The Cato Institute – in conjunction with The Fraser Institute (a Canadian think tank) – has released its 2013 Economic Freedom of the World report, which analyzes “the consistency of the institutions and policies of various countries with voluntary exchange and the other dimensions of economic freedom.”
How did the United States – a.k.a. the “land of the free” – fare on this report? Not well …
“The United States, long considered the standard bearer for economic freedom among large industrial nations, has experienced a substantial decline in economic freedom during the past decade,” the report’s authors note. “From 1980 to 2000, the United States was generally rated the third freest economy in the world, ranking behind only Hong Kong and Singapore.”
In fact after ranking second in the world in economic freedom back in 2000, America had slipped to No. 8 by 2005. In 2010 and 2011 – the last years for which data is available – the U.S. ranked No. 19.
“The foundations of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, and open markets,” Cato scholars conclude. “As Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek have stressed, freedom of exchange and market coordination provide the fuel for economic progress.”
Unfortunately, the policies of the federal government continue to move in the opposite direction of economic freedom … which means our income levels continue to move in the opposite direction of prosperity.
Anyway … to view the report for yourself, click here.
9 comments
Should I do it? Why not!
Hong Kong and Singapore, once again, occupy the top two positions. The other nations in the top ten are New Zealand, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Mauritius, Finland, Bahrain, Canada, and Australia.
1. Hong Kong – Universal health care (public/private) (1993)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country#Hong_Kong
2. Singapore – Universal health care from nationalized insurance and price controls (1993)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
3. New Zealand – Universal health care, originally through public only, now through public/private (1938)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_New_Zealand
4. Switzerland – Universal health care through insurance mandate (1994)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
5. United Arab Emirates – Universal health care, free for citizens (1971)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates
6. Mauritius – Universal health care, free for citizens (?)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/mauritius-healthcare-education
7. Finland – Universal health care via public funding (1972)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland
8. Bahrain – Universal health care (public/private) (1957)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country#Asia
9. Canada – Universal health care via single-payer (1966)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
10. Australia – Universal health care via government, “Medicare”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Australia%29
Link for when they obtained universal health care:
http://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/hcra/univ_hlth_care.htm
All ten, from regulated and mandatory insurance, to a mix of public/private, to full-on single payer, have some form of government meddling and spending ensuring universal health care. These countries, some of whom have actually had government “take over” pretty much the whole system, are more economically free than us, but our attempt at universal health care if anything is taking us further away from that?
I believe this is what they call “cognitive dissonance.”
Also, the UK ranks higher than us at 12th. Again, universal health care through the NHS, since 1948.
If you add up the populations of all the countries you listed, they still don’t come close to the population of the United States, nor do any of them have any where close the debt in terms of GDP the US has.
Obamacare is unrivaled in size and scope in comparison, each country listed above is a small fraction of what is being attempted here.
In fairness to your point, degrees of economic “freedom” are certainly not predicated on solely the basis of socialized health care.
That being said, taken in totality with the economic picture of the US it’s hard to comprehend how a gov’t that already prints up around half of what it spends yearly is going to afford Obamacare aside from the logistical issues involved, based on its size.
None of this also really speaks to the effectiveness of socialized health care either…but that debate is unwinnable by either side currently…it’ll have to be one big experiment, like the current monetary debasement experiment that’s ongoing.
Reference Ron Paul’s comments on “guns & butter”…
If you add up the populations of all the countries you listed, they
still don’t come close to the population of the United States, nor do
any of them have any where close the debt in terms of GDP the US has.
Japan has over a third of our population (127 million) and a debt of around 1 quadrillion yen ($10 trillion), they still manage to have universal care. (Granted, they are ranked a good bit lower than even the US on Cato’s list.) Their debt ballooned in response to not only the recession, but the recent earthquake/tsunami. Their debt-to-GDP is far higher than ours.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/government-debt-to-gdp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
The UK has a fifth of our population (63.7 million) and a high debt-to-GDP. Germany has a little lower debt-to-GDP, but they do have universal health care with a fourth of the population we do (80.5 million).
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-to-gdp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-debt-to-gdp
Obamacare is unrivaled in size and scope in comparison, each country listed above is a small fraction of what is being attempted here.
That doesn’t mean it will automatically fail. Universal health care needs to be adapted for the various factors this country faces. I think the system needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt in a manner that best provides health care for our country, to as many people as possible in an affordable manner, but without sacrificing a high quality of care. Maybe that’s single payer, maybe that’s a private system that is just properly (and not unnecessarily) regulated.
I also think that if we cut back on interventionist foreign policy and needlessly expensive or unnecessary domestic policies, that will go a lot further to curb deficit spending and money printing than keeping or getting rid of the ACA ever will. Unfortunately, neither party has taken this road.
10 Happiest Countries per Forbes:
1. Denmark
2. Norway
3. Switzerland
4. Netherlands
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Finland
8. Austria
9. Iceland
10. Australia
I am beginning to wonder if the fear of being bankrupted by medical bills, or being left uninsured and unable to obtain proper health care is stressful for people. Could it make them less happy. Probably just my imagination.
From Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 novel ‘It Can’t Happen Here’:
“But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word ‘Fascism’ and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty.”
Every time I see the words ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’, I know there’s a con man talking, a fascist con man.
like religion…..when I hear someone preaching, I know he is out for my wallet and to make me a slave to his cult
Only socialist countries mandate healthcare…….Freedom………yo
For Republicans, economic freedom means being a robber baron, keeping everything for himself, and kicking the needy and the poor in the teeth. The GOP’s thinly veiled assault on the middle class and the poor is leading to a class society, with the rich keeping it all and the those under them suffering. Go read your history and re-learn what happens when the poor outnumber the rich and the rich act like they don’t care.
Maybe this is “economic freedom” to you but not to me. This is the Ayn Rand world.