Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, January 26, 2007
Rebecca Hagelin :: Townhall.com Columnist
Wealth and Freedom Go Hand In Hand
by Rebecca Hagelin
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


It’s a question that has perplexed politicians, philosophers and philanthropists for generations: Why are some countries rich and others poor?

Some say it’s a matter of luck -- favorable geography or the presence of some high-demand resource. Others say it’s because wealthy countries don’t give poor ones enough financial aid. Still others insist that rich countries keep the poor ones down and exploit them.

What we need aren’t theories, though, but facts. What does the evidence show?

For more than a decade, The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have carefully examined the evidence. Every year, for the Index of Economic Freedom, they sift through data on everything from inflation to imports, from tariffs to trade -- and they do it for every country. And one big-picture message about poverty and wealth consistently shines through, year after year: Wealth and economic freedom go hand in hand.

Favorable geography? Tell that to the people of Asia, where some of the world’s wealthiest countries can be found remarkably close to some of the poorest. Here, you’ll find Hong Kong, the top-ranked country in the 2007 Index -- a place with a $212 billion economy and a per capita income of $30,822. But you’ll also find poverty-stricken North Korea, which finished dead last in the Index. You’ll find wealthy Singapore and dirt-poor Bangladesh. And so on.

Asia isn’t the only region where such disparities exist. Some nations in South America suffer from terrible poverty; Venezuela, despite its huge oil reserves, is in pretty bad shape, with high unemployment and a per capita income of $6,043. But did you know that average income is 80 percent higher in nearby Chile, a big importer of oil? Why? Because Chile is one of the most economically free nations in the world. Ranked number 11 on the Index’s overall list, it beats many European nations.

The list could go on, but the trend should be clear: Poverty and riches aren’t dependent on chance or luck. What really makes a difference is policy. More specifically: How much economic freedom do people enjoy? Time and again, the Index shows, the more economically free people are, the more wealth they generate.

Here in the United States (4th globally in the Index rankings), we enjoy many economic freedoms. But how often do we consider the difference they make in our lives? Say you want to start a business. Sure, we complain about doing the paperwork, but it takes an average of just five days. Compare that to the world average of 48 days. Heck, compare it to Venezuela, where it would take about 141 days -- more than four months! And once you get your business going, our government leaves you largely free to operate it as you see fit. Not in Venezuela, where complicated and inconsistent regulations make running a business extremely difficult.

Take another example. Here in the United States, for example, we can trade freely with most other countries. We enjoy dynamic financial markets, inflation is low, and we’re open to foreign investment. It’s easy to take all this for granted, even to think ourselves inherently wonderful, but what really separates us, economically, from many other nations isn’t talent or wisdom but freedom. Were our markets, trade and investment climate as constricted as that of Bangladesh, would we have an $11.7 trillion dollar economy? No way.

Other factors, ones we don’t even think of, exert a powerful influence on our “pursuit of happiness.” Take property rights. Yes, they are a component of economic freedom, and a vitally important one. If a business owner didn’t know that our legal system would fairly, impartially and consistently defend his property holdings, how could he expand his business and ensure that it works as effectively and efficiently as possible? Without property rights, he, and thousands like him, couldn’t concentrate on running a profitable business. You can imagine how this would damage our economy.

Still, we shouldn’t pat ourselves on the back too heartily. Our economy is hamstrung by two serious problems: government spending and high tax rates. Our top corporate rate of 35 percent, in particular, makes it hard for U.S. firms to compete globally; 29 of our 30 top trading partners tax corporate profits at lower rates. Even French President Jacques Chirac has called for reducing his country’s top corporate rate to 20 percent. Our federal spending, meanwhile, has surged 45 percent since 2001. With the right cuts in spending and tax rates, there’s no reason we should have to stay at No. 4 on the Index list.

Fortunately, no country is yoked to a particular level of economic freedom. Governments can make changes -- and, in turn, make dramatic improvements. Index editor Tim Kane, for example, recently told me how the introduction of property rights in New Zealand’s fishing industry has encouraged ocean preservation efforts there -- which, he notes, help both the environment and the industry’s bottom line.

In short, freedom isn’t a zero-sum game. The Index shows that governments that disavow repressive practices, open their economies and free the entrepreneurial spirit of their people aren’t giving up anything. They’re unleashing one of most mutually beneficial forces on earth -- and making it possible for people not only to increase their material wealth, but to live their lives in peace and dignity.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Rebecca Hagelin is a public speaker on the family and culture and the author of the new best seller, 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Rebecca Hagelin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Why's the US rich and Canada poor?
Socialism, bubeleh, socialism. The relentless tide that sweeps up the beach and tears your sand castle down no matter how long you worked to build it, that tide that implacably levels the world to a featureless expanse of blah.

Why accomplish anything since you know that tomorrow it'll be taken away from you? Why work harder for no reward? Just find out what the balance point is and don't rise any higher. Because you can't. Anything you gain will be taken away from you -- by everyone from the Nanny State to the thug on the corner who has been told he's Entitled to something without being told who is supposed to hand it over and he has therefore elected you.

Canada is at least as large and rich in potential as the United States, yet it has 10% of the population and much less in the way of an economy -- it has no military infrastructure worthy of the name (and I hasten to add its soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are the best in the world although they even have to hitch-hike to the battlefield) and no infrastructure, and in virtually every category of Quality of Life it is languishing in 1973 Jimmy Carter Malaise. You won't be able to figure out why until you have lived here for longer than five years so you can see that it's not just you arrived in the middle of a Depression, but that this is as good as it will ever get up here.

And it's not particularly that Canadians are inferior, because the people who have arrived here with ambition (such as the Chinese) accomplish wonders until they hit the Concrete Ceiling of Socialism and there they stop for good or they move to the States. It's just that socialism allows only so much progress before the wave comes in and sweeps it all away.

As the old saying goes, In Socialist Kanukistan, you can't win, you can't break even and you can't get out of the game.

Look at the countries that are falling down the backside of the wave and you'll see it's Socialism. All the way.

In memory of James Brown
I can hardly wait for all the socialists to post on this thread. It hardly matters that over one hundred years of evidence repeatedly shows that socialism and communism do not work and only serve to assure that everyone except the “leaders” are mired in poverty. Evidence can not trump feelings! I feel good when I elect politicians who take OTHER peoples money and give it to someone else. I feel good when a politician tells a farmer he can’t plow his field because a rat lives in it. I feel good when a politician takes other peoples money and sends it to a 3rd world country to offset a non-existent problem.

The key is……….I feel good.

AudiR10
Wow, didn't realize before now that you live in Canada! All your life, or did you move there? And either way, why have you not moved out?

The other reason...
The other reason there are less poor in free societies is secondary to the economic benefits:

When people are freer, they gain economic benefits as the article explains. A richer people will donate more to the poor (as long as you aren't someone who believes the government should do it through taxation and socialist programs... that's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals...) The private programs to help the poor will do more to help poor than ANY government program EVER will.
Freedom leads to prosperity leads to charity leads to more prosperity... ACh! Its a vicious cycle! Liberals run for the hills!

What's sad...
... is that someone actually thought a column like this was necessary. Next thing you know, we will see articles about whether oxygen is good for us.

Excellent comments
Excellent comments, you guys. I appreciate your insight. It's true, LibertyBob, that liberals expect government to provide solutions to the country's ailing poor (along with every other problem). How ironic that liberals are coined as the "bleeding hearts". Privatized programs are MUCH more effective.

Along with stifling hard work for great rewards, Socialism and communism, dampers creativity and healthy competition. Inventiveness drives economies. There is over a hundred years of evidence and one can even look today at Cuba and N. Korea and see how communism has isolated them politically, socially, economically, and even culturally (i.e. Kim Jong Il's stylish jogging suits and Elvis Preslely hair). It will be very interesting (dare I say even entertaining) to see how Venezuela and Hugo the Megalomaniac Chavez deals with these challenges as they quickly evolve towards social/communism.

US into a BANANA REPUBLIC
Leftwing minded politicians (socialists, communists, either in Reps or Dems clothes) are really working hard to transform US into a member of banana republic's Club. Their goal is being achieved as a mean to deceive people, to profit from tax money and power and the wealth honest successful people create.

Using flags and propaganda that promote helping the poor (dirtiest trick), they know they easily cheat naïve and enlightened persons to vote to make them rulers in government.

Socialism is like the poisoned apple stupid Snow-white accepted from the evil witch.

DIY
About five years ago I took the Index of Economic Freedom and compared it to the respective GDP growth rates and the per capita GDP of the nations.

Almost without exception, those countries with higher economic freedom had higher growth rates and higher per capita GDP. The only exceptions were countries that had only recently adopted the reforms.

Two thoughts
1. Socialism is the predominant reason I believe in the concept of Original Sin. No lie.

2. Mrs. Hagelin is soooo right about taxes. Another equally onerous problem is the $350-$450bil our economy spends every year just complying with the tax code and figuring the tax consequences of (what should be) business decisions. May I suggest the FairTax? We could be rid of this problem by this time next year if we could summon the political will to do so.

http://www.fairtax.org

Fergus . . .
You know I agree with you on most issues but if you think this article is unnecessary, you obviously don't spend much time with kids going through public high schools. I sometimes tutor neighborhood kids (their parents like my price - FREE!!) and when helping them with history and social studies and political kinds of classes I can guarantee you that the only thing they are hearing in the public schools about capitalism is that it is evil and causes the rich to get richer because they are stealing from the poor. America is an imperialist nation. I love to have them read Imprimus (a nifty little publication from Hillsdale College) my old copies of National Review, and if they have internet privileges I steer them to Townhall and then we discuss. They get a perspective that is 180 degress out of phase with what they hear in even our conservative little town's public school system. So, unfortunately, columns such as this that relate freedom, wealth, security and the rule of law are much needed and they need to be disseminated everywhere we can get them. You and I may be older and have been steeped in these concepts for decades now but there is a whole new generation for whom this is news!

Remember "why do they hate us"?
My main feeling while reading "The Looming Tower" is that Al Qaeda is the fruit of the economic disaster that would be Saudi Arabia and the oil-middle-east without the oil. Great wealth is the Saudis, but who created the wealth? Allah and the West! Not the smart economic policies or the entrepreneurial hard work of the Saudi government and people. (One notable exception to this rule of course is the Bin Laden family.)

The wealth of the Saudis is dependent on selling to oil to the West, and to safeguard that goose, the infidel must be brought in defiling the land of the two mosques. As a result we have an education system that teaches Wahhabist Islamic purity and a political system that requires the presence of infidels! They should think about what policies mighty create sustainable wealth and simultaneously create a culture of independence rather than resentment.

Historical naivete
While I agree that mature economies such as those of the US and Canada can be compared usefully to show the greater wealth creation in the comparatively free US, what makes readers think that such lessons can be applied to countries in different stages of development? Don't you remember the bitter struggles that working people in the West went through to be able to provide a standard of living for their families that was marginally above that of animals?

Don't you remember that in the US and Europe workers who had the temerity to demonstrate for univeral suffrage, the eight hour day or the right to strike were shot at by the police and army that turned out not be the impartial friends of the working man?

Thank God Milton Friedman was here to remind us of the benefits of free trade and free markets. And thank God that at the turn of the 19th century there were workers and thinkers in the great industrial cities who had the guts to remind us of the limitations of free trade and free markets.

Waiting
For Kimberly to post on the wonders of a government controlled economy...

Mr. Right
I must unfortunately agree that this article is still necessary, and for everyone, not just the kids. Take a look at the platform of the Democrat party that just swept into power--increase taxes, increase government regulation, stifle and handcuff corporate America, socialize healthcare, redistribute wealth, curtail free trade, etc. etc. If they win the presidency in '08, which is not unlikely, and hold on to both houses, this will all become reality. 50% of the country is intent on marching us merrily down the road to collectivist doom. But at least the Europeans will like us, until they are fully absorbed by Jihadistan. (sorry, this is uncharacteriscally negative for me, and on a Friday yet!)

Mad Mike
Right on with the FairTax. I am fortunate enough to be able to listen to Boortz whenever I like (one of the authors). The problem is that it won't pass in Congress because IT MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE! But that doesn't mean that I won't be pushing it, even though I am now living in the Socialist Republic of Her Royal Thighness. It really is time to take the burden off of us thru the FairTax.

If you haven't already, get a copy of the book (now in paperback) and read it. A couple of hours of your time, tops, and it will convert you. I had a copy, but have loaned it out and don't ever plan on seeing it again, because it keeps getting passed from hand to hand, and everyone I speak to that has read the book is converted...


Dems Illogic
I posted this info recently, but it bears repeating.

Only democrats could look at this data and now clamor that we need to RAISE tax rates!

(From Donald Luskin's http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp)

We were told by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) the capital gains tax cut would "cost" the Federal Treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006. Thus, the initial Capital Budget Office (CBO) forecast (January 2004) forecasted capital-gains revenue to be $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006. The total: $197 billion. Add in the amount the JCT says the tax cuts cost us and the projected total without the tax curs is about $202.4 billion.

Well in what could now be considered the worst forecast in modern times we find out yesterday that the capital gains tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006. For 2005 and 2006 collections nearly doubled the initial forecast.

Stated differently, the CBO predicted total capital-gain tax revenues of $197 billion from 2003 thru 2006, or $202.4 billion if we add the amount the JCL said the tax cuts would cost the treasury. However, after the tax cuts the total capital-gain tax revenues actually collected totaled $340 billion, or $133 billion (two-thirds) more than the CBO predicted.

In addition, the economy is strong, unemployment is as low as it can reasonably go in a dynamic economy, real annual compensation across the board is up, not to mention, that the proportion of tax paid by the richest Americans is higher than ever while the proportion paid by the bottom half of the income spectrum is the lowest ever (at least since WWII).

And yet, Dems want to raise taxes. Why don't their heads explode?




Why raise taxes
Perhaps (but only perhaps) because they recognise that the government is chronically in debt and that an enormous fiscal crisis is waiting in the wings, and that cutting entitlement programs is political suicide.

comparing economies
The greatest mystery all of my life (I'm 66) was the former Soviet Union, whose natural resources and educated populace should have made it the preeminent economy on earth. Instead, it was for all of its existence an economic basket case, where people had to line up and wait for the most basic necessities.

It's patently the case, terror can build an empire, but only a free people can sustain it.

PeterE
But you miss the point -- when we cut the tax rates we collected two-thirds MORE revenues than they expected to collect WITHOUT the tax cut! MORE REVENUES!

So if it is true that "the government is chronically in debt and that an enormous fiscal crisis is waiting in the wings" why would anyone want to RAISE tax rates and get LESS in revenues?

Or are you saying that, this time, in contradiction to our experience since 2003, RAISING tax rates will miraculously get more tax revenues than with the lower tax rates? Why would anyone think that? Isn't it more likely we could get even more tax revenues by cutting tax rastes further?

By cutting the tax rates we have gotten two-thirds more government revenues and, therefore, lower deficits than were predicted without the tax cuts.

Your point is entirely illogical.

Dems want to raise tax rates
They do in part because it makes it more difficult to create wealth. That sounds backward at first, but think about it.

The Democratic party leadership and financial backers (OK, some Republicans too) are all multimillionaires already. Their biggest desire is not more wealth, it's maintaining their exclusivity. They don't want any more people attaining millionaire status because it makes them less 'special'.

Notice that their calls are always for higher taxes on WAGES, never for higher taxes on ASSETS. Their income is derived from assets, not wages, so it (and their lifestyle) is unaffected.

The higher taxes primarily impact people who are making higher WAGES. These people are trying to create assets and join the ranks of the wealthy. Higher taxes rarely means increasing the lower tax brackets, so middle and lower income groups are unaffected. It's simply how a bunch of snobs bar the door to ambitious, hardworking folks.

Mr. Right
No, you're correct, and I did not think my words through before writing them.

It makes me incredibly sad that an article like this IS necessary, but when you're right you're right, and in this case you are dead on. Thanks for calling me on it.

why give up freedom?
We've known all our lives that freedom made America great, but we give up freedom every election. Whether voting for representatives who increase the size and scope of government at the expense of freedom, or voting for bans on smoking or transfats, Americans themselves are the enemy of freedom and prosperity.

The two parties are enemies of freedom and therefore prosperity. Both parties want to grow government. Both parties want to take more of your money and spend it. Yet we vote for the same two parties every, single election like clockwork.

Stop the madness. Vote third party.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

For FergusMacLennan On Oxygen
quoth FergusMacLennan: "Next thing you know, we will see articles about whether oxygen is good for us."

Well, you know, it's highly debatable whether it is or not. For one thing, it's quite flammable and corrosive and causes things to rust. Too much of it makes people "high," and under certain concentrations, human flesh can spontaneously burst into flames.

All in all -- it seems clear to me that oxygen is BAD for us.

So there.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.