Economic Freedom by the Numbers

Economic Freedom by the Numbers


ANTONY DAVIES: Economists are interested in
how people behave when their unlimited desires collide with their limited abilities. We focus a lot on how people go about making
decisions and what those decisions are. Here, you could imagine, not just amongst
economists but amongst people at large, two schools of thought. One school of thought says that decision-making
should be more centralized, that is, the government should be making decisions and imposing those
decisions on people. The argument that people often make is that,
look, if you leave them to themselves, people will consolidate power, they’ll stifle competition,
they’ll exploit each other, and because of that, when decisions need to be made, they
should be made centrally by a government that makes the decision for everyone. Then there’s another group of people who say,
“No. Decisions should be made individually, because
if you leave people alone, they will disseminate power, they’ll promote competition, they’ll
create and disseminate wealth.” This school of thought says that decision-making
should be left at the individual level. People should be free to make whatever decisions
they want for themselves, and the role of government should be restricted to preventing
people from harming each other but otherwise leaving them alone. What’s interesting is that as we think about
these two schools of thought, should decision-making be more centralized or should decision-making
be left to individuals, we can look at different societies that have employed different types
of decision-making and ask what’s happened. Now we’ll be using here what’s called the
Economic Freedom Index. This comes from the Fraser Institute, and
the Fraser Institute looks at all sorts of things such as how much government spending
is there in a society; how much transfer is going on, that is, the government taking money
from one group of people and giving it to another; how much regulation is there; how
much rule of law is there; are people protected from other people coming and harming them? The more a society falls into the individual
decision-making category, the higher it ranks on the Economic Freedom Index. The more it falls into the centralized decision-making
category, the lower it scores on economic freedom. Basically, economic freedom boils down to
two things, one, individuals making decisions for themselves and two, the government taking
the role of protecting people from others imposing harm on them. Let’s look at the United States. We’ll take the 50 states and divide them into
two groups. In each year, we’ll have the 25 U.S. states
in which decision-making was done in a more centralized manner compared to the other states
and the 25 states in which decision-making was done in a more individual manner compared
to the other states. All the years available, 1984 through 2014,
in every one of these years, each of these states appears in every single year in this
more centralized decision-making category. These states, in every year, 1984 through
2014, appear in the group of states in which decisions are made in a more individual basis. Now that’s about half of the states. The other half of the states are here, and
they go back and forth. California, for example, moves back and forth
eight times between these two groups over these range of years. In each year, we’ve got 25 states in the more
centralized decision-making category, we have 25 states in more individual decision-making
category, and we understand as the years go by, these states move back and forth. Let’s start by looking at outcomes. Let’s talk about people’s income. We’ll look at median household income here,
and what I’m showing you are a bunch of years. We’ll start with 1984. This is median household income adjusted for
inflation. The blue bar shows you the median household
income amongst those 25 states in which decision-making is done in a more centralized manner, and
in 1984, those states exhibited a median household income of $56,600. In that same year, 1984, the states in which
decision-making was done in a more individual fashion, those states exhibited a median household
income of slightly more, 56,900. This is 1984. In 1985, median household incomes fell, adjusted
for inflation, but you can see the same pattern. The median household income amongst the 25
states in which decision-making was done more centrally is 54,900. The median household income amongst states
in which decision-making was done in a more individual basis is slightly higher at 55,100. That’s 1984 and 1985. Now in 1986, the pattern reverses. In the states that make decisions in a more
centralized manner exhibit higher median household incomes. The states that make decisions in a more individual
manner exhibit lower household income. In 1987, the pattern reverses again, and now
the states that make decisions in a more individual manner have higher household incomes. We can continue this comparison for all the
years, and when we do, we find the following. Of all of these years, 75% of the time, the
states that allow people to make more decisions for themselves exhibited higher household
income than the states in which the governments made more decisions for people. Now there’s a good counterargument to this,
and the counterargument is this. Well, you’re looking at median household income,
but that can mask the effects of unemployment. For example, suppose we have two societies. In this society, I’ve got 10 workers, each
earning $50,000. In this society, I’ve got nine workers earning
nothing, and one worker earning half a million dollars. In both societies, the average income is $50,000,
and yet, there’s a marked difference in unemployment. The unemployment in this first society is
zero. The unemployment in the second society is
90%. Maybe it’s the case that this household-income
data that we’re looking at is masking something. Let’s look at unemployment, same kind of comparison. This is 1981. The data go back a little further here. You can see the states that made more decisions
for people, in a more centralized manner, had almost the same, slightly higher unemployment
than the states that allowed people to make more decisions for themselves. In 1982, states that exhibited more centralized
decision-making had significantly higher unemployment than the states that allowed more individual
decision-making. We can continue this for all of the years,
and what you will find is that in every single year, with the exception of those five, states
that allowed people to make more decisions for themselves exhibited lower unemployment
rates than did the states that made decisions for others. In fact, if you take the difference in these
unemployment rates and convert them into human beings, you find the difference is about 600,000
jobs. Said another way, if over this period, the
more centralized decision-making states exhibited the same unemployment rate as the more individual
decision-making states, we would have seen 600,000 more jobs throughout the country. There’s a good counter-argument which says
that unemployment data ignore the chronically jobless. Let me show you how this works. Let’s suppose we have a labor force of five
million people, and of these five million people, 4.7 are employed and 300,000 are unemployed. When we calculate the unemployment rate, we
take the number of unemployed people, 300,000, and we divide it by the labor force of five
million, so here we have a 6% unemployment rate. Now, suppose that a hundred thousand of these
people had been unemployed for so long they had become what we call discouraged. That is, they would like to have jobs, but
they’ve gone for such a long period of time of being rejected repeatedly that they just
give up looking. They give up looking not because they don’t
want jobs but because they think there’s just no point in looking for a job. When workers become discouraged, they move
out of the unemployment category and they become what we call non-employed. These hundred thousand workers, when they
give up looking for jobs, we no longer count them as unemployed. In fact, we no longer count them as part of
the labor force at all. They’re a third category, non-employed workers. Now we can go back and recalculate the unemployment
rate, and the unemployment rate, of course, is the number of unemployed divided by the
labor force, and look at what’s happened. Our unemployment rate has dropped to 4.1%. Now go back and compare these two scenarios. Here, 100,000 of my workers have become discouraged
and left the labor force. My unemployment rate because of that drops
from 6% to 4.1%, but look at the two scenarios. In the two scenarios, there are the same number
of people working, 4.7 million, 4.7 million. In other words, as workers become discouraged,
we stop counting them as unemployed, and the unemployment rate appears to fall, even though
it’s possible that the same number of people are employed as were employed before. Really, what we want to do here is get our
heads around perhaps poverty instead of unemployment, because what really matters isn’t whether
you have a job. It’s whether you can eat. Let’s look at the poverty numbers and again
compare states in which decision-making is more centralized to states in which decision-making
is done in a more individual basis. What you see for all the years available,
1981 through 2014, in every single year, with the exception of these three, the poverty
rate in the states that allowed people to make more decisions for themselves was lower
than in the states in which government made more decisions for the people. If you convert the difference in poverty rates
to human beings, the difference is three million people. In other words, if over this period the centralized
decision-making states had the same low poverty rate that the individual decision-making states
had, there would have been three million fewer Americans living in poverty. A good counterargument to this is that poverty
rates can mask the effects of inequality. Let’s talk about inequality for a moment. Now economists measure this with something
called the Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient ranges from zero to one,
where zero is perfect equality, everyone is the same, and one is perfect inequality, one
person has all the income and everybody else has nothing. There’s less data available for inequality
among the states, but I’ll show you everything that’s readily available. As you look at this picture, down means more
equality. Up means more inequality. Down is good. Up is bad. Again, let’s compare the centralized decision-making
states to the individual decision-making states. If you do that, you find an interesting pattern. In every single year, inequality amongst the
states that allow people to make more decisions for themselves is actually lower than it is
amongst the states in which the government makes more decisions for them. We’ve seen income, we’ve seen unemployment,
we’ve seen poverty, we’ve seen inequality. In every instance, the states in which people
are free to make more decisions for themselves show better outcomes. Maybe it’s the case that there’s something
weird about Americans. Americans enjoy being entrepreneurial. We generally don’t like people telling us
what to do. Maybe there’s some other reason particular
to Americans that causes freedom to work better here than it might elsewhere. A good way to address this is to perform the
same comparison we just performed amongst the states amongst the various countries of
the world. Here, we’ll look at roughly 130 reporting
countries, and let’s start by looking at poverty rates. If we take all the countries of the world
and divide them into two groups, those in which decision-making is done in a more centralized
manner and those in which decision-making is done in a more individual manner, what
we find is that the poverty rate amongst these countries that allow more individual decision-making
is significantly less. The same phenomenon we observed with the states. Now you might argue, yes, but what we’re getting
here is what’s called the rich-country effect. The rich-country effect says, well, look,
rich countries of course have less poverty. They’re rich. Also, if you’re a rich country, you have the
leisure to be concerned with things like individual decision-making, economic freedom. You’re not worried about where your next meal
is coming from. Maybe what we’re seeing here is simply a fact
that rich countries coincidentally tend to enjoy more individual decision-making. The way to answer that is to look at the poorest
countries. I’m going to show you now the poorest 20%
of countries in the world. I’m going to take the poorest 20% of countries
and divide them into two groups, the poor countries in which decision-making is done
in a more centralized manner and the poor countries in which decision-making is done
in a more individual manner. What you observe is, again, the same phenomenon. Now the poverty rates are astronomical. They’re above 30% in both cases, and yet,
despite that, the poor countries in which decision-making is done in a more individual
basis enjoy a lower poverty rate than the countries in which decision-making is done
in a more centralized manner. What about inequality? Same thing that we saw amongst the states,
less pronounced perhaps, but the same direction. Countries in which the government makes more
decisions for people tend to exhibit more inequality than do countries in which decision-making
is more individual. It’s not just income inequality. It’s also gender inequality. This is measured by the United Nations, and
it asks questions like to what extent are women’s quality of life, educational opportunities,
health care different than those of men within each country. What we find is amongst countries in which
individuals are allowed to make more decisions for themselves, gender inequality is actually
lower. Child labor rates exhibit the same pattern. In countries in which the government makes
more decisions for the people, these are principally poor countries, but the child labor rates
you see are markedly higher. What’s the conclusions? We look at all this. We’ve looked across countries, across states,
across time and we see repeatedly societies with more economic freedom enjoy less unemployment,
higher incomes, less poverty, less income inequality, less gender inequality, and lower
child labor rates. All of that seems to go with more economic
freedom, more individual decision-making, but people are selfish, and if you leave them
alone, they’re going to act in a selfish manner. That’s what individual decision-making is
going to give us, and that’s true. More freedom means a greater ability to exploit
people. It means a greater ability to harm others. It means a greater ability to despoil the
environment. All of this comes with the ability to act
more freely, but also with the ability to act more freely, people have a greater ability
to cooperate. They have a greater ability to help each other
and they have a greater ability to protect the environment. This also comes with more economic freedom. This suggests, then, the appropriate role
of government in society is to prevent people from harming each other, but otherwise leave
them alone.

100 Comments on "Economic Freedom by the Numbers"


  1. the unemployment chat should start at 1984 same as the household income one.
    the fact it doesn't kind of skews the data slightly.

    Reply

  2. How about comparing China and India? I think, to make a more proper comparison we should also include the effects of scale economics and ethnic diversity and path dependency (rich countries' history of mercantilism and colonization) . I think this should also be considered as a case for the states. I like watching your videos though.

    Reply

  3. It would be interesting to see how the states that are always in the economically free category compare to those who are always in the centrally planned category.

    Reply

  4. this goes will with Michael Munger's latest appearance on econtalk where he talks about his essay in learn liberty about permissionless innovation

    Reply

  5. What would be interesting is the same analysis of the comparative statistics focused only on the states that were in the same group for the entire period, and ignore the states that waiver back and forth. The reason for this is when you have a state going from one to the other you can have a delayed effect in actions so an action taken under one may not manifest itself until after the state government has changed. I suspect an analysis like this would show a larger disparity between the two systems, but it would be more realistic.

    Reply

  6. Instead of splitting the data between central and individual, why not score it versus the actual metric value so you can show a relationship between the score of individualism and the economic metric of interest?

    Reply

  7. What data sets are being used? All I see here are generalized ideas with possible correlations.

    Reply

  8. People are idiots: it's much easier to listen to what you want to hear, even if that thing has 0 data supporting it than it can be to listen to facts and figures. The nation as a whole needs to get more scientifically literate faster than we are now so that facts can rule our political discussions, instead of blind assertions and platitudes!

    Reply

  9. More freedom -> greater ability to exploit and harm others?! That doesn't make sense at all.
    The complete opposite is true!

    Reply

  10. 5:26 – Your counter-argument showed an example where the aggregate would not mask individual effects. The original data was median household income. You then used the mean to make your "counter-argument". If 10 people make $50k, the median is $50k. If 9 people make $0 and the tenth makes $500k, the median is $0, not $50k.

    Reply

  11. Wait, why was the median being used to measure household income, but the average (mean) was being used in the counter-argument example?

    Reply

  12. Thank you for the very informative video. Prof Davies, I'm curious how you would respond to the claim that your data is picking up the effects of PRE-EXISTING inequality/poverty/low GDP, etc. For example, in your counterarguments you show that centralized states clearly exhibit higher rates of all these things. But correlation may not mean causation. In my mind, it could be that pre-existing inequality/etc lead the populace to develop more centralized decision making. I would think that the causation might actually be running in the opposite direction. Thank you.

    Reply

  13. I like Libertarianism but I have concerns. 1. Corporations are too powerful – They get away with evil; destroy communities and environments, start and fund wars, etc. There is no recourse because they are in bed with the governments. Corporations have 'individual' rights, lobbyists, super-packs, and a revolving door between capital hill and the boardroom. 2. Intellectual property rights – especially on food and medicine –  hurt the majority of us. They slow down innovation and increase costs. 3. Emerging technology will increase our productivity but decrease the need for human labor. More wealth but fewer jobs likely means greater inequality leading to civil unrest. If however we decide that we want a society that guarantees everyone the necessities to life than technology just might make this possible at little cost to those who are able to provide for themselves. 

    Yes big governments suck but big corporations suck too.

    Reply

  14. "The appropriate role of government in society is to prevent people from harming each other but otherwise leave them alone." Big government does a poor job at this. Would a small government do any better? And what about those who are in need of aid? Is it inappropriate for a government to help them?

    Reply

  15. I raised my hand to ask the professor a question and when he didn't answer I remembered that I'm only in YouTube college.

    Reply

  16. I'm sorry but what were they smoking to put ILLINOIS in the Individualized Decision Making group? Clearly these people don't live near Illinois or they'd realize that Chicago politicians do their best to make decisions for the entire state and when they can't manage it they demand more money so the rest of the state doesn't have enough to make decisions for themselves. Waiting 15 blasted years for the state to repair and update a state road but the constant excuse for not doing it is that Chicago needs the money more. Yeah, that sounds really individualized. Chicago giving BILLIONS of dollars in tax breaks to companies that might create 5,000 jobs, tax money that should be coming into not just Chicago but the entire state and could help balance the budget, but NO Chicago gets to make that decision.

    Reply

  17. milton friedman school.

    anyway not all states are equal. comparing apples to bananas, it does not make bananas automaticlly apples.

    Reply

  18. In deciding whether or not a country is "centralized" or "individualized" in terms of decision making, is the basis quantitative or qualitative? Is it a mix? And what are the factors used in either method for deciding whether it is centralized or not? Also, are they not on a spectrum, or are they simply one or the other? I'd like to have these questions answered before being able to properly understand the argument.

    Reply

  19. It's so rare to find people who are able to articulate a political opinion that isn't just some emotional appeal. The way this guy presents a perspective and then actually supports it with facts and reasonable logic is so good. Really like watching these.

    Reply

  20. Iceland have unemploiment about 1% and very low gender inequality. Iceland is more freedom country than US

    Reply

  21. Counter arguments? I'm awestruck by their mere consideration, haven't seen such an educational discourse in a long time.

    Reply

  22. The problems is that correlation doesn't imply causation. I'm not hearing any strong argument in favor of causation. It seems nitpicking but I'm very curious about this part, it's the "big deal" part.
    Because there always can be another explanation, and we don't accept argument from ignorance. How can we exclude third factors? How can we exclude that the states with higher poverty rates (for different reasons) are moved by the voters towards centralized economic approaches?
    How can be sure that is not the other way around? Differences in the economic fabric produce different economic approaches in the political system?
    The case of inequality. It would be very interesting to discover that inequality produces more centralized policies. How can we exclude that? It seems to me there's room for arguments here.

    Reply

  23. For the point on 3rd world countries, this is quite possibly because of corruption meaning that the people are completely ignored, and aid money goes to swimming pools- take the DR Congo as an example.

    Reply

  24. Household income is a poor economic measure because the sizes of households varies over time. Gotta be careful about regulating the environment, though. The left will use it as an argument for every single one of their policies. I'd be interested in seeing some kind of tort system to manage it instead.

    Reply

  25. DO NOT USE Median Household income. That is not the work of a serious economist. Why? Because household size varies from one place to another as well as from one time period to another. Household size has fallen over the past 50 years, I believe from 3+ to 2.2 or something today. You're supposed to use median individual (personal) income. There's something else to keep in mind. California has a lot of illegal immigrants who ran across the border to live there. Many of their incomes, which are generally lower, are very likely included in income survey data which would skew California much lower than otherwise would be. And there's the fact that unwed childbearing and single motherhood has gone crazy high from what it used to be prior to 1970s, which depresses household and personal income data

    Reply

  26. Wow that's astraw man… well maybe some people think that way. But the way I've always heard it is that we've OBSERVED people doing shitty things in this sphere, so we'lll regulate that sphere… it's not some general principle, but a reaction to experience in particular circumstances. But maybe I'm special cause I'm someone with liberal tendencies in a deeply red family, geographic area.

    Reply

  27. I'd really like to here more about how these state classifications were made… ranked by "centralized decision making?"

    Reply

  28. Central planning to capitalism is like railroads to automobiles – both have benefits and disadvantages, but former is very controller, rigid and inconvenient (needs to be driven to the station, waiting, etc), while the latter though less capable in terms of moving the goods give full control and freedom to the driver. In the end, the individual driver usually arrives faster.

    Reply

  29. Why wouldn't the benefits of division of labor, which is almost universally accepted, be applicable to govt jobs? Aren't they just the hired help providing a service?Do property and personal rights apply equally to each individual? If yes, shouldn't this be centrally enforced? Or should it by defined arbitrarily by each person's individual opinions about property and individual rights and enforced differently? Isn't the foundation of the US Constitution that there are principles that apply to all people within the geographic region, a collectivist contract applicable to all citizens, that no individual can breach without penalties?Is the presenter against a constitution that limits the govt hired help and the citizens from breaking that contract??

    Reply

  30. This video sets up a straw man, then spends the remaining 14 minutes proving the other side wrong. For anyone interested, the view of Keynesian economics is not that the government should make choices and impose those on the people. It is that the government should aid the free market by correcting for the failures in that market; positive and negative externalities, public goods, asymmetrical information, etc. There are many instances of market failure that have been well-documented and it's an important thing to understand.

    Reply

  31. in another video you said that all humans strive for happiness. How does that correlate with economic fredom?
    https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2016/06/shsconf_rptss2016_01109.pdf this article for example suggets that while free markets correlate with higher hapiness limited government has negative effects on it.

    Reply

  32. Democrat logic: you don't have to trust a democrat, but you have to trust the government with a majority of democrats.

    I don't even trust my neighbor, so why would I trust the government (that employs my neighbor)?

    Reply

  33. While a worthwhile video that I mostly agree with, it does leave glaring holes.

    Top three that jump out:
    1. Monopolies (Corporatism)
    2. Tragedy of the Commons
    3. Generational Wealth. (Not just among families but tied with fixed assets, e.g.: land [as opposed to buildings], non-replenishable commodities, etc.)

    Reply

  34. Agreed , Free trade under government supervision not benefit the government but to maintain the balance in order to protect the common good .

    Reply

  35. You will never see the other parties show actual statistics about unemployment and how it really is.

    Reply

  36. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! socialism is the answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this professor does HATESPEECH AND ANTI SEMITISM. i will make, that youtube removes this socialism hating RACIST VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply

  37. This is why economists, policy experts and political scientists are on one side of the political spectrum, and the general public and Hollywood actors are on the other side of the political spectrum

    Reply

  38. The Al Bundys and Homer Simpson's of the world vs. the Milton Friedmans and Fredrick Von Hayeks of the world

    Reply

  39. God says individuals are authoritative over their own lives. Governments are authorized to execute wrath on the ungodly, but are not authorized to stomp on individual sovereignty. Doing things God's way always works better, whether you know Him or not.

    Reply

  40. still i think household income is a REALY BAD kpi .. average income per worker is FAR FAR more precise and masks nothing..

    Reply

  41. The inequality in the USA is appalling => Decisions in the USA must be made centrally (and mostly they are — the impact of public opinion on government policy is about zero). There are a few people making most decisions, and individual decisions are mostly reduced to a few undesirable choices. Which of two dishonest politicians gets your vote? Which of a handful of miserable jobs will you take, or starvation will be better?

    Reply

  42. Individual decisions are better, except when it comes to abortion? And without government intervention, my ability to protect the environment is zero. This video is bs, and your cherry-picked data is very weak.

    Reply

  43. I live in Alabama which was included in the centralized states. I don't understand that and would love to know how that was determined. I do live in the southeast corner which is not a good representation of the entire state in terms of poverty and such. This could answer why Alabama lives in the bottom of every economic measure made in spite of having the richest biodiversity in the country, some of the best Universities in the country and the most diversity of natural resources in the country.

    Reply

  44. If I see those graphs, the first thing that comes to mind is: show me the statistical error bars nevermind systematic errors and that correlation does not equal causation. Taking those effects into account most of the years, both more centralised vs. more free are basically indistinguishable. Also, the yearly fluctuations are much much larger than the system choice. If you think about it It's actually a good presentation to showcase how you can read statistics and interpret it in a way that confirms your prior beliefs. (and I am not claiming the opposite is true, i.e. centralised is better)

    Reply

  45. White-people things. Only straight white men will fight for the betterment of society.

    Reply

  46. THE ONLY PEOPLE WE ARE NOT PROTECTED FROM ATMRE THE POLITICIANS AND THE POLICE.
    THEY ARE ALLIWED TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST THE OEOPLE BUT NEVER HELD TO ACCOUNT.
    ALL STATES ENGAGE IN FRAUD AGAINST THE PEOPLE UNDER COLIR OF LAW. MANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ARE PASSED EVERY YEAR YET THE POLITUCIANS ARE NEVER PUNISHED FOR VIOLATIBG THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE, AND THE POLICE WHO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS ALSO VIOLATE THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE BUT ARE NEVER HELD TO ACCOUNT.
    COMPARE DEMOCRAT RUN CITUES/STATES TO CONSERVATIVE RUN.

    Reply

  47. @ 15:07 Leave me alone and let me take care of myself.
    "Enable me and I will take what the taxpayer is forced to offer".

    Reply

  48. More indisputable evidence that what liberals/socialists really want is more power for themselves and less individual rights for everybody else.

    Reply

  49. As always, the answer is not quite that simple. High regulation is unwanted, but there are many legitimate cases where gov intervention other than physical protection is necessary to keep the scales from tipping too far.

    Reply

  50. Centeral planning can be corperate as well as goverment. Individuals having more control over their desicions does enable the individual to persue the wealth that matters to them. However, wealth can be created by patterns of trading goods and services repeatedly and often centerilized desicons that create marketplaces, currancy, and marketing that encourage wealth and income. I encourage deeper thought into what creates the wealth that individuals desire and how govenments and corperations can enable that.

    Reply

  51. The problem is that what you describe is a one-player system: the only thing that exists is the people in your narrative. The reality is that the system has at least two players: the people and the corporations. If the government withdraws from this then it is an unbalanced system, the corporations will end up exploiting the people as much as possible (the cost of an epipen will be $100+, the cost of education, healthcare will be unaffordable, the food industry will do whatever they want to crops and products etc). This is why you need the government to intervene and create a three-player system, where the corporations have something to fear from if they overstep their bounds and the people have a way of exerting pressure on the corporations via the government.

    Reply

  52. I would prefer to live according to my own terms even if I was less rich in a decentralised economy. But it looks like it doesn't have to come to that since decentralised systems are better economically too.

    Reply

  53. with great freedom comes great responsibility. If you're not allowed to be free, you're not allowed to be responsible. And if you're not allowed to be responsible, then what the hell is the point of life?

    Reply

  54. Conclusion: If less government is better, then ZERO government is best. Central planners have no right to take money by force and then decide what services to provide. The free market will be most responsive to the individual's needs.

    However, if we insist that government must exist, then prepare for an endless squabble over what services each person considers appropriate for their "user fees" (taxes). Some will consider it reasonable to spend billions on bailouts for too-big-to-fail banks, subsidies for corporations and endless "defense" spending. Others will ask why that money couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

    Reply

  55. I may have seen this before, but glad I saw it again! Trump is and has taken away a lot of huge regulations that do more harm than good, and the results are already showing, almost immediately across the country!
    A twist on an old song:
    "Hey! Government! Leave us folks alone!"

    Reply

  56. 13:00 You changed the colors around to mean the opposite of the previous graphs. Confusing.

    Reply

  57. Dear Mr. Davis, what if the effect goes into the other direction? People in states with lower income and higher unemployment might vote to a higher degree for politicians that lean towards more centralized policies.

    Reply

  58. I realy like this format, but I must say that only looking at data like this can lead to a biased view since all of these states face different economic shortcomings and strengths.

    Reply

  59. I’m a bit skeptical to this channel, feels like they are extremely biast and only presents parts of the truth. Sweden and Norway are socialist countries (very centralized) that have 1% and 0,2% of their population living under 5,5$ per day compared to 2% in the USA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

    Reply

  60. What is interesting to me is that the states that are more individual decision making appear to be more negatively affected by changes in the market environment, often posting a higher unemployment rate in the year or two prior to recession except in the case of 2010, 2011, and 2012

    Reply

  61. So at the end, self interest is brought up. The complication with central planning is, aside from competency, the fact that whoever has power will also act selfishly. However, under unregulated capitalism, this power tends to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy. So the crucial thing to understand is that this is a totalitarian regime, in it’s own way. So in order to prevent tyranny, you need to organize mutual dependence, and any central planning needs to have decentralized decision making, by which I mean democracy and transparency. We see the need for this when private entities with no mechanisms of transparency or democracy bribe politicians, or manipulate access to information on the internet. – in terms of economics, markets are better at producing value quickly. While socialist markets are better at this than capitalist markets, democracies are not as adept at mortal combat as totalitarian regimes, so the only way to achieve democratic industries would be a global consensus. Meanwhile, markets involving rational, self interested, agents w perfect information exclude some buyers and sellers, so it makes sense for certain goods and services to be dealt with publicly, to promote the general welfare. It basically depends on what is more important between promoting a higher rate of value creation or a wider distribution of resources, in terms of promoting a healthy and stable society. Finally, free agents in a market are not capable of protecting the environment, maintaining an infrastructure, preventing human-rights violations, or undertaking risky enterprises. The public sector has proved necessary for those things. I wish economics were truly as simple as the speaker makes it seem, but it is not.

    Reply

  62. The governments role is to protect us from ourselves???
    ur missing the religious or more spiritual side of human beings.
    The bad always pay and the good always gets rewarded.

    I c it all around me everywhere and all the time u just have to pay attention!

    I’ve seen good people die in their sleep and I’ve seen bad people suffer for years and have horrible deaths and that’s just one example.

    There’s soooo many examples but in reality what u put into the universe u get back x whatever.

    The reason I’m saying all this is because in the end we don’t need government to protect us from ourselves!

    We need government to build and maintain infrastructure and to protect us from outside invaders and that’s basically it!

    Reply

  63. Use Government
    vs
    Government Use

    My understanding is that the tactic of "divide and conquer" is perpetually used by shadow government to keep the masses dumded down, conflicted against each other and therefore "poor and weak" (the masses) relative to the "rich and powerful" (the few).

    The solution is for us to go viral, peacefully, privately in small business, we the masses, declaring through ownership of our own domain names, directly meaningful, which easily, affordably and profitably unite us, and that by our very names!

    We can put our names powerfully behind that for which we demand.

    Two, coalition building, domain names actually suit us all very, very well.

    OurName4Freedom

    AND

    OurName4TheTruth

    WS for us meaning:

    We Sovereign

    We The People

    Equality

    Equal Opportunity

    We are all paid in the combine of ownership of our own and encouraging others to own theirs.

    0s and 1s are legal products in this information age.

    I've created and own:

    TeslaDan4Freedom (on FB)
    (My 0s and 1s.)

    Because I believe in freedom and having the means to enjoy it as well as being responsible towards it as well as all of my fellows; our humanity.

    Create, own and use YourName4Freedom as Training.

    Once trained, then create, own and use YourName4TheTruth.

    Thus we (We The People) have ZERO LIMITATIONS.

    United we stand.

    Divided we fall.

    I urge you to stand for freedom and for the truth.

    Reply

  64. Too bad in today's political realm, half of the country wouldnt allow this man to speak, and if they did it would be in one ear and out the other.

    Reply

  65. Good presentation. Takeaways for me:

    The rich already pay the majority of effective tax in both % and total dollars
    The poor receive a net refund, their effective tax rate is actually negative. They are actually being subsidized already.
    The middle class also pays little tax overall, and benefit the least from incentives and subsidies.
    The rich subsidize the poor in our progressive tax system, and benefit the most from incentives.
    The government has so far proven to be ineffective in efficiently allocating subsidies and pensions to uplift the poor.
    The system encourages lobbying for tax avoidance loopholes and leads to development of complex IRS regulation that is difficult and expensive to maintain administratively.
    Logically speaking, corporations are not individuals, they are groups of taxpayers working together to make a profit.

    Solutions – reform the IRS almost completely:
    1. Charge a small tax on ALL types of financial transactions and asset transfers (ie VAT / Sales Tax 2.0) through banking all banking and payment systems, ATMs, and businesses through something like blockchain. This can be implemented cheaply and the banks should pay the cost. We've bailed them out already. They are in debt to the public.
    2. Base income tax on expected disposable income after revenue (-) living costs, NOT on taxpayer's submitted P&L, which can be manipulated by public accountants anyway.
    3. We should not tax corporations at all. We should tax the owner's and employees with a flat tax based on #2.
    4. Local, State, and Federal governments should cooperate on a common information system to accurately report how each 1$ of tax is spent.
    5. Analyze all government programs for and restructure for leanness and efficiency.

    Ask Congress to end the #ProgressiveTax. It's unfair, punishes success, produces less revenue for the government, and encourages corruption.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *