What does it say about the United States when a Russian president sounds more like a capitalist than the American president? [Reader Post]

Loading

In preparing for the 2012 election campaign the President said the following: “The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits to ‘preferred’ companies.” He went on: The “economy ought to be dominated by private businesses and private investors. The government must protect the choice and property of those who willingly risk their money and reputation.” Also: “Corruption, hostility to investment, excessive government role in the economy and the excessive centralization of power are the taxes on the future that we must and will scrap.

Hallelujah! After three years of statist rhetoric a President who understands that it is free markets that create economic prosperity.

Unfortunately however the president speaking was not President Obama, but rather Russia’s President Medvedev. What has become of the world when a Russian president is making a stronger case for free markets than a sitting American President? Is the world standing on its head? Should we now expect the Chinese to declare Falun Gong as the national religion and announce free and fair elections?

As depressing as having a President who’s less of a free market fan than his Russian counterpart is, he’s only the tip of the iceberg. President Obama has plenty of progressive company across the country who fail to understand that freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand.

And freedom is beginning to exit stage left… Not sure about that? The National Labor Relations Board went to court this week seeking to give unions the power to decide where private companies can invest their money; San Francisco is trying to ban circumcision, and some Chicago schools actually ban students from bringing their own lunches from home.

In a less anecdotal appraisal of our freedoms, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University just released the 2011 edition of its Freedom in the 50 States – An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom. The rankings take into account 150 different measures of freedom compiled into four main measures: Fiscal Policy, Regulatory Policy, Economic Freedom and Personal Freedom. Together they give an overall picture of a citizen’s level of freedom on things like the ease of starting a business, overall tax burden, gun laws and a wide variety of other measures.

The rankings pretty much play out the way you would expect. At the top of the list – most free – are # 1 New Hampshire; # 2. South Dakota; # 3. Indiana; # 4. Idaho; # 5. Missouri. At the other end of the freedom spectrum are # 46. Massachusetts; # 47. Hawaii; # 48. California; # 49. New Jersey; # 50. New York.

I would venture to say that most people are not surprised by these rankings. The notion of freedom to do just about anything you want in places like New Hampshire and Idaho are about as strong as the recognition that California and New York are busybody states that seem to want to regulate everything.

I thought it would be interesting to look at the correlation between freedom in general and economic prosperity in particular. My hypothesis was that the states high in freedom would be significantly more robust economically. I was surprised to discover that on my first datapoint – income level growth – that was not the case. From 2005 – 2009 household income for the five least free states grew faster than income growth by the most free in 3 of the 5 years. And their incomes were higher.

That was the last of the surprises however. On every other measure the most free states came out clearly ahead. Unemployment: Every year from 2005 right up to today the average unemployment rate amongst the five most free states was lower than the least free. Indeed, as the economy worsened the disparity grew: In May 2005 the most free states had an average unemployment rate of 4.36% while the least free states had 4.44% – a difference of .02%. Jump ahead to today and the most free states have an average unemployment rate of 7.22% while the least free states have an average rate of 8.52%, a difference of 1.3%.

On taxes the story is pretty much the same. Every single year from 2005-2009 the average tax rate was lower in the most free states than in the least free states, with an overall average of 8.6% vs. 10.8%.

What about cost of living? In ranking the states from 1-50 with one being the least expensive state to live in and 50 being the most expensive, there are no big surprises. The most free states averaged a score of 15 while the least free states hovered near the bottom with an average of 45.

So there you have it… citizens of the most free states have lower unemployment, lower taxes and a lower cost of living than their counterparts in the least free states. Residents of the least free states however come out slightly ahead based upon income and income growth.

It almost seems like it might be a wash with a slight tilt towards the free states… until you look a bit deeper. Why did income grow more in the least free states? Well, it turns out that that difference in growth is not that hard to find… it’s from their state governments’ deficit spending. During 2009 the five least free states ran an average deficit of $11 billion each while the five most free states averaged $494 million each. During 2010 the numbers were even greater, $17 billion vs. $828 million. In both cases the billions of dollars in deficit spending of the least free states was more than responsible for the disparity in income growth rates. So, not only do the citizens of the least free states pay higher taxes, suffer greater unemployment, experience a higher cost of living, it turns out the one measure where they were ahead of the game is a mirage created by a government shell game that leaves them with tens of billions of debt on their backs.

Dmitry Medvedev seems to have come to the realization that freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand. If he ends up losing the 2012 presidential race to Vladimir Putin (who’s not known for his capitalist or freedom sentiments) perhaps he can start a second career here in the United States teaching President Obama and the rest of the progressives how to bring an economy back to life…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Unfortunately, Democrats, or Progressives, in general and Obama specifically, don’t have the ability to switch gears regarding their bedrock belief that government is always the answer.

Reacting against his fellows on the Left, against their attack on so-called ”bourgeois values,” and especially against a liberal foreign policy that was not seriously anti-Communist, Irving Kristol moved right.
Kristol, explained it by saying he and others who did the same were “liberals mugged by reality”.

That was way back in the late ’60’s to early 70’s.

Problem is, nowadays individual liberals, Obama included, have cocooned themselves with so many special exemptions and waivers that they will never – personally – be mugged by reality.

And, to be honest, their liberal ideology is more important to them than any single failure or ”bump in the road.”
They just are not that into the rest of the people of America.

So, I don’t expect a ”Damascus” moment to bring any of them back toward the center.
IF Obama seems to move to the center, it will be a cynical ploy, only to pull in hurting voters.
We saw an example of that the other day when Obama’s Commerce Sec nominee floated the idea that he opposed what the NRLB is doing to Boeing.
He’s trying to get confirmation votes.
That’s the only reason.

One note about Freedom and Liberty, Vince. The idea is prevalent amongst liberals, including those here with us at FA, that conservatives are, somehow, trivializing the terms. Their rationale? Because we freely use the terms in describing nearly every small iota of personal choice available to us, and our desire to protect them.

We are derided for pushing back against such issues as motorcycle helmet laws, the desire to have our restaurant chefs use as much salt as they deem necessary, even the desire, for some at least, to be able to go into a bar/restaurant where the government hasn’t banned smoking. The fact is, there are a thousands upon thousands of little, sparsely supported, everyday freedoms and liberties that the liberals have assaulted, and many of them done so in the name of our own protection. Can you say nanny-state?

Those liberals deride us for throwing our weight in support of those small, seemingly insignificant(to society in general) freedoms and liberties, even when we don’t necessarily wish to partake in them. What they fail to understand, that we conservatives DO understand, is that all of those freedoms and liberties add up, and the net result IS significant. And if one isn’t prepared to protect even the smallest, most insignificant-seeming freedom or liberty, even if one isn’t particularly concerned with it themselves, then how can one claim a mantle of protecting an individuals freedoms that are specifically delineated within the Constitution?

No freedom, or liberty, is so small that it should be given up so freely, by anyone, nor is any freedom, or liberty, that one chooses to defend, more insignificant than any other, and that includes the right to freedom of speech and assembly, or the right to own and bear firearms. Once one goes down the road of giving up freedoms and liberties, even the smallest-seeming of them, those that are more important, to more people, become easier to let go.

VINCE thank you for your very original POST,
It will allow us to make a vey big variety of comments,
I think what some are saying is true, meaning; the POLE NORTH has tilted and THE SOUHT POLE IS NORTH!!!
I might add that now the CAPITALISTS OF AMERICA are moving in RUSSIA BEING PUSHED OUT BY INFRIGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT, leaving us with the lowest economic growt of the last centurys, and the annibilation of CREATIVITY, THE EXTENSION OF DIVISION AMONG THE CITIZEN, THE never happenned in AMERICA DISTRIBUTION OF such amount of FUNDS TO
FOREIGN COUNTRYS WHICH VOWED TO DESTROY AMERICA, THE LOST OF GOD’s COMMANDMENTS IN OUR SCHOOLS,
along with the propaganda of other nefarious political religion, that incite our children to beleive in hate and death wish in the WEB, the infrigdment of GOVERNMENT IN EVERY WALK OF LIFE IN A NATION which send the troops elsewhere to fight this attempt to subdue their population by their leader,
the most express worrys and sadness of the citizens of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEVER ENCOUNTERED BEFORE, THE MOST DEATHS of oul militarys by
desperate suicides, the longest WAR of AMERICA and most lost of life by explosifs never happenned before!!!
times are changin WHERE IS THE BALANCE IN THE MIDDLE

The analysis is superficial. Among other things, the “most free states” are net recipients of Federal largesse. The “least free” are net donors. California alone bails out the national treasury to the tune of $50 billion per year (in other words, we send $50 billion more to Washington than we receive back, in return). Give us the excess money that we sent to Washington and that’s more than twice our state deficit. Give us that money back and we could offer free tuition at the greatest public university system in the world and do lots of other wonderful things for our citizens. Take away that Federal money from the “free’ states, and their economic prosperity would be degraded, as would their state budgets, necessitating higher state taxes.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

Here’s the ratio of money received from the Federal Government, versus tax dollars sent to the Federal Government, by state:

“Free” states:

NH 0.71
SD 1.53
IN 1.05
ID 1.21
MO 1.32

“Imprisoned” states

HI 1.44
MA 0.82
CA 0.78
NJ 0.61
NY 0.79

This is only a single example. As I wrote, the blog post was a superficial analysis. Economics is much more complex than that.

For a different view of the impact of government on economics, you might start with the following:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Welcome back, Larry

@m: bad penny returns to favorite pocket.

Larry… LOL!

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

As Mata said, welcome back.

Larry, according to your link, Washington DC is both the ”freest” and the ”most imprisoned.”

The place with highest federal tax allotments per capita is Washington, D.C., with $65,109.
The place with highest federal tax payments per capita is Washington, D.C., with $11,582.

And, which are your ”outliers?”

“Free” New Hampshire with only $0.71 received for each tax dollar it pays?
And/or
“Imprisoned” Hawaii which receives $1.44 per tax dollar paid?

Thanks, Aye.

Also, to Nan: Both groups of “free” and “imprisoned” states had a single outlier. They cancelled each other out.

Washington DC (with a ratio of money received versus taxes paid = 5.6 !!!) is no more representative of the USA than Vatican City is of Italy. Each is a fiefdom unto itself. Additionally, a lot of the money spent in Washington DC probably flows out of the city, to the surrounding suburbs, where lots of government employees live. So Virginia and Maryland benefit disproportionately, money from the government vs money to the government-wise.

– LW/HB

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

This is only a single example. As I wrote, the blog post was a superficial analysis. Economics is much more complex than that.

One could say the same thing about the info, with the link, that you posted, Larry. For example, just exactly what makes up the “federal tax dollars returned to the states”? How is it divided? Does it include such items as government installations within the state, such as military bases? Is it only the direct payments to citizens of that state, from the federal government? Are tax “breaks” for businesses included within that amount? Subsidies to businesses within a state?

And that is just a smattering of questions I thought of when I hit the link you posted. Any number of those questions, depending on the answers, could very well lead one to derive a completely different idea about what that particular graphic shows. Alas, I could not find the answers to my questions, so I am left with the wondering. And I am thinking to myself that it isn’t quite as simple as that graphic makes it out to be, either. Maybe you could provide more info, with more links, that shed further light on this?

Russia’s President Medvedev:

The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits to ‘preferred’ companies.

Obama has been living proof of this.
Obama believes that the government (led by HIM) is always right….”I won.” “The time for debate is over.”

But all we have seen is corruption and benefits to Obama’s ‘preferred’ companies…..waivers for Obama’s friends in Unions and supporters from the business world.
Waivers for whole states!
Ignoring wildfires, tornadoes, floods when his supporters are few.

“What does it say about the United States …”

Tens of millions of voters went temporarily insane in 2008. Or the criminally biased MSM misled them. Take your pick.

d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

Again you all fall into the trap of debating with the socialists what is best for the indefinable “common good”. You are essentially arguing that we should be free because it is more economically beneficial whereas the ultimate goal itself is liberty and individual rights. That is priceless in and of itself. The economic results will be what they will be. When the “common good” takes precedence over individual rights then anything goes. What great economic (and environmental ) benefit it would be to do away with all the non-productive people in the country — and that is not outside the Progressive’s play book.

@Liberty: Huh? Come again? What’s the frequency?

d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

Liberty, I know you have a point there, are the NAZI REGIME MADE THE PEOPLE HAPPY, BECAUSE OF THE COMMON GOOD? they took freedom just a bit at the time for the common good, they formed an army of youths to only think of the FURHER AS A GOD TO ADORE AND GET READY TO SELL THEIR OWN MOTHER AND FATHER TO BE PERCECUTED FOR THE CAUSE OF COMMON GOOD, THEN THE FURHER
WENT FURTHER, HE STARTED TO INCITE AND PLAY THE RACE CARD ,AND DIVIDE THE PEOPLE BY TURNING THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER, AND THE JEWS,,
they had cross the boundarys of humanity first inner soul that tell of right and wrong so naturaly inshrine in it,
as the 10 COMMANDMENTS , THEY THEN BECAME THE BEAST OF ALL OUT DESCENT INTO HELL,
WORLD WIDE WAR, kill so many decents human being, their blood are still wetting this EARTH
no lesson have been learned, except for some still living wittness, and the GOOD INTENTIONNED PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ OR PAID ATTENTION TO THOSE WHO SPOKE OF THAT ERA,
AND THEY KNOW TO PERCEIVE UNDERNEATH THOSE SPOKEN WORDS
THAT SAYS, FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, BUT AGAINST THEIR
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM WHICH THE FORFATHERS MADE IT VERY CLEAR
IN THEIR CONSTITUTION, ONLY FOR AMERICA, SIGNED WITH BLOOD
TO PRESERVE IT FOREVER

@ilovebeeswarzone: The other night I watched again on the History Channel “Third Reich: The Rise”. I’ve always had an interest in Psychology and fascinated by the herd mentality and mass brainwashing. Still can’t understand it. So many variables. Then there are millions of nice people who are “just doing their job”.

LYBERTY, yes absolutly, It would have been so easy to prevent it,
If they would only have look for what the other side is saying,
if they would only have paid attention on how great is the danger of
having the responsability to not check the signs that where showing through from the beginning,
they didn’t even hesitate.
now it’s the repair time, to come, and they will cry over it,