Open Thread: Economic Freedom in America Today

By NB Staff | October 13, 2011 | 10:09

A A

Economic Freedom, the group behind this successful video on the relationship between economy and quality of life, has come out with a second video on economic freedom in the world today, placing America behind nine other countries that are more economically free than us. As they explain, "for years the United States has been a world leader in economic freedom. But runaway government spending and burdensome regulations have caused a decline in economic freedom in the United States."

Do you think with the widespread media approval of continued government spending and endless regulations will contribute to further decline in American economic freedom? Check out the video after the break, and let us know your thoughts in the comments.

As the video points out, "the U.S.'s gains in economic freedoms made over twenty years have been completely erased in just nine. Still dropping, America ranks lower than Canada for the first time ever. Driving this decline is a growing government burden of overspending and unnecessary government regulations."

With current total government commitments reaching over 1052% of the private sector economy, the private sector economy has slowed down, resulting in the highest streak of unemployment since the Great Depression.

Do you think the media approval of massive spending programs, including bailouts and stimulus packages, will continue to drive this economic decline?

NB Staff's blog
Login to post comments

Comments

Here's what "economic

Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:18am.

Here's what "economic freedom" means to the so-called 99%. He's down there protesting somebody's not paying his tuition, and therefore America is not America anymore. God help this country.

__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court

Thank Goodness

Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:35am.

Thank goodness You Tube wasn't around when I was this kids age. I watched this video yesterday. This kids ignorance and incoherent nonsense is available for all to see. He seems somewhat intelligent, but just not intelligent enough to know when to shut his mouth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

Someone needs to explain to

Submitted by Dan Diego on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 8:56pm.

Someone needs to explain to this gimme generation that it's "the land of the free" not fill in the blank " the land of free ____ , because I want it."

Historical Explination is Certified Unionized School Teachers

Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 2:51am.

The literature of the late nineteenth century records a fall in the quality of high school gradutes from the very first classes that were trained by collage educated school teachers with the then new "teaching certificate" AS more school systems were pressured to hire teachers trained to teach but clueless as to what needs to be taught the standards have declined from the highest in the world to the lowest amoung industrial nations.

The worst thing is that the advance of technology has made education so much cheaper and quicker that the home schoolers without training are ripping by the best of the classroom educated at warp speed and they are accelerating.

The US kids already match HongKong and Finland when they enter school, keep them out and the top students maybe the ones classified as "unschooled"

Here's another example of our

Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:36am.

Here's another example of our downgraded economic freedom. CNBC did a report this morning about how banks are finally moving their mortgages. Many of the mortgages are going into foreclosure, so says the report, and the houses will be sold. However, a significant number of houses will be torn down. These houses are in neighborhoods where the "owners" have abandoned them; they've been broken into; they are used for drugs, crime, etc. The banks are deciding it would be best to destroy these houses. And apparently, they have the full backing of local residents.

So why is this important? Because it vividly demonstrates the poor judgment of liberal democrats, going back to Clinton, and culminating with Frank and Dodd, associated with forcing banks to lend to anyone -- even if they weren't qualified.

And isn't it ironic? Used to be, banks would redline certain neighborhoods, knowing full well that any investment there would backfire. Dims moved in and said "you're wrong". And finally, beginning October 2011, the banks are proven to be correct all along. And we're paying for the democrats social experiment.

__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court

Does this make economic sense??

Submitted by Uruk Hai on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:51pm.

So, the banks wrote off the cost of the mortgage that was foreclosed and they are writing off the cost of the demolition of the house. Which means they're taxes will be considerably lower taxes. Wouldn't it ultimately cost less all the way around to resell the foreclosed houses, even at the reduced amount they are now worth? I'm no economist but this just doesn't make any sense.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Abraham Lincoln

Foreclusure

Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:40pm.

While it may be the bank that is doing the foreclosing on a given house, that does not necessarily mean that it's the bank that actually owns the underlying mortgage on the property. Most, (and I would actually guess all), of the principal of these houses that end up getting torn down are actually guaranteed by a GSE, (Fannie or Freddy or the like). That means the ultimate loser will be the federal government. In other words you, and me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

The nonsense is with Government Property taxes.

Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:52am.

I handled capital goods bought by my employer in defense work. You would think fine depreciate the tools until no longer useful and surplus sale and haul away.
Wrong! The state classifies the floor value of the capital goods as worth 30% of what was originally paid. The fair market value of a $100,000 computer from twenty years back is less than $100 but the state charges taxes like it is worth $30,000 and if sold to a kid as surplus goods a gift tax on a $29,900 would have to be paid. So as soon as the military program does not need the hardware zoom off to the scrap heap and the disposal company, even if you could build and export business using it.
If Banks are not allowed to cut the price of a house without incurring a gift tax liability it will makes sense to tear down the city one house at a time. I don't know the exact rules for the houses in Ohio but I bet it would cost the banks to simply give the houses away.
No politician thinks his tax base should be reduced because he ran businesses out of town but the bad ones all do it. When a state has been in decline for forty years that price drop can be big for a bank trying to sell a house.

It is Not Just Neighborhoods.

Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:19am.

States have by maintaining "services" driven industries either out of business or to relocate and left cities. Add that changing technologies have changed the needs of businesses for example thousands of people were once needed to unload boxes from ships at the ports. Now not only are container ships unloaded by a dozen men in a tenth the time but since whole truck container is being shipped nothing "falls off the truck" That was long a major source of revenue for New York City. Memphis TN, (FedEx) and Louisville KY (UPS) are now major ports in terms of the dollar value of goods transshipped. A number of East coast cities are not. The politicians however desperately want to redirect business back into the cities. Their entire political machine depends on the cities stealing the vote each election and has for well over a hundred years.
Connecticut without Bridgeport would not be able to "discover" enough votes each election to swing the election for the Democrat running for Governor or Senator or secretary of state. The same is true of Pennsylvania with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Missouri with St. Louis, Washington State with Seattle and so many others.
The diversion of money by the Government has consequences and the current depression is one. It is a depression, those calculations have an inflation deflator in them and true inflation is not reported to avoid the second great depression from starting six months after Speaker Pelosi was elected.

The truth hurts

Submitted by Pahlavan on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:50am.

Straightforward, by-the-numbers - but it will get no coverage in the socialist media.

Liberal Paradox

Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:21pm.

Mona Charen had a great column last week:

Steve Jobs: Unwanted Child?

The money quote, right at the beginning:

[One CNN host quipped] "And his parents didn't want him! They gave him up for adoption, if you can believe that!"

[didn't they know what he was going to accomplish?!?]

It's so ironic that liberals seem to think that putting a child up for adoption means that the parents "didn't want him!" And yet they never say that about the parents of a baby who's been aborted. In that case, it's just a "choice."

If Steve Jobs' mother had aborted him, they wouldn't be ABLE to say "And his parents didn't want him! They aborted him, if you can believe that!!"
because there would be no discussion of Steve Jobs' amazing accomplishments.

And they don't even realize this.

POST. OF. THE. YEAR.

Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 4:44pm.

I read another article about Jobs, his birth mother put him up for adoption, but one of her stipulations was that both adoptive parents be college graduates. There was some snafu, and young baby Steve was placed with adoptive parents, neither of whom had attended college. It took several months of negotiations before birth mom would sign the adoption papers, and only after she received a guarantee that they'd provide a college education did she sign the adoption papers.

40 MILLION AND COUNTING.

That's how many precious lives have been lost since Roe v. Wade. To me, it's looking rather Stalinish.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)