The Decline in US Economic Freedom

Since 1995 the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have monitored the economic freedoms of countries around the world and have published their results in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. Ideas like "economic freedom" are a little subjective, but I like the stated view of the publication. According to the editors, economic freedom is defined as "the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself."

As far as methodology, the editors "measure ten components of economic freedom, assigning a grade in each using a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum freedom. The ten component scores are then averaged to give an overall economic freedom score for each country. The ten components of economic freedom are: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government spending, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and Labor Freedom."

We Americans like to believe that we live in the "land of the free and the home of the brave." Yet, most Americans note that our country is in decline. The top ten list of the 183 considered in the survey, gives you an idea of how bad it has become.

The US does not appear in the top five. Using school standards and 90 plus is an "A," no country on the list meets that criteria. With that, number 1 goes to Hong Kong at 89.7, declining 0.3 percent from 2009. The country reached this high status because of its "competitive tax regime, respect for property rights, and flexible labor market, coupled with an educated and highly motivated workforce, have stimulated an innovative, prosperous economy. Hong Kong is one of the world’s leading financial and business centers, and its legal and regulatory framework for the financial sector is transparent and efficient. Business regulation is straightforward. Despite the global economic slowdown, Hong Kong has maintained its status as Asia’s second-largest destination for foreign direct investment, attracting over $60 billion in 2008."

The other countries in the top four are Singapore (number 2 at 86.1 percent, down .1 percent), Australia (number 3 at 82.6 percent, with no change), New Zealand (number 4 at 82.1 percent, up.1 percent), and Ireland (number 5 at 81.3 percent, down .9 percent). New Zealand is only one of two countries in the top ten list to go up. According to the editors, "New Zealand continues to be a global leader in economic freedom, performing well on most of the components measured in the Index. The economy has an impressive record of market reforms and benefits from its openness to global trade and investment. The banking sector is characterized by sound regulations and prudent lending practices, and well-implemented structural reforms have allowed the New Zealand economy to weather the recent global financial and economic crisis relatively unscathed."

Countries six and seven round up the top tier of economic freedom (those with a "B"). The US fails to show up again. Switzerland (number 6 at 81.1 percent, up 1.7 percent) and Canada (number 7 at 80.4 percent, down 0.1 percent) occupy those spots. Switzerland is the other in the top ten to actually go up over the last year.

The United States (number 8 at 78.0 percent, down 2.7 percent) is one of three countries that rounds up the top ten with Denmark (number 9 at 77.9 percent, down 1.7 percent) and Chile (number 10 at 77.2 percent, down 1.1 percent). These countries did not even make it to the top tier, being below 80 percent and the United States had the dubious distinction of seeing the biggest decline in the past year (2.7 percent) among the top ten. In the arena of economic freedom, the US has a low score of "C+" at 78.0 percent.

The study notes that the "U.S. government’s interventionist responses to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 have significantly undermined economic freedom and long-term prospects for economic growth. Economic freedom has declined in seven of the 10 categories measured in the Index." It also states that "Uncertainties caused by ongoing regulatory changes and politically influenced stimulus spending have discouraged entrepreneurship and job creation, slowing recovery. Leadership in free trade has been undercut by 'Buy American' provisions in stimulus legislation and failure to pursue previously agreed free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Tax rates are increasingly uncompetitive, and massive stimulus spending is creating unprecedented deficits. Bailouts of financial and automotive firms have generated concerns about property rights."

Imagine, the US is a "second tier country" on the fast track of decline after only one year of one of the most anti-free market Administrations in US history. It will be interesting to see if the US is still in the top ten after the Obama presidency comes to an end.

The Bad Ride in the Markets and Main Street

Since September the federal government has been busy. Very busy. But it has very little to show for all its efforts when it comes to Wall Street's and Main Street's reaction. Back in September, when Congress got together to roll up its sleeves and to heal the economy's woes, Wall Street was worried by the volatility of the market. Back then, the market strongly worried investors as it stood at the brink of going below 10,ooo points. Slightly 4 months later and we are threatened by a market that could (and likely, should) go below 7,000 points. The irony is that the plummeting market was a direct response to the government's "best efforts" to placate Wall Street's concerns. Instead of getting better, it has gotten markedly worse and has now reached 11 year lows.

Main Street has responded in a similar fashion. 2008 began with unemployment at a remarkably low 4.9 percent, which many economists describe as "full employment," when you consider seasonal and other factors that make "zero unemployment" an impossibility. Unemployment hovered around 5 percent through much of the year until about a month before the huge minimum wage increase (yes, there is a connection), in which it solidly went into the 5 to 6 percent area around that time. By September it had broken 6 percent and showed no interest in going back. This rise in unemployment joined the drop in the Market in leading to Washington coming "to the rescue." Main Street has responded to the massive bailouts of September and the "stimulus" of January by laying off even more people -- over 500,000 in the last couple of months alone. Main Street has responded to the Obama agenda by casting a new ballot -- pink slips -- and now unemployment is squarely in the 7 percent area and is moving its way towards double digits.

So why have both Main Street and Wall Street reacted so negatively? It is because both of these sectors are in the arena of enterprise. They fundamentally know that the more government controls things, the less efficient and productive those things become. The Bank of America is now on the brink of having 40 percent of its ownership be in the hands of government. Banks running like typically inefficient government institutions have done little or nothing to bolster consumer, financial, or business confidence. Fundamentally, I believe that at some level Americans know better. Free enterprise, limited government, and private property -- the founding principles of this Republic -- are better values than government control and ownership. There is a very good possibility that the businesses today are suffering from rather serious buyers remorse. I hope the government gets that message.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Remembering the Real Meaning of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving has become my favorite holiday. As an adult with many children, Christmas has lost some of its charm and there are few things more enjoyable than getting fat and watching holiday specials. However, one of the things I do not enjoy is the propaganda my kids share with me about the meaning of Thanksgiving. They often tell me about how the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to grow food and that, in spite of a rough beginning, these early Americans enjoyed an abundant harvest. Essentially the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians for their generosity.

In reality, the colony's governor, William Bradford noted that "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." People didn't want to work, because they were not individually rewarded for their efforts. Bradford knew there had to be a better.

The governor stated that "All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." It is interesting that the problems of welfarism was as great in the beginning of our country as it is today. A little incentive goes a long way.

As a result of those changes, the Pilgrims went from hunger and famine in 1621 and 1622 to widespread abundance. The only difference was a simple change in policy that increased incentives to work and not be slothful. When Washington and Obama discusses such today, they need this important reminder from history.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Wealth Gap

One of my sons sent me an interesting article from MSN about the wealth gap in the world. The article title cannot help but grab your attention: "Got $2,200? You're Rich on a Global Scale."

The artcle points out that the world's three richest people are worth more than the 48 poorest countries combined. That is a very serious gap, we are informed. Further, the article points out that the top 2% of the population makes more than half of the world's household wealth.

I believe that these articles are truthful in content, but often have an agenda beyond being informative. Often we come to moral conclusions about right and wrong when it comes to information such as this, without understanding the larger economic issues.

The question articles like this might want to address is, why are some countries wealthy and others are not?

Why is the United States the richest country in the world?

Why is Japan among the world's most affluent, yet it has virtually no natural resources of its own ("natural resources" is one of the excuses used by some to describe why some countries are affluent and others are not)

Why is Singapore, which is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, prosperous when Somalia (which has a density that is similar to the US) is one of the poorest countries in the world? We have been told that people cause poverty, but it isn't working in this and many other scenarios.

The answers to these questions are far more useful than the issuess offered in the article and the answers point to the power of free enterprise. The countries that are affluent and enjoy far more wealth, also have stronger committments to private property, lower government cost for doing business (fewer regulations, licensing laws, or taxes), and generally smaller (or at least more efficient) governments. Conversations on how the world's poorest countries could pursue such an agenda of their own, would make those countries far richer and would make for more interesting content.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.