a score for. For example, the extent to which private property rights exist, the extent to which government regulations in the economy are absent, the extent to which taxes are absent, etc from one country to another, or any of the sort that people would surely agree are the aspects that define capitalism. So what they are really measuring is the degree of capitalism, but you can always argue that capitalism does not truly guarantee or provide economic freedom as a semantic point. But the economic freedom index itself is using the degree of capitalism as their real guide so every time the word economic freedom is mentioned, that is what they really mean.
@@sayebkhan8406 My apologies Sayeb, my earnest reply developed into a late night rant against the radical right trying to take over democracy in this fascist coup orchestrated by right wing radical authoritarian fascists:
I notice you have a standardized view of 'capitalism'. The constraints by the defined and packaged view of the term "capitalism" is brought to us by those that are myopic in their power structure requirements, by one trick ponies. Commerce is variable as defined by society. When it is defined by the elite to serve themselves, it has a predictable effect contrary to the benefit of society as a whole. It's we the people, not we the corporations or we the monied elite. Capitalism derives it's moral authority from (democratic) regulation, which is why it must be regulated. The right lied about what Adam Smith said about markets regulating themselves. Why? Because it's what they do. End justifies the means. Milton Friedman's Supply Side economics was touted as genuine by deep pockets for decades in justification.
To seek to cast out millions of votes of the populous at the present time as irrelevant by claiming half our population are cheating commies is an authoritarian fascist takeover attempt by those with more propaganda than comprehension, and no supporting facts. The radical right has been using a scam that's been going on since the aforementioned Powell Memo of 1971 for which vitriol and scapegoating have been tools. Abe Lincoln noted that if the next centuries did not find us a free nation, it would be because we destroyed ourselves, for no outside power could accomplish it. (Short of nukes, which is a planet stopper)
He made this observation from the actions of the big bankers empowered by civil war spending from which the bankers showed their true colors. There are two scathing statements he made concerning these bankers. He noted in one that he had two enemies near the end of the civil war, the confederacy in front of him and the bankers at his back lying, spinning and conspiring to maintain it against any who dared to contest their newly acquired power, for which truth and we the people was of no concern.
It's what they do, they can't help themselves. They are one trick ponies for which the ecosystem of civilization and the stewardship of life on the planet are not in their purview. Mankind must have a broader view if we are to survive our technical adolescence as the great species our sophomoric egos imagine ourselves to be. Trump is not a lunatic in the literal sense, he's a sociopathic conman, crook and pathological liar for which the fascist agenda of the radical right at the top now shows it's true colors in his support. At the end of this election, it will be time to prosecute him and the traitors that are pushing for this unrest which may end in bloodshed and division if the lying lunacy cannot be stopped. Democracy lives in the middle of the bell shaped curve and dies at either extreme. Scapegoating is a standard fascist tool, but any authoritarian effort uses it.
Faux news and the various mobs whipped into emotional certitude marching to the tune of special interest propaganda with pitchforks in hand claiming commie takeover by lightweight liberals is oxymoronic. You can't have it both ways. But emotion tops logic, which is why the string pullers use it. So we don't think too much while they point us in the direction they like...against each other. It's not right vs. left, it's the super deep pockets ...against everyone else from the glitter of gold and power, both of which elicit a similar endorphin rush...drug high.
This is an orchestrated takeover of democracy that's gotten out of hand by even those that instigated it. Mobs are like that. But once you've drunk the koolaid, it seems nearly impossible to change that mind set, facts be damned. They have their own, and it's a full set. Covers all the bases...as long as you don't look too deep while thinking for yourself. Authoritarians have formed a club that pretends to care about conservative values. Hence, conservatism has been hijacked to use in manipulation and cover, to hide in plain sight when not underground completely maintaining secrecy.
Democracy is now under it's first serious ideological threat since the civil war...if you don't count the fascist coup plot in '33 against FDR in which two dozen 'business' people tried to employ General Smedley Butler, retired. He nearly single handedly squashed that effort. Look it up. Big money goes radical fast when it suits them.
So...it's time to figure out what's real and what's a pack of lies. I'll give you a hint: Authoritarians, spinners and liars using end justifies the means for the benefit of deep pockets are not the good guys as they try to nullify millions of votes simply because they were mailed in in a pre-determined effort to try to easy the pandemic burden...but which were also primarily done by liberals and the poor. They also claim said pandemic isn't 'real'...or not serious enough to stop the cash flow to the top anyway. What's a few million dead peons.
If our limited healthcare capacity is overwhelmed, and our already overworked and under appreciated nurses and doctors start dying off, all bets are off regarding the death toll in this country thanks to idiots with an agenda. One side decided decades ago that the other is the enemy, instead of the opposition, requiring end justifies the means tactics and vitriol against our fellow Americans, for the sake of unregulated capitalism that was tired of interference from pesky voters that don't like slave labor conditions and feudalism.
In truth, this comes down to differing brain lobe enlargement as you can identify liberals and conservatives with 71% accuracy with a simple brain scan. We are like two halves of the same brain. Left and right need each other to cover all the bases. For authoritarians pretending to be conservatives to see themselves as the "permanent party in power" and liberals as evil scum is stupid beyond belief. So we either find our moderates in the middle of the bell shaped curve and re-instate democracy or the fascist authoritarians take over. That will be interesting. They don't seem much for actually "governing". After all, they say democratic government is the problem. Hence, their "screw things up, then point" scenario to strip the power of pesky democracy and it's rules and norms. Have fun.
So, here we have a video intended to explain to Americans... AMERICANS... why freedom is a good thing. Apparently we need it.
I would love to see you and Paul Krugman debate.
Cause their own economic freedom? Possible yes, but we can watch the trajectories and see that's not the American pattern and not the pattern in some other societies.
Would have been interesting to note how the more economically free nations weathered the GFC, as most of them increased GDP rather than decreasing.
Charles Murray pointed out another benefit of economic freedom in his book Human Accomplishment: Higher rates of great accomplishment in the arts and sciences. That's certainly nothing to sneeze at.
interesting video. awesome manipulative graph @2:45 that proves the difference of child labor is only 3% from the poorest and least free to poorest and most free nations. The real problem here is there is no provided definition of what makes a nation more or less free, so this information is clouded in nebulous conceptions about what political platforms we feel provide us with freedom. this is of course summed up by the final question, which asks us implicitly to change our current politicians
You can find the details at freetheworld com. They look at 10 factors including government spending, taxation (rates and the levels at which they apply), labor laws, wage controls, union density, etc.
Equal share? Equal share of what?
I agree. There's so much more wealth to be created. If people want to create wealth, then they should be allowed to do it. But those who want to remain at their current level of wealth would be free to do so in a free society.
No one paid 91%, Ken. Kennedy and Reagan tax policies showed that the federal coffers benefited from lower tax rates. There is a point where clear thinking individuals will decide it is better to take vacation than accept slave labor compensation.
I just love how people think government is the wrong way to solve things, and want to fix this problem politically.
yes, i understand that the 3% total difference is much greater when comparing them to each other, as you said 8%. my complaint is how the graph exaggerates this difference with the y axis. i do not dispute that there are positive effects from growth, and that growth is often associated with increased economic choice. but the purposeful emphasis of this video is to advocate for totally free markets, ergo far more prosperous outcomes. that is a facade, a phantasy.
Very interesting. In my opinion, the data in this video however would not justifiy capitalism and could be used as an argument against capitalism, since there would be more economic freedom in a market consisting of only democratic institutions, without ultra-vertical tyrannical institutions. Or not?
Which is why you have the freedom to choose a bank that does not take such risks with your money.
Hmm, the deforestation one surprised me. Why would economic freedom help forests?
he didn't even go into what he's defining economic freedom as. But if it means less regulation, that is happening in my country, Brazil, right now and everybody is watching the amazon burn like never before.
That's the general idea. Of course certain laws pertaining to water rights, environment, etc would have to be worked out. As well a certain laws to protect children. But I think 99% of law can all fall under properties rights, especially when you consider each person has the property ownership of their own body. I think the system needs to be simple so that everyone understands what is going on, but versatile enough to apply to a board range of issues.
I propose we have a one term limit for all politicians. One six year term as senator, one two year term as rep. a one-term presidency. That would solve many of our current problems. That would give power back to the people, who ought to have the power right now and yet... we are found wanting.
When your teachers are still teaching showing a 7 year old video as an accurate representation of society today.
Like when your teachers are showing you how Constitutional principles work across time? And they still work now, 200 years later? Hmmmmmmmmmmm ??????
I agree. However, I offer this collection of data as a counterargument to the claim that more freedom results in reduced quality of life. If that claim were true, then we wouldn't be seeing the data we see here, regardless of whether the relationships are causal or correlational.
Government consumptions expenditures as a fraction of GDP.
Transfers and subsidies as a fraction of GDP.
Social Security payments as a fraction of GDP.
Total tax revenue as a fraction of GDP.
Top marginal income tax rate and the threshold at which it applies.
Indirect tax revenue as a fraction of GDP.
Sales tax revenue as a fraction of GDP.
Minimum wage legislation.
Government employment as a fraction of total employment.
Union density.
so should we privatise the police, military, building of roads, education? you need a balance
Correlation does not equal causation.
Countries with greater economic freedoms aren't necessarily freer when freedom is considered a multifaceted outcome of policy in a given state. Your argument that "freer" countries have higher income on average compared with less free countries seems to conflate development and prosperity with liberal free market policy, which if anything, diminishes personal freedoms and allows multi-national organisations to monopolise markets and reduce the freedoms of individual consumers. Economic freedom? Sure, if you're rich. The reason why income appears to be higher on average in these countries is because high-earners earn more than the vast majority and offset the overall income in their favour. And, of course, when you look at the most developed nations versus the least developed nations there is definitely going to be a greater income distribution than not. But this cannot solely be attributed to economic freedoms. As I've outlined, the freer the market the more it can be geared against individual agents and the less choice consumers have at the point of purchase. Economic Freedom cannot be derived from or made synonymous with a "free market" as the mass accrual of wealth prevents some individuals from participating. A far more equal society would allow not just upper class, elites and mega-rich to flourish but would also seek to level the divide between classes. A society that allows individuals to flourish economically is therefore one that prioritises social policy over profit.
Everyone pays a flat rate of 35%. Everyone gets a tax rebate of $10,000. There are no entitlements, subsidies, or other federal taxes. (you can play with the numbers a bit, its just an example) The remainder can pay for a few programs like the military and a few regulatory agencies. The only law is that you cannot harm other people or their property. Courts would have to work to define harms. Again, state and local governments could have more specific laws.
People in both free and unfree economies have incentives to cut down trees. But people in free economies also have incentives to plant trees. If I can make money selling you cut trees, then I have an incentive to replace the cut trees so that I have trees to sell you in the future. If cutting and selling trees is illegal, I have less of an incentive to plant trees because if the government finds my operation, it will shut me down. My incentive is to cut the trees, sell them, and move on.
The greatness of capitalism is that it helps all. Hiring employees, people benefiting from innovations like your laptop and creating excess to give to people in need is the only economic way that benefits all of society.
Economic freedom is a benefit should be obvious but people still promote the idea of economic dependency on the government.
Firstly, lowering taxes improves social mobility. If you allow the rich to keep their money, things like college degrees become more profitable and worth doing. Secondly, not taxing the rich means that more of their money stays in investments or bank deposits. This means that their money ends up stimulating the economy in a way that a central planner can't. Finally, lower taxes on the rich mean that less try elaborate ways of tax evasion meaning that you actually end up with a higher tax income.
True economic freedom leaves no need to"launder" money.
Point well taken. I have much to think about. Thank you.
And thank you too learnliberty; believe it or not I'm a long time subscriber and always enjoy more information. Cheers!
Several orgs keep track of it, actually. The one referenced for the video is the Frasier Institute's "Economic Freedom of the World" reports, released from 2000-2012. You can find them at "freetheworld" dot com.
i preach to everyone! no discrimination here
The sources are listed at the bottom of each graph. You have to pause the video and squint. If you want the actual data, I'm happy to provide it.
Instead of "loving" when people make a mistake, or have an error in their conclusions, kindly point out the error.
I love this guy
USA is not a free market, it is corporatism. A free market does not need constant expansion. If everybody is satisfied with what they have at the moment they will be free to maintain that lifestyle instead of expanding.
The depression is due to a lack of freedom in financial markets and the fact that we have central banks who have a monopoly on money.
I can assure the situation is much worse in countries with less economic freedom. So why fight economic freedom?