Skip to comments.U.S. Falls out of the Index of Economic Freedom's Top 10
Posted on 01/06/2005 12:18:36 PM PST by Robert Drobot
AccountingWEB.com - Jan-6-2005 - For the first time ever, the U.S. does not rank among the world's 10 freest economies in the Index of Economic Freedom, published annually by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.
The U.S.' score in the 2005 Index did not change from 2004. But improvements in the economies of Chile, Australia and Iceland enabled all three to surpass the U. S., leaving it in a tie for 12th with Switzerland and out of the top 10 for the first time in the 11-year history of the Index.
(Excerpt) Read more at accountingweb.com ...
Ironic that this is happening under a republican congress and republican president.
The socialists will lap this up like cream. I can hear the Bush-bashing already. *Rolleyes* How much weight do economists give this report? I've never heard of it before. Will it effect the stockmarket and the US dollar?
Is it time to call in some debts, and say "Just Kiddin'" to the 350 million we just gave to tsunami relief and the 6 million dollars PER DAY we are giving them in military manpower and equipment?
Not when you consider how long the ACLU has been at it...
"HERITAGE FOUNDATION/WSJ DROP U.S. FROM ITS TOP 10 ECONOMIC POWERS"
How does this headline match the article? Or your comments about it? The article is about U.S. economic freedom, not power. I doubt either the Heritage Foundation or the Wall Street Journal would put anyone other than the U.S. as the greatest economic power, considering our economy is more than twice as large as the next biggest.
And the article explained that economic freedom in the U.S. is constant. As such I fail to see what your "socialist-communist" comment has to do with anything.
it would be interesting to ask the author to list the countries that have a larger gnp than the USA!
Yes, ironic. Heritage Foundation deserve a great respect, and I agree with them.
Yes, ironic. Heritage Foundation deserves a great respect, and I agree with them.
I't more important than you think, among economists.
The headline doesn't match the article or his comment about it... However, his comment is true none the less.
It is happening under the "Two-Party Cartel" owned by the elites, for the elites & their globalism/One World Order.
In relentless pursuit of a global corporate plutocracy, the Bush Administration has left intact an economically oppressive federal regulatory bureacracy while undermining American Middle Class business interests with importation of foreign goods and labor.
Crap analysis. We have the largest, the most advanced, and most free market economy in the world.
I read this in the WSJ. It wasn't so much that the USA got worse -- albeit Sarbanes-Oxley was noted -- it's that a lot of countries got better, which is a good thing.
And thanks for the links. We also could PING each other about Economics articles on FR.
Thanks for the ping!
Yes these next few years are the last chance to reduce the size of govt, the size of the debt and return us to the path of economic freedom. Some think that our leaders WILL can keep us booming and leading the world. Like being committed to something happening in words, but not in deed makes it happen.
The dollar will be dead by the middle of 2005 due to runaway trade and fiscal deficits including social and military spending. I don't think the blame for these problems can solely laid at the feet of socialist policies do you ?
I've talked to enough Aussies to seriously doubt that Down Under has passed us by in this regard.
Chile ahead of the US.
I've been there, didn't want to live there.
Who among us would move to any one of those countries?
How much would you bet that the majority of the touted "Top Ten" list ARE socialist nations?
31 August 2004
The Washington Times - James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, The Fraser Institute,
Arriving in 1939 as a brand-new, wide-eyed mail clerk at the head office of IBM on Madison Avenue in Manhattan, I recall how struck I was by its bold 15-foot-high sign painted on the exterior wall. The sign read "World Peace Through World Trade" an idea, I learned later, of IBM's ace thinker, founder and entrepreneur, Thomas J. Watson.
That Watson-IBM thought, to which I'll return, bears on this work that rates, indexes and ranks the degree of economic freedom for 123 countries. Like its competitor, the annual economic freedom index published jointly by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, this report authored by economists James Gwartney of Florida State University and Robert Lawson of Capital University in Columbus, Ohio finds a close connection between economic freedom and national prosperity, including per-capita income.
Messrs. Gwartney and Lawson acknowledge the ongoing help of economists Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institution and Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, British Columbia.
They also acknowledge the support and participation of some 60 other free-market think tanks, including the Cato Institute, Centro Einaudi in Italy, the F.A. Hayek Foundation in the Slovak Republic, the Free Market Foundation of Southern Africa, the Hong Kong Centre for Economic Research, Britain's Institute of Economic Affairs, South Korea's Center for Free Enterprise and Timbro in Sweden.
The authors classify the various statistical components of their index under five areas: 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.
Messrs. Gwartney and Lawson find that Hong Kong retains the highest rating for economic freedom, or 8.7 out of a possible 10, whereas Singapore comes in second with 8.6, and bunched for third at 8.2 are the United States, Britain, New Zealand and Switzerland.
Australia, Canada, Ireland and Luxembourg, in that order, round out the top 10. The bottom five countries, in descendingorder,are Venezuela,theCentral African Republic, Congo, Zimbabwe, and, in last place, Myanmar (formerly Burma), with a score of 2.5.
In other of their findings, the authors note that booming China's rating has climbed from 3.8 in 1980 to 5.7 in 2001; prosperous Ireland's rating has advanced from 6.2 in 1985 to 7.8 in 2002; and ex-Soviet, newly admitted EU member Poland rose from 3.3 in 1990 to 6.6 in 2002.
Two notable nations moving down of late include Zimbabwe (formerly successful Rhodesia), whose rating fell from 6.0 in 1995 to 3.4 in 2002, and Argentina, whose rating fell from 6.7 in 1995 to 5.8 in 2002.
As Mr. Gwartney and Mr. Lawson remark, economically free nations grow faster; nations with more economic freedom both attract more investment and achieve greater productivity, and central to successful national growth is "a legal structure that provides for secure property rights, even-handed enforcement of contracts, and the rule of law."
Well, for our terror-haunted world, these constructive forces have apparently been at work over the last two decades. Good work: Only 15 of 104 countries had double-digit inflation rates in 2002, compared to 76 in 1980. In 2002, not a single country imposed a 60 percent marginal tax rate on personal income, while in 1980, 49 did so.
Tariff rates dove: In 2002, the average tariff rate was 10.4 percent, compared to 26.1 percent in 1980. Upshot: World trade expands, relatively and absolutely. From 1980 to 2002, on average, exports plus imports as a share of GDP went up by 25.2 percent.
So Thomas J. Watson's idea of "World Peace Through World Trade" seems to be doing its part for peace albeit, note the authors, with much of the Middle East and other Islamic nations generally lacking the rule of law and property rights. It's an unsafe lack.
U.S. critics of "globalization" and "outsourcing," who tar CEOs engaging in such practices as "Benedict Arnolds," have it wrong. For don't such criticisms set back global market democracy and world capitalism, and unmindfully incite further terrorism across a nervous globe? Isn't free trade-world trade-world investment the Watson answer for world peace? Indeed.
Why should terrorists and suicide bombers kill, when their very own people engage in friendly and peaceful trading and investing across borders, and are the richer and happier for it? After all, who goes around shooting his customers or bombing his investors?
William H. Peterson is an adjunct scholar with the Heritage Foundation and contributing editor to the Foundation for Economic Education's magazine, The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty.
Simply it is not true.
Heritage Foundation is a serious Institute and a Conservative think tank.
Ah, Willie, according to the index used to figure this out, the more restrictions a government imposes on free trade, the lower you fall on the chart.
So, are you coming out in favor of free trade now?
You don't think that Denmark, Iceland, and the United Kingdom with their socialized medicine, socialized energy industry, and socialized national transportation systems are more socialist than the US?
What I read is that the more a government encumberss free trade, the lower in the chart you go.
The First Federal Revenue Law
On April 8, James Madison, once again a congressman from Virginia, addressed the House. He went right to the point. Congress, he said, must "remedy the evil" of "the deficiency in our Treasury." He argued that "[a] national revenue must be obtained," but not in a way "oppressive to our constituents." He then proposed that the House adopt legislation, virtually identical to the unimplemented Confederation tariff, imposing a five-percent tariff on all imports....
...A single, uniform tariff, he insisted, had two advantages. First, it could be imposed quickly, which was important because "the prospect of our harvest from the Spring importations is daily vanishing." Second, it was consistent with the principles of free trade ("commercial shackles," he said, "are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic")
Madison isn't alive today Willie.
So does that make him just another one of those dead white men who you think are "irrelevant" in today's society, Luis?
The rail transport system in Great Britain developed during the 19th century. After the grouping of 1923 by the Railways Act 1921 there were four large British railway companies, each dominating its own geographic area. These were the Great Western Railway (GWR), the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS), the London and North Eastern Railway (LNER) and the Southern Railway (SR).
London Underground and the Glasgow Subway were independent concerns and there was a small number of independent light railways and industrial railways, but did not contribute significant mileage to the system. Neither were tramways considered part of the system.
The Transport Act 1947 made provision for the nationalisation of the network, as part of a policy of nationalising public services by Clement Attlee's Labour Government. British Railways came into existence from 1 January 1948, under the control of the Railway Executive of the British Transport Commission (BTC)
Independent railways were not taken into BR.
Thanks for the link about James Madison. Might you added it to your FR home page space? Just an idea, my friend.
Do you know who was M. Thatcher and her 80's policies? G.B. now is a really FREE Country. I don't really get at your intentions, but it's interesting. Thanks!
The 2005 Index of Economic Freedom measures 161 countries against a list of 50 independent variables divided into 10 broad factors of economic freedom. Low scores are more desirable. The higher the score on a factor, the greater the level of government interference in the economy and the less economic freedom a country enjoys.
These 50 variables are grouped into the following categories:
Fiscal burden of government,
Government intervention in the economy,
Capital flows and foreign investment,
Banking and finance,
Wages and prices,
Informal market activity.
Well God Bless you!!!
Why didn't I think of that???
All this time I've been scratching my head to come up with something worthwhile, and here I've had it at my fingertips all along!!!
I don't recall what Madison's credentials as an economist were Willie, can you enlighten me?
And how his ideas on economics and trade at a time when a letter took months to reach the US from Europe, not seconds, are relevant to today's economic realities?
Well... Adam Smith or Thomas Malthus were not considered as economists at their time. Anyway, James Madison wasn't an economist, he was much more: a Founding Father of this great Nation.
Besides, even Adam Smith outlined situations under which he considered tariffs to be appropriate:
In today's society, the economic burdens placed on domestic industries by the federal regulatory bureaucracy (EPA, OSHA, etc.) essentially constitute a tax. For this reason, it is valid to place a tariff on imported goods to compensate for the uneven playing field established by domestic regulations.
Excerpted and condensed from:
Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations, Book 4, Chapter 2
Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries
of such Goods as can be produced at Home
"There seem, however, to be two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry...
- The first is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country....
- The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former....
A war, having come in with a collapsed stock market and a terror attack on the nation explains the deficit.
He's done well with what was given him in the Office.
You can remove your capital from the US without moving your residence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.