Yeah we're movin' on up
A big win for economic freedom in Canada
Like I've said millions of times before on this blog and in other ppls comments sections: low taxes (both personal and business), limited government interference, secure property rights and reduced spending are the true formula for economic success.
That being said, you can imagine how delighted I was when I read this article in the Financial Post which disclosed Canada's [rise] in ranking on the "Economic Freedom of the World" index (where we are now fifth in the world with a score 8.1 out of 10). Moreover, for all you government-knows-best advocates out there that argue ad nauseam that free market economist have little empathy for the disenfranchised of society, read it and weep:
Methinks government dependency has and always will be a huge deterrent to personal and corporate economic freedom here in New Brunswick.The report said the top quarter of the list, the most economically free, had the highest average income at $26,013 US per year, the highest average income among the poorest of their populations at $7,334 US, the best per-capita rate of economic growth at 2.25 per cent, and highest life expectancy 78.7 years.
The bottom quarter, the least free, had the lowest average income at $3,305 per year, the poorest 10 per cent of their people had the worst average income at $905 per year, suffered a slow 0.35 per cent rate of economic growth, and had a life expectancy of 56.7 years.
2 Comments:
Wow, by that reasoning, since a butterfly migrates and flies and has the most offspring, its the 'most effective bird' there is.
For those who don't have the time or inclination to think about causes and effects of things they read, they should simply recall that people have higher incomes BECAUSE of all that government control. You think workers wages have gone up because of LESS government involvement? Not even close.
Check out David Campbell's blog and read the statistics on wages. In the private sector the average is only slighly higher than the public sector.
But let's cut to the quick here and be done with the whole argument altogether. Teachers in New Brunswick have a union and close ties to government, and are highly regulated by it. Maine does not. Now guess which group earns three times what the other does? That's right, in Maine and most states becoming a teacher is an invitation to poverty.
And again, go read the study and not the 'story about the study'. Many of the 'criteria' have nothing to do with 'economic freedom' at all.
Take a look at one example-the courts. Of course what The Fraser Institute calls 'proper functioning ' of the courts is how easily can corporations sue people for messing with their industry. Quite easily it turns out, so, yay, we get high points. That's whats meant by 'increased property rights'-the inability of people to influence industry. In a country with, just as an example, a government which PROTECTS peoples health and labour laws, they get BAD marks because of that.
So for courts, you can talk to Richard Harris, who is still fighting his extradition from his property (individual expropriations don't figure into their 'increased property rights' for some reason, maybe because they've been rapidly increasing).
The fatal flaw can be shown with one criteria-the independance of the court system. Well, anybody that thinks ANY court system acts independantly of ANY government is just a few cans short. Who writes legislation? Who made up ALL the rules that govern the practices? Who FUNDS it?
In other words, this is the Fraser Institute (the guys who call labour laws a bad thing) drumming up statistics to make the above mentioned case. The reality is the opposite, the more role a government plays in the economy, the HIGHER the wages. You think the Indonesian government worries about minimum wage laws?
I think Harper's new government missed the boat completely. With tougher fiscal measures they could have been higher on the global economic freedom index.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home