Skip to main content

Economic Freedom and Economic Growth - Hypothesis


Let's have a lazy experiment.

Hypothesis 1: The greater the share of the economy that allocates resources based on trade versus planning the faster the economy will grow.

Hypothesis 2: The less the government regulates the society it claims to rule the faster the economy will grow.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Definitions: Trade means resource allocation according to the movement of supply and demand. Planning means resource allocation according to a government plan. Economic growth means increasing access over time to goods and services. Regulation means government rules restricting economic activity.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

First metric: Planning versus Trade (PT) to summarise economic activities for production and distribution of goods and services. P & T are inversely proportional, with seven different results showing the share of total economic activity consisting of P versus that consisting of T.

PPP
PP / T
P / T
P | T
P \ T
P \ TT
TTT

Second metric: Freedom (F) to summarise the freedom of people to set up businesses, produce and trade on their own initiative.

F1 : Tightest regulation and repression
F10 : No government regulation or repression at all

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

CANDIDATES: Now we hit on several made up countries so that we can test the metrics in a purely theoretical space first.

Fweeh Mahkahtiya : P \ TT : F 9

The Technate : PPP : 1

The Anarchate : PP / T : 3

The Free State : TTT : 10

My estimate would be that over any given 100-year period the relative rate of growth of each of these four countries would be, from fastest to slowest; The Free State; Fweeh Mahkahtiya; The Anarchate; The Technate.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

If those four countries were real we could use some annual GDP growth data to test their long-term economic performance. In real life it's hard to test this hypothesis as economic policies change every few years, sometimes in ways that can dramatically change a country's score.

Therefore a lot of normalising over time will probs be required. I am not looking forward to this, but since macro- is so beloved by people who don't understand economics I understand why so many economists go in for this stuff.

In the meantime there's always the Economic Freedom of the World Report. They also have a page where one can look over their data.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …