“Economic freedom isn’t just some wonky concept debated in academic halls. It’s about whether a government protects property rights or seizes assets at will; whether regulations are sensible or suffocating; whether you can trade freely or face a maze of obstructions; whether your money holds its value or your purchasing power gets eroded by government mismanagement; and whether you can count on courts to enforce contracts fairly.
The 2024 index, using the latest available data from 2022, measures precisely these factors across 165 countries, as it has done since 1996. The results are striking.
The freest economies enjoy an average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita about 7.6 times greater than that of the 25 percent least economically free places. They have cleaner environments, better health care outcomes, and longer life expectancies—by a lot. Even the poorest citizens of free countries fare better than the middle classes in economically repressive nations.
Who are these lucky countries? “Hong Kong (1st), Singapore (2nd), Switzerland (3rd), New Zealand (4th), the United States (5th), Denmark and Ireland (tied for 6th), Canada (8th), and Australia and Luxembourg (tied for 9th).” It shouldn’t be lost on my readers that Denmark, which Sen. Bernie Sanders (D–Vt.) often uses as an example of a socialist democratic regime, has far more in common with the United States than with a truly socialist country.”
“In a rare instance of agreement, Republicans and Democrats have converged on the idea that “Buy American” provisions should be expanded in order to increase American jobs. But a new paper finds that existing federal rules impose high costs on consumers.
A September 2024 working paper published by the National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) found the Buy American Act has created more than 50,000 jobs. Just one catch: Each one of those jobs costs the economy more than $100,000.”
…
“The economists say “they find scant evidence of the use of Buy American rules as an effective industrial policy.” The BAA does not promote economic growth; it’s a costly “employment measure” that benefits a few by robbing all.”
“three-year pilot of Sam Altman’s that provided $1,000 a month to 1,000 people in Texas and Illinois and compared that group to a control group of 2,000 people who got $50 a month. Every participant was between the ages of 21 and 40.”
…
“”saturation” pilots where entire communities receive basic income instead of only individuals spread across a large area. When basic income is provided to people here and there, local economies aren’t stimulated by the spending of the money and new jobs aren’t created by employers needing to hire more employees to meet higher demand. It’s one thing to provide money to an entrepreneur. It’s another to do that and also provide their business lots of customers with money to spend.”
…
“Employment can increase or decrease along two measures: the binary state of working a job or not and the number of hours worked. On average, those who got basic income were two percentage points less likely to be employed and worked about 1.3 fewer hours per week.”
…
“The employment of both groups greatly increased.”
…
“A weekly drop of 1.3 hours works out to about 15 minutes a workday. That’s an extra break or a slightly longer lunch. On an annual basis, it’s equivalent to 8 days a year. That’s a week-long paid vacation.”
…
“there were no significant decreases in employment status and hours worked among childless adults or those over age 30.”
…
“”Recipients who were single parents at the time of enrollment were about 3.9 percentage points less likely to be employed and worked an average of 2.8 hours less per week than single parent control participants. For recipients who were not single parents at enrollment, we do not find statistically significant effects on employment or hours worked.””
…
“The reason that parents respond differently should be obvious. They aren’t working less. They are switching from paid work to unpaid work. They’re putting their kids first.”
…
“”There was no statistically significant effect on employment or hours worked for recipients over 30. In contrast, recipients under 30 were roughly 4 percentage points less likely to be employed and worked an average of 1.8 fewer hours per week compared to control participants. We also observe larger effects on formal education among those in this age group, suggesting younger adults may be more likely to use the money to enroll in post-secondary education and work fewer hours while in school, though this alone would not account for the observed differences in employment.””
“The federal government posted a $1.8 trillion budget deficit during the fiscal year that ended on September 30, despite an increase in tax revenue, thanks to higher spending and the rapid growth of interest costs tied to the $35.6 trillion national debt.”
“big study gave 1,000 low-income people $1,000 per month for three years—no strings attached. What happened?
Not the great things that were promised. After three years of getting $1,000/month, UBI recipients were actually a little deeper in debt than before.
Why? Because they worked less. Their partners did, too.
Some recipients talked about starting businesses, but few actually tried it. Most who said they did start a business waited until the third year of the study—when their free money was about to end.”
North Korea has been showing no signs of serious negotiation with the U.S. or South Korea. They are not interested and want to develop their military capabilities.
“Last fall, Milei eliminated what The Wall Street Journal termed one of the world’s “strictest” rent-control laws. Per its report: “The Argentine capital is undergoing a rental-market boom. Landlords are rushing to put their properties back on the market, with Buenos Aires rental supplies increasing by over 170 percent. While rents are still up in nominal terms, many renters are getting better deals than ever, with a 40 percent decline in the real price of rental properties when adjusted for inflation.”
With price controls, businesses flee the market because they cannot get a sufficient return on investment. As a result, supply for whatever is controlled falls even as demand stays steady or rises. That’s why price controls on gasoline lead to long lines at gas stations. If prices can’t adjust to reflect supply and demand, then people simply can’t get the items they want.
Sure, removing controls initially raises prices—but then new businesses jump into the fray to capitalize on the market and the boost in competition then reduces prices. By contrast, tightening up government price controls just leads to increasing levels of scarcity and misery.”
“”The China tariffs are, in my view, a significant piece of leverage—and a trade negotiator never walks away from leverage,” U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said at that time. The Biden administration, she added, was seeking to turn that “leverage into a strategic program that will strengthen American competitiveness and defend our interests in a global economy in which China will continue to play.”
More than two years later, and nearly four years after Biden took office, what has that supposed leverage accomplished? Tai provided the answer to that question this week during an interview with Bloomberg.
“We really haven’t seen the [People’s Republic of China] make any changes to its fundamental systemic structural policies that would make sense for us to provide any relaxation,” Tai told reporter Eric Martin for his Supply Lines newsletter.
In fact, Tai noted that there aren’t any ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and China right now—but don’t worry, she’s still insistent that the tariffs are useful for…something. “At the moment we are not negotiating anything with the PRC on trade,” she told Martin, “but one day we may be back at the table, in which case these tariffs will be useful as leverage, right?”
In summary, Tai’s position seems to be that American businesses and families must continue bearing the cost of the Trump-Biden tariffs even though those tariffs have plainly failed to achieve their primary policy goal (changing China’s behavior) because there’s a chance that someday, somehow, that might make a difference.”