21–28 of 28 posts
Economic freedom isn't worth squat if you have no human rights.
Economic freedom is a human right.
Without any of these, there can be no economic freedom.
"These policies have resulted in job losses" Can someone explain to me how the recent government policies have lead to job losses. I have always thought the opposite was true.
There's plenty of explanations out there, if you care to look. Of course, there's also plenty of explanations about how government policies have created new jobs. Measuring results and identifying causal relationships is incredibly difficult in economics, and with all the associated political issues at stake it's hard to cut through all the bullshit.
There is no control, there is only very broad "repeatability." We have only circumstances and the interpretation thereof.
In macroeconomics, at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economic freedom is a human right.
Less important that the ability to vote, the ability to marry, freedom of speech, ability to move freely, freedom of association, etc. Without any of these, there can be no economic freedom.
Do you mean that economic freedom is meaningless without broader human rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's plenty of explanations out there, if you care to look. Of course, there's also plenty of explanations about how government policies have created new jobs. Measuring results and identifying causal relationships is incredibly difficult in economics, and with all the associated political issues at stake it's hard to cut through all the bullshit.
Just to emphasize: incredibly difficult is an understatement. We're talking hundreds of millions of actors, making an uncountably large number of independent decisions from moment to moment, in constantly shifting circumstances. There is no control, there is only very broad "repeatability." We have only circumstances and the interpretation thereof. In macroeconomics, at least.
Of course, that means lots of math, and lots of research, and lots of hard work, and having to actually to change your mind if your predictions are wrong, and--worst of all--it means not making simple, sound-bite pronouncements that fit someone's political agenda. You can't make a career writing editorials about how there's a 73% chance that raising taxes on widgets will reduce the annual productivity of the foobar industry by 1.3%.
Let me fix the lede: "Policies recently enacted by Democrats are ruining the country, according to a set of rankings released today by a conservative think tank which believes Democrats will ruin the country and a conservative newspaper which believes Democrats will ruin the country."
So, would you say that "protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed 'too big to fail.'" from the past year are positive, or have increased economic freedom? If so, why not address those points rather than deploy ad hominems?
I don't see it as ad hominem. Talking about "economic freedom" is basically pointless unless one comes out and admits what definition of "economic freedom" is being used. The WSJ story notably doesn't do this, but it's not terribly hard to infer that the economic principles applied are likely informed by the strongly right-leaning political views of the institutions behind the study.
Or, putting it another way: the study attributes the "loss" of economic freedom largely to the response to the recent economic crisis. Which corresponds with a time when the political opponents of the sponsoring organizations had just cemented control of two out of three branches of the federal government. If the New York Times and other politically-left-leaning organizations published a study which claimed a drastic decline at the precise moment the Republican Party gained the same level of control, would you assume objectivity on their part?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to emphasize: incredibly difficult is an understatement. We're talking hundreds of millions of actors, making an uncountably large number of independent decisions from moment to moment, in constantly shifting circumstances. There is no control, there is only very broad "repeatability." We have only circumstances and the interpretation thereof. In macroeconomics, at least.
Well, that's what we have statistics and the scientific method for. Of course, that means lots of math, and lots of research, and lots of hard work, and having to actually to change your mind if your predictions are wrong, and--worst of all--it means not making simple, sound-bite pronouncements that fit someone's political agenda. You can't make a career writing editorials about how there's a 73% chance that raising…
No amount of math can tease apart the indiscernibly complex.
We observe correlations naturally. Assumed relationships. The sort which suggested God wanted us to dance to bring on rain. But without controls, and without repeatable experimentation, we can not have a true scientific method. The scientific method requires hypothesis, predictions, and repeatable experimentations. One successful dance is an anecdote, many is a theory, decades of them is a law, still questionable. But how can you repeat an experiment which takes place over a whole society of people, millions strong, with life constantly intervening?
This isn't only about soundbites, it's about having no means to achieve anything more definitive than soundbites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less important that the ability to vote, the ability to marry, freedom of speech, ability to move freely, freedom of association, etc. Without any of these, there can be no economic freedom.
I'm as big of an advocate for justice and human rights as anyone, but this just isn't true. Hong Kong and Singapore are the obvious examples. Do you mean that economic freedom is meaningless without broader human rights?
This is an insightful analysis of HK and Singapore's so-called high degree of economic freedom: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/opinion/08iht-edbowring.ht...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's what we have statistics and the scientific method for. Of course, that means lots of math, and lots of research, and lots of hard work, and having to actually to change your mind if your predictions are wrong, and--worst of all--it means not making simple, sound-bite pronouncements that fit someone's political agenda. You can't make a career writing editorials about how there's a 73% chance that raising…
I think you're understating the difficulty. No amount of math can tease apart the indiscernibly complex. We observe correlations naturally. Assumed relationships. The sort which suggested God wanted us to dance to bring on rain. But without controls, and without repeatable experimentation, we can not have a true scientific method. The scientific method requires hypothesis, predictions, and repeatable experimentations…
If there's any structure at all, you can find it with enough math and enough data; that's exactly the purpose of statistics.
But without controls, and without repeatable experimentation, we can not have a true scientific method. The scientific method requires hypothesis, predictions, and repeatable experimentations.
No, this misunderstands science. All the scientific method requires is testable predictions. Predicting the outcome of a controlled experiment is merely a very efficient way to go about it. There are plenty of scientific fields where simple controlled experiments aren't really viable, and people get by. It's just more difficult, and requires more discipline from researchers.