The Most Pro-Capitalism Place to Live in North America Is…

[velvetfog]

The Most Pro-Capitalism Place to Live in North America Is…

December 13, 2013 by Dan Mitchell

Back in February, I said Australia probably was the country most likely to survive and prosper as much of the world suffered fiscal collapse and social chaos.
In hindsight, I probably should have mentioned Canada as an option, in part because of pro-growth reforms in the past two decades that have significantly reduced the burden of government spending.
And I’ve already acknowledged that Canada has passed the United States in the Economic Freedom of the World rankings.
So I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised to learn that the most economically free state in North America isn’t a state. It’s a Canadian province. Here’s a map from a new report showing how sub-national jurisdictions rate for economic freedom.
&h=578[/img]

And here’s the ranking for economic freedom in states and provinces. As you can see, Alberta and Saskatchewan are in the top two spots, followed by the American states of Delaware, Texas, and Nevada.
Interestingly, Canadian provinces also held the bottom two slots, with Prince Edward Island being last and Nova Scotia second to last. The worst American states are New Mexico, West Virginia, and Mississippi.rica.jpg[/img]


Read the full article here:

DANIELJMITCHELL.WORDPRESS.COM

The Most Pro-Capitalism Place To

Live In North America Is…

[SkinnyP]

I can make up some graphs about imaginary things too like 'economic freedom', whatever that means. And assign values and weights to different things using different formulas and get just about whatever answers I want.

Those graphs are from the 'Economic Freedom of the World 2013 Annual Report' which uses the Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014 for much of it's data. That second report is prepared by a foundation in Switzerland who (surprise surprise) ranked itself #1 in their own rankings for the past 5 years. 2013-14 isn't on this chart, but they are #1 again! Good for them being at the top of made up lists! Yippee!



The problem with all these imaginary rankings of imaginary things, like 'economic freedom' and 'happiest people' and 'which country has the best tasting rotten fish' is that most of them are prepared in northern european/scandanavian countries and then (surprise surprise again) they always end up ranking themselves at the top of them.

People in america are confident enough to not need to pat ourselves on the back and denigrate other countries for not being as awesome as us and then publish it so we can feel better than everyone. We are just awesome without all that nonsense.

[velvetfog]

This thread is about the relative economic freedom when comparing the 50 U.S. states and 10 Canadian provinces.
It is not about Europe or any other countries elsewhere in the world.
The rating list shown in my opening post seems rather fair.
Would you dispute that among the U.S. states, Texas and Nevada belongs close to the top, while Mississippi and West Virginia rank near the bottom?

Pay attention to the fact that ratings of all of the 60 different jurisdictions fall between 6.7 and 8.3 on the scale that they have used.
That represents a spread of 1.6 on a scale that peaks at 8.3, so the differences between states are quite slight,
in that there is just a 19.3% rating difference between the top and bottom jurisdictions on the list.

(This post was last modified: 04-02-2014, 06:41 PM by velvetfog.)

[SkinnyP]

I would dispute it yes. What makes Texas or Nevada have more 'economic freedom' than West Virginia? They both have to follow the same federal laws and both Texas and Nevada have higher state sales tax rates than West Virginia. Nevada has a much higher unemployment rate than either Texas or West Virginia. And so on and on.

The problem is with the nebulous, made up term 'economic freedom'. Is it better to have a lower tax rate or a lower unemployment rate? Or is it better to have more immigrants like Texas or less like West Virginia? The people who made up the term got to chose whatever they wanted for the criteria and how to rate them etc. It is a meaningless report.

And I ignored Mississippi on purpose. Mississippi is at the lowest rank of just about everything, made up or not.

If you want to go by just the average income in each state, then yes, Texas and Nevada are better than West Virginia or Mississippi, but that doesn't necessarily equate to 'economic freedom' either.

[velvetfog]

A high average income or a high GDP per capita in a state is not the cause of economic freedom.
But it is typically the outcome that real economic freedom provides.

Economic freedom has to do with sensible state regulation, providing business with a stable environment that is free of government red tape and corruption.
The presence or absence of local sales taxes does not have anything to do with it.

(This post was last modified: 04-02-2014, 08:43 PM by velvetfog.)

[SkinnyP]

The presence or absence of local sales taxes does not have anything to do with it.

It does according to the report the graphs are from.

The link to the report is in the story that you linked to in the OP. The tax bits are on page 8 of the report if you are curious.

But thank you for proving my point exactly. What is 'economic freedom' anyhow, and who are these people to define the parameters of it? You think taxes have nothing to do with it. Those people do. Who's right? They are apparently, because they have pretty graphs to display their concocted results. Economic freedom is a totally subjective thing and you can't just flat out say that one state is more 'free' than another, because there is no actual thing to measure called 'economic freedom'. It is imaginary abstract nonsense.

[velvetfog]

The rating attempts to quantify relative economic freedom, since the level of economic freedom varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
And of cause there is economic freedom.
Is it not possible for you to start your own private business in the state where you live?
Or would you be arrested and locked up in a concentration camp, North Korea style?

[SkinnyP]

The rating attempts to quantify relative economic freedom, since the level of economic freedom varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Yes it does vary. Maybe. That depends what economic freedom even is and how you measure it. And the people who made this report chose how to define the term, what is used to measure it and how, and how to merge all the multiple findings into one quantifiable number.

For instance, they rated areas that gave more money to the poor by taxing the rich (more welfare), less free. They rated areas that have a higher minumum wage, less free. Areas with a larger, more expensive government, less free. Areas with a higher rate of governmentally run social security and insurance, less free. (I smell right wing politics!)

I don't know if you agree with those assumptions, but a lot of people wouldn't, and it just goes to show that they can choose to make these graphs say anything they want them to, since they decide what data is used and how it affects the ranking.

Is it not possible for you to start your own private business in the state where you live?
Or would you be arrested and locked up in a concentration camp, North Korea style?

So people in Mississippi have a greater chance of being locked up for starting their own business than people in Texas? Not the best example to use maybe.

[velvetfog]

For instance, they rated areas that gave more money to the poor by taxing the rich (more welfare), less free. They rated areas that have a higher minumum wage, less free. Areas with a larger, more expensive government, less free. Areas with a higher rate of governmentally run social security and insurance, less free. (I smell right wing politics!)

States that are heavily into penalizing hard work and profit generation, while rewarding idle folks who don't work by supporting lots of them, tend to have a very large state bureaucracy.
Such a state is not the best place for achieving freedom and business profits.

So people in Mississippi have a greater chance of being locked up for starting their own business than people in Texas? Not the best example to use maybe.

If you are living in Mississippi, I can understand why you argue against the ratings.
Mississippi is near the bottom of the list, and it has one of the poorest education levels in America.
As a Mississippian, there is a strong possibility that you are simply not smart enough, or well educated enough, to appreciate the ratings for what they are.
However, as I pointed out in a previous post, the spread between the top and bottom jurisdiction in the ratings is only 19.3%, which is not an enormous difference by any standard.

(This post was last modified: 04-03-2014, 11:04 AM by velvetfog.)

[wildcard]

I don't see @SkinnyP arguing against the ratings at all. I see him arguing that the entire basis of the report is false.

I too have a hard time understanding just what the fuck 'Economic Freedom' is all about.

Are there states in the union that tell its citizens what to buy or prohibit the purchase of certain items? Then that would be a lack of economic freedom. Every US citizen has the right to buy/sell/trade anything on a personal level. If they wish to take it to a professional level, they can purchase a license and do so.

Economic freedom just really doesn't seem like a real thing to me. And even if it existed, it doesn't sound really important.