Economic Freedom in Good Measure

Yesterday I came across The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of Economic Freedom. If you like charts, maps, and visual representations of related data, this is a great playground.

There’s an explanatory video under “About the Index,” that explains how economic freedom relates to other factors of civilization. Freedom, prosperity, and civilization are interrelated, as we assert here at The Spherical Model.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the video:

In addition to enjoying higher levels of financial prosperity, people in these free societies live longer, have better health, are more educated, and, surprisingly, are better protectors of the environment....

So, why does all this matter? It turns out that while there’s no single solution to the world’s major challenges, economic freedom can have a powerful effect on improving society. Our data shows that the five freest economies in each region are significantly more prosperous than the five least free. Every year’s index confirms this point, showing that countries that score higher on the index also perform higher in three key areas: income per capita, social progress, and democratic governance.

For each year, the data includes an overall score, which is made up of data on ten economic freedoms divided into four categories (followed with this year’s US scores, with 80.0 and above qualifying as “mostly free”):

·         Rule of Law

o   Property Rights  80.0

o   Freedom from Corruption  74.0

·         Government Size

o   Fiscal Freedom  65.6

o   Government Spending  54.7

·         Regulatory Efficiency

o   Business Freedom  84.7

o   Labor Freedom  91.4

o   Monetary Freedom  77.0

·         Open Markets

o   Trade Freedom  87.0

o   Investment Freedom  70.0

o   Financial Freedom  70.0

You can get an explanation of their methodology on page 467 of their book, or look around at heritage.org/index .

The US ranks only 11th most economically free country this year. A quick snapshot of the US scores reveal the following:

Economic Freedom Snapshot

·         2016 Economic Freedom Score: 75.4 (down 0.8 points)

·         Economic Freedom Status: Mostly Free

·         Global Ranking: 11th

·         Regional Ranking: 2nd in North America

·         Notable Successes: Open Markets

·         Concerns: Management of Public Finance and Rule of Law

·         Overall Score Change Since 2012: –0.9

That last one, because it’s an average, doesn’t show that last year there was a downturn of 0.8 points, after a year of improvement.

I’m interested in, not just change over the past year, but longer trends. So I charted these ten freedoms from 1995-2016, based on the Heritage data. I wondered whether we would see trends toward or away from freedom based on who elected leaders were, and what was going on in the country at the time. (I’m assuming that other years were like 2016, with the information coming out in the first quarter, which means that we’re looking at what happened in the previous year.) Here’s what I see:

·         Property Rights start out consistently high, fully free, until 2010, and then deteriorated further in 2014, so that we now hang at the bottom of the freedom zone, at 80.

·         Freedom from Corruption also started high, but suffered a serious drop in 1997, and declined further, with some ups and downs, to a further drop in 2008, dropping significantly again in 2013, with a slight rise since, leaving us only "moderately free," at 74.0.

·         Fiscal Freedom starts low, at 64.8, and doesn’t show much of a rise until 2004. A slow rise and maintenance continues until a sharp drop in 2014, and another drop in 2016, ending at 65.6.

·         Government Spending (a rise here means the problem is less, because there’s less spending) starts terribly low, at  a "mostly unfree" 57.8, rising sharply in 2000, dropping following the 9/11 attack, but remaining steady until drops changed from slow to sharp in 2010, with a low of  a "repressive" 46.7 in 2012, with slight increases since, ending at 54.7. Changing this factor might do the most in improving US economic freedom.

·         Business Freedom stayed steady at 85.0 until improvement in 2006, maintaining or remaining steady until 2015, with a sharp drop this year, ending at 84.7, still considered free, but lower than ever on record.

·         Labor Freedom wasn’t recorded until 2005. It held around 95.0, with a couple of years higher, until a sudden drop this year, ending at 91.4, still quite free, but trending the wrong direction.

·         Monetary Freedom stayed steady around 84.0 until 2009, with drops continuing through 2014, with slight improvement the final two years, ending at 77.0.

·         Trade Freedom started increasing in 2001, up into the freedom zone, with considerable improvement in 2004, then dropping back out of freedom into moderate freedom in 2009, continuing to drop through 2012, with slight improvement since, ending at 77.0.

·         Investment Freedom stayed steadily at 70.0 until three good years 2006-2008, then dropping back down and remaining at 70.0 since 2011.

·         Financial Freedom stayed steadily at 70.0 until a sharp improvement to 90.0, well into freedom, 2001-2006, dropping to 80.00 for three years, then back down to 70.0 from 2009 to present.

The overall score has a number of ups and downs, but the general trend is up from 2001-2008, then decreasing since, with a slight uptick in 2015 followed by a final drop to a the low 75.4. We were only considered economically free from 2005-2008. It would be interesting to go back further, to see what the measures looked like as we left the Carter administration malaise and entered better economic times under Reagan, even with nothing but Democrat legislators during those years.

For what was set up to be the grand experiment in freedom, with government limited to protecting our rights to life liberty and property, we’re nowhere near as economically free as we ought to be. Because government oversteps.

We know what works, in all of these measures: a lot less government interference; laws that are reasonable, predictable, and fair; in a country that protects itself from attacks. Good people, anywhere in the world, can take it from there.

What We Conserve

There’s a question I’d like to ask candidates—presidential candidates have our attention now, but it’s a question for anyone who asks to be allowed to lead us. I’d like to ask: Are you conservative—and, if so, what is it you want to conserve?

Any typical conservative is likely to say, “Yes, I’m conservative.” They may even believe they’re conservative. So what we need is how they define it.

The GOP Presidential Candidates, including
Perry and Walker, who have withdrawn from the race
Image found here

In the Spherical Model, what we want to conserve—or, in large part, to restore—is freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Let’s look at the specifics of what is conserved in each of these spheres.

Political Sphere

We want to conserve our freedom to live our lives, free from oppression. Government serves that purpose only if it is limited to the specific tasks the people ask of it. Otherwise government becomes the oppressor.

Our founding documents give us some specifics. The Declaration of Independence summarizes freedom this way:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

So our life is protected, our freedom from coercion or slavery is protected, and our choice to pursue a livelihood or live our lives as we see fit. This last includes our right to own property and protect it.

The Constitution outlines a government that would offer these protections. The Preamble lists this limited government’s purpose:

We the People of the United States,

·         in Order to form a more perfect Union,

·         establish Justice,

·         insure domestic Tranquility,

·         provide for the common defence,

·         promote the general Welfare,

·         and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The body of the Constitution spells out how a government can go about these limited duties. But the founders believed it was necessary to spell out some of the God-given rights in the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments, in case there came a time when they weren’t quite so self-evident. Here are a few of the rights government is particularly denied the ability to abridge, because in their experience other countries regularly denied these rights:

·         Right of freedom of religion

·         Right of free speech

·         Right to peaceably assemble

·         Right to petition government from redress (sue the government)

·         Right to bear arms

·         Right to freedom from coercion to quarter soldiers

·         Right to freedom from illegal searches and seizures

·         Right to refuse to incriminate oneself, and to be free from double jeopardy

·         Right to life, liberty, and property except following due process of law

·         Right to just compensation for private property taken for public use

·         Right to a speedy, public trial by impartial jury

·         Right to freedom from excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment

·         Rights enumerated to government are still retained by the people

·         Rights not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people

If we’re going to conserve our liberties, that means government does nothing to infringe on our God-given rights. So government has no business involving itself in what we believe or what we say, with the specific exceptions of when something we do infringes on the God-given rights of others. What we need is to conserve our Constitution, in its real form, not some penumbras invented by unelected judges.

When these government powers are translated into current issues, the government should be seeing to the strength of our sovereignty, the security of our borders, the limitation of immigration to those who will contribute to our society and adopt our beliefs in freedom. Our military should be strong, to protect us and our interests, in a world in which enemies would rejoice in our ruination, and would gladly use nuclear weaponry and terrorism for our destruction.

If you’re listening to candidates, see if they have a commitment to conserving/restoring our Constitution, and can enumerate some of these limited duties of the proper role of government.

Economic Sphere

There’s a simple way to prosperity: those who earn wealth get to decide how to spend it.

Government doesn’t have much business being involved in the economy, except to protect our property. Government duties do require some money. For the first century and a half, that didn’t require any income tax. At first, doing all government needed to do took $20 per person (modern dollars). And during war time, only a few hundred a year. If the federal government did only what it is granted enumerated powers to do, a flat rate of 10% would probably be far beyond adequate.

Every dollar government spends is a societal expense. Government can’t spend more money to help the economy. When we have downturns in the economy, and everyone says government has to do something—that something should be to get out of the way and let the recovery happen.

The budget should primarily consist of military budget and FBI and other federal law enforcement. Infrastructure is arguably a federal duty, so there could be some budget for roads, dams, bridges, etc. Government offices and staffing could be much much smaller than current levels. And, after my recent visit to Washington, DC, I’m not against maintaining our national monuments and museums.

Charity isn’t a duty of government; charity isn’t even possible by government. Government charity is better labeled coercive taking of income from some to give to others—or theft. Charity includes various helps for the poor: welfare food and housing, health care, student grants, social security, and more.

Conservatives don’t mean for these helps to be eliminated. But in a civilized society, those in need receive help mainly locally, by those in contact with them, such as churches and local nonprofits, from those who freely give. Charity means love; it is entirely unrelated to forced income redistribution. If there is one thing conservatives need to speak more clearly on, it is this better way to help those in need. Our way is better for giver and receiver, and leads to greater prosperity, rather than more poverty at the cost of lost freedom.

So, a conservative not only wants small, limited government, but limits spending to the proper role of government, leaving the largest portion of income to the people who earn it.

This conservative approach to the economy is the engine behind thriving prosperity and unlimited innovation. A conservative gets out of the way of a productive people, and does nothing more than protect the people’s wealth and their freedom to pursue their work.

Social Sphere—Civilization

Elected officials have power mainly over the political and economic spheres, but there is also important work they can do in the social sphere—if they understand what civilization requires, and they live those principles in their own life.

Civilization requires a people accountable to God. Such people value family, innocent human life, property rights, and truth. Such people respect one another and generally live together in peace despite differences in belief and culture.

It’s possible to live in a civilized society without believing in God, as long as a person values the same things as the typical religious person. But civilization (my definition) can’t grow and thrive without a critical mass that sees the source of our rights as God, and sees our obligation to live God’s laws. It’s great if non-believing individuals choose to live good, civilized lives. But depending on their gut feeling as to what is right is precarious at best. The authority has to be something bigger than the changeable individual. It has to be the arbiter of Ultimate Good. God is the only source for that.

So, it’s possible, at some levels, for civilized but unbelieving persons to be electable. But at the national level, electing such a person is a bad idea. Electing someone based on their particular religious affiliation or claim to religiosity is also unwise. What we need to see is a person who turns to God for direction, daily and regularly, and knows what inspiration looks like when finding answers to serious questions. And we need a person whose life shows us their consistency in valuing family, life, property, and truth. We need a person with integrity.

A religious person missing other ingredients is better than a nonreligious person missing the other things. But it’s better to have a religious person who understands how religious values lead to Constitutional principles and economic freedom.

A civilized religious person knows government should not be interfering with fit parents’ decisions about the care, education, and upbringing of their children. Such a person would value adoption for children born to unwed parents—exclusively placing those children in the homes of married mother and father, because every child is entitled to a married mother and father. Such a person sees no role for the federal government in education beyond providing a resource for new and proven ideas, and providing government documentation for history. Even state and local officials must recognize the parents’ supreme role in decisions about their child.

Family is formed when a man and woman are lawfully married, with a permanent covenant, so that children that come because of the union are raised by their parents. There is nothing better economically and socially, in the aggregate, for children. A good leader recognizes this basic truth, and doesn’t yield to media, propaganda, and pressure from the savage end of society.

A conservative leader recognizes that religion is not just a tolerated quirk of some minority of the population; religion is an essential institution helping us understand what our rights are, and what our obligations to one another are. The question about forcing Little Sisters of the Poor, or Hobby Lobby, or bakers, florists, and photographers to act against their conscience would disappear, if our leaders appreciated the religious view of family, life, property, and truth.

A conservative leader lives a life that shows commitment to family. Such a leader would have no sexual scandals coming up from the near or distant past. Such leaders would be so consistent that all those who know him/her would stand up to defend against such an accusation, because they would know such an accusation is inconceivable.

A conservative leader gives charitably, privately. He/she tithes (ten percent of income) plus more, regardless of income level.

A conservative leader is honest and consistent, so that his word is his bond, and everybody knows it. He doesn’t make behind-the-scenes deals in darkness. He doesn’t engage in crony capitalism, either receiving “bribes” or offering them. He’s not beholden to donors; anyone who would donate to him does it with the clear knowledge that as an elected official he will vote based on principle.

So, the answer to what we conserve ought to include clear evidence of understanding of the Constitution and its purpose, strong commitment to the free market and property rights, and strong personal religious practice that values family and marriage, innocent life, and truth. And the answer must come naturally, as part of the basic vocabulary, because the person is a natural conservator of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

It’s a high bar. No presidential Democrat candidate meets it. Several Republican candidates fail. I’m looking at the others, and praying for the best we can possibly get. Because that is who we need more than ever.

The Fifty-Year War, Part II

I’m still thinking about that 50-year War on Poverty. Complaining about how it has gone badly is not useful enough to end on. What would things look like if we were to actually eradicate poverty?

I found this graphic after writing the last post on the 50-Year War on Poverty

 

“The poor ye have with you always,” according to scripture (Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7 and John 12:8). So no matter what we do, eradicating poverty entirely is unlikely to happen—because we’re living in a human condition.

But at the Spherical Model, we do have a description for a successful civilization, including the economic component:

Civilized people live peaceably among their neighbors, helping rather than taking advantage of one another, abiding by laws enacted to protect property and safety—with honesty and honor. Civilized people live in peace with other civilized people; countries and cultures coexist in appreciation, without fear.

There is a thriving free-enterprise economy. Poverty is meaningless; even though there will always be a lowest earning 10% defined as poor, in a civilized society these lowest earners have comfortable shelter and adequate food and clothing—and there’s the possibility of rising, or at least for future generations to rise.

Creativity abounds; enlightening arts and literature exceed expectations. Architecture and infrastructure improve; innovation and invention are the rule.

People feel free to choose their work, their home, their family practices, their friendships and associations. And they generally self-restrain before they infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Where there are questions about those limits, laws are in place to help clarify boundaries of civilized behavior. When someone willingly infringes on the rights or safety of another, the law functions to protect that victim as well as society from further uncivilized behavior from the offender.

We know what successful civilization would look like. And we know, in general, the rules to get there.

Suppose, instead of government instituting controls that limit prosperity, as has happened over the past 50 years, we imagine that government had gotten out of the way and actually done what it would take to “win” such a war. Instead of news stories and commentary like we got last week, we could imagine a story more like this:

Growth Cycle Hits 50 Year Mark

Washington, DC, January 2014: The President’s economic advisory team came out with their annual report this week, marking 50 years since The Great Constitutional Society instituted reforms intended to bring about prosperity for all.

“It marks the most continuous economic growth for the nation since the period between 1780 and 1830,” remarked Prof. J. Madison of Harvard, where he has been a champion of free enterprise throughout his distinguished career.

“Our President should be honored for his deft hands-off policies concerning the economy, in the pattern of his predecessors. Low taxes and predictable rules continue to encourage entrepreneurial investment and innovation,” added Prof. B. Franklin, one of the advisory team.

The value of the dollar continues to remain steady, with near zero inflation over the past several decades, “partially due to the return to the gold standard, and partially due to matching the value of the dollar to actual economic wealth creation—something we do better now with practice, and sufficient data to prove the policies work,” explained Prof. A. Smith, author of The Wealth of the American Nation.

It does appear, in hindsight, that boom and bust cycles were never well managed by government intervention. Since the implementation of the non-interventionist policies, we have seen major recessions disappear. Individual markets occasionally overextend, but using price as the key indicator of supply and demand has allowed for quick readjustment.

With the encouragement of thrift, savings, and wise use of capital investment, individuals and organizations have seen the results of their labor grow. Typical investors plan on a steady return of between 5-10% per annum. This steady expectation over time has allowed retirement nest eggs to support a large percentage of the now-retiring baby boomers without dependence on their children and grandchildren, who are just beginning to make a comfortable living.

The long economic boom has resulted in some unexpected social benefits. For example, hospitals and charity organizations report steady donations, allowing them to care for the truly indigent.

While there continues to be a wide range of income, the lower earners are likely to view their situation as temporary. They believe that hard work, education, experience, and thrift will lead to better outcomes for themselves and the next generation. This positive expectation doesn’t eliminate the human tendency to covet; however it does mitigate negative outcomes over the population as a whole. For example, crimes involving theft and fraud are at record lows.

Misguided efforts of the past to make home ownership easier by lowering borrowing standards and controlling prices have been replaced with encouraging all citizens to live within their means. The counterintuitive result has been that overall economic health has led to the highest percentage of home ownership in the nation’s history. And with that property ownership has come the incentive to care for property and maintain property values. Our towns and cities are cleaner and more beautiful. Where people have prospered, they have also been able to encourage arts and healthy recreation.

There has been a surprising emphasis on family strength during this fifty-year experiment. Community organizations, parks, recreation, and arts tend to be family friendly, with an eye toward creating valuable family experiences. Popular culture, as well, has responded to consumer demand for better quality entertainment for all ages.

Many experts believe it has been the growing strength of families—lower divorce rates, higher birth rates, more homeschooling and alternative education based on individual family needs—that has been the key to the economic growth. Families inculcate the necessary economic values of thrift, honesty, and hard work that have supported The Great Constitutional Society. Others argue that living the principles that lead to prosperity have affected society for the better in social ways as well as economic.

The consensus of economic experts is that strictly limiting government to the specific duties outlined in the Constitution freed up wealth for economic growth and encouraged the wise economic choices that have been the hallmark of The Great Constitutional Society.

In Prof. Smith’s next book, entitled Wealth for All Nations, he outlines the successes of America over this past half century, and shows that the principles of prosperity can work wherever they are put into practice. Smith said, in his comments at the White House last Tuesday, “We have empirical evidence now of what works. We want to share that. Prosperity elsewhere in the world only adds to our abundant life here. We want that for everyone.”

 

Sigh! Would that this were the story at the end of a fifty-year War on Poverty! Implementing the right policies now could mean stories like these a half century hence. But we have to start now.

Let There Be Light Freedom

Regulation is one of those words that have changed through misuse. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it meant “to allow to be regular, to be expected.” That was what it meant in reference to a well-regulated militia and regulating commerce between the states.

Now it means something more like “rules imposed through government coercion.” I’m against that. I grow more against it with further examination. Even well-meaning regulations (and aren’t they all?) that do not cross my personal choice tend to decay overall freedom (for example, because I don’t smoke, I am not much affected by regulations against smoking).

Here are the facts about today’s regulations:

·         They exceed the proper role of government.

·         Everything that exceeds the proper role of government causes negative, unforeseen consequences.

·         The negative consequences of government regulation almost always result in the exact opposite of the stated purposes of the regulation.

So, whatever your opinion about the utility and value of certain types of light bulbs, government coercion is wrong.

I’m mentioning this now, because January 1, 2014, marked the latest (final?) phase in the imposition of the light bulb control regulation that was signed into law in 2007. You may or may not have already realized you can no longer buy incandescent bulbs 75 watts or larger. The 1-1-2014 phase now includes 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs, the ones you’re most likely to be using around your home.

Soon to be anachronistic incandescent bulb
photo by James Bowe

Technically, you as a consumer are not breaking any laws by buying or using the banned bulbs. So if you Google one of those “myths about light bulbs” articles, you will be told that’s just overreaction by ranting bloggers such as myself. However, they are stopping the manufacture and importation of the banned bulbs. So, you can buy still buy them—as long as the supply lasts, or for about six more months, according to Home Depot, which stockpiled supply more than most. But once the supply runs out, the de facto result is that you as a consumer no longer have the option to buy the cheap, incandescent bulbs you’ve been using all your life.

There are alternatives—expensive ones, but possibly cost-effective, if the bulbs last longer and use less energy. That’s the stated purpose. (To those who accuse me of being a ranting blogger, I would like to calmly point out that the government’s stated purpose includes the insistence that my personal use of incandescent bulbs has a direct effect on the temperature of the planet and the viability of various faraway species like polar bears, whose numbers are climbing. Just saying.)

It doesn’t matter whether alternatives are superior. What matters is—it is not the government’s prerogative to make my consumer choices for me. The light bulb legislation is a classic case study.

Incandescent bulbs are cheap, reliable, and useful. They create a warm glow, and pleasant color. But they are not particularly efficient. The frequently stated percentage is that 90% of the energy is wasted while the useful 10% creates light. Wasted is a relative term, however. The other 90% creates mostly heat. If you had an Easy-Bake Oven as a kid (I did), you can see that was a good thing. Light bulb heat is also useful in incubators for hatching chicks and for some indoor gardening. It’s not a terrible thing in a home otherwise requiring energy for heat.

Are those uses significant enough to override the government mandate? Yes, actually.

Ask the question another way: Is the government’s purpose for controlling purchasing decisions important enough to override valid consumer needs/demands? There shouldn’t have to be a weighing on a scale. As soon as something is placed on the consumer demand side, it outweighs the invalid government purpose—unless the government purpose is rationally recognized as assuring protection of our rights to life, liberty, and property.

I’m trying to connect the dots for government’s role in deciding which current science to honor as sacrosanct enough to require sacrifices from the citizenry. I can’t do it. (Maybe especially when it’s been 23 degrees this week—in subtropical Houston! I know that doesn’t qualify for sympathy from the rest of you suffering from what’s being called the “polar vortex.”)

What I see is that, compared to me, government is really bad at making decisions about what I should purchase. I’m all for innovations, some of which we’re seeing with LED and halogen bulbs. (Here is a good comparison article.) Some of these are still very expensive, but the market, not government coercion, is the best path to innovation and affordability. And way too much of the government coercion has steered us toward compact fluorescent bulbs.

Here’s what I have against fluorescent light bulbs:

·        They’re ugly. The twisty, neon-looking knot is not esthetically pleasing. The light emitted is unpleasant—that’s one of the reasons I hate shopping, because everything looks ugly when the lighting makes your skin look a harsh greenish-purple. I can avoid shopping in fluorescent-lit department stores most of the time, but I can’t avoid my home. I don’t want that unpleasantness surrounding me in my nesting place.

·        They hum. The hum isn’t noticeable to everyone, but it’s enough to be distracting—especially when constant—with some highly sensitive individuals. It’s enough to cause distraction for young kids in schools, interfering with their learning. (Sometimes they get misdiagnosed as ADD and get medicated, when all they really needed was separation from the ugly humming lights.) In adults the hum leads to migraines. The humming is worse if you try to use a dimmer switch. With improved technology, you can now mitigate the dimmer switch hum—if you replace your switch and pay a lot more for the bulbs.

·        They’re expensive. Supposedly they last longer. Unless they’re not upright. Hmm. I have a couple of lamps that use upright bulbs; all the rest of the bulbs in my house are horizontal or slanted downward from ceiling fixtures. Even the porch light, which conceivably could tolerate a squiggly fluorescent bulb, is upside down. So, for me, the costs would not be mitigated by longer lasting bulbs.

But here is the big, main problem: they are dangerous hazardous waste when broken. Sometimes the argument is about how small the effect of mercury would be in the environment in total, compared to the current mercury production from coal-based electricity use. But my concern is about the inevitable breakage in my home. I couldn’t count the number of incandescent bulbs we’ve broken over the years. There was a time, when the boys used to play full-court basketball in our 8-foot-high family room, and the light fixtures were a constant casualty. Cleaning up an incandescent bulb is a relatively small thing: pick up the large glass pieces, vacuum and/or wipe up the rest. Done.

Broken CFL
photo from epa.gov

Compare the clean-up instructions for fluorescents (you can read the actual government instructions here; my abbreviated and only slightly embellished version is below):

1.      Evacuate all living beings, except yourself, whom you have self-appointed as expendable.

2.      Open windows and doors, and then evacuate yourself for 5-10 minutes.

3.      On your way out, shut off central air system. Leave it off for several hours.

4.      While you’re out of the contaminated area, collect the following supplies (which hopefully are not located in the contaminated area):

a.       Cardstock, duck tape, wet wipes, jar with lid or Ziploc bag in which to seal hazardous waste.

b.      Hazmat suit including disposable gloves.

5.      Remove all traces of debris, using your listed supplies, and seal debris and clean-up supplies in container that you will transport to containment facility, so it doesn’t continue to contaminate your home with mercury vapor.

6.      If area is carpeted, follow the clean-up procedure by vacuuming, carefully, with windows still open, and immediately dispose of vacuum cleaner bag as hazardous waste. Follow this procedure (including turning off air system, opening windows, and disposing of hazardous waste vacuum cleaner bag) when vacuuming this area over the next several months.

So, let me explain about Houston. No sane person opens the windows and turns off the air between April and November (pretty much never during the other months either). The humidity is overpowering; a typical day is over 90% humidity. It’s much cheaper to maintain indoor temperature and humidity than to spend hours overtaxing the system to recover non-liquid air. So a single broken bulb is going to wipe out the annual energy savings of the stupid bulbs. (Not to mention that a single presidential vacation easily wipes out the savings of the bulb switchover for a typical small city.)

And apparently the government, so concerned about my safety that it can’t allow me to use incandescent bulbs that might contribute in some incalculable way to the fragility of the planet, is perfectly fine with my being forced to use mercury vapor in my home that I must clean up myself following inevitable breakage—just follow the easy clean-up steps and then simply plan to die early.

We can count on government to make personal consumer choices badly. So, while this law is headache-inducing on that level, what is more difficult to understand is how we—the American people, with liberties guaranteed in our Constitution—have elected officials who pushed this through in the first place and then failed to repeal it before it took effect.

Failing a full repeal, I request (demand) a personal exemption.

The Rhetorical Question

On Monday I ended the post about economics in Venezuela with a somewhat rhetorical question:

Does government’s disrespect of property lead to the people’s disrespect of property—the looting? Or does a people who fail to live the rules of civilization naturally end up with a life-controlling government? It may be a chicken/egg question. But my guess is that imposition of tyranny—taking away God-given rights—demoralizes a people, quite literally.



Economist Walter Williams

My son Economic Sphere took on the challenge of responding to the question from the economic point of view. He passed along a piece written in July by economist Walter Williams. Williams’s point is that “political liberty thrives best where there's a large measure of economic liberty.” He shows that some people, essentially the same culture, are different living in different countries. Egyptians do well in the US, but not in Egypt. Nigerians do well in the US, but not in Nigeria. Indians suffer severe poverty in India, but in the US they “start more Silicon Valley companies than any other immigrant group.” And they succeed not just in relatively “red” places like Texas and Florida, but also in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey.

It’s something like the economic version of the Bush assertion—“I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.” Given circumstances that grant economic freedom, a good people will eventually prosper.

Looking more closely at Egypt, Williams emphasizes the need for property rights. They don’t have clear titles to their capital property, so they can’t use it as leverage or investment to grow businesses.

Government is a major employer in Egypt—almost equal to the private sector. Only the underground economy is a bigger employer. Government size means greater government interference, which is another hindrance to prosperity. Williams quotes a Wall Street Journal article by Hernando de Soto:

To open a small bakery, our investigators found, would take more than 500 days. To get legal title to a vacant piece of land would take more than 10 years of dealing with red tape. To do business in Egypt, an aspiring poor entrepreneur would have to deal with 56 government agencies and repetitive government inspections.

There are states in our country where government interference, while not that extreme, feels onerous enough to prevent opening a business, but there are other states where the process is streamline to welcome business.

Williams uses the nation of Chile as a comparison—one of the few modern nations to move from controlled economy to free market economy, rapidly enough that we can see it as a lesson. Chile also helps in answering our question about the influence of economic freedom on political freedom. In 1973 Chile had a military coup—not that uncommon in those decades in Latin American countries. However, the new military dictator, Pinochet, did a surprising thing for a tyrant: he instituted, by edict, free market reforms. Pinochet eliminated “thousands of restrictive laws governing labor, mining, fishing, vineyards, startups and banking.” The economy turned around, and has thrived since—despite some of the expected savagery over the years that you expect in a tyrannical regime. Nevertheless, even decades later Chile rates in the top quartile of nations for economic freedom. Also today, political freedom ratings for Chile are mixed but mostly toward the free end of the scale.


World Economic Freedom Report 2013

Venezuela, which we talked about on Monday, lags at the bottom of the economic freedom scale, along with the least free African nations. The five subjects of economic scrutiny in this report are:

1)      Size of government.

2)      Legal system and property rights.

3)      Sound money.

4)      Freedom to trade internationally.

5)      Regulation.

We could spend a day covering each of these. But we can summarize, by number, what we know:

1)      Bigger government is not better government, but is in most cases worse government.

2)      Government’s main purpose is to protect life, liberty, and property—and almost any additional governmental role is likely to interfere with those rights, rather than protect them.

3)      Messing with the money supply is a hidden form of tax—or “authorized” theft.

4)      Trade tends to improve the economic lifestyle level for both sides of the trade; the only possible exception might be receiving trade from a country that refuses to receive trade the other direction. But sometimes even in those worst cases, being the free-trade country is better than being the trade-protection country.

5)      Regulation is often code for protection of those in an economic sector from competition, preventing entry for starting businesses. Often this is a combination between politicians and the businesses which financially support their security in office. If there is a real need for regulation, it is arguable that every such case would be handled better in the private sector.

Back to the original question, which was not limited to whether political problems led to economic problems—they do. The question is a bit more existential—whether immorality follows from the interference with life, liberty and property rights.

Maslow’s hierarchy probably comes into the question. It’s harder to maintain integrity when hunger is an urgent and ever present need. (Stealing a loaf of bread was the beginning of the miseries for Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s epic story.) It’s harder to maintain integrity when surrounded by others who cheat on their taxes or in their businesses, where others do not respect life, liberty, and property rights. It’s harder to maintain marriage and family integrity—among the best predictors of economic prosperity—when divorce and infidelity get normalized around us. Morality is more difficult, but not impossible.

Conversely, communities of healthy families, with stable fair laws protecting life, liberty, and property, thrive culturally—and prosper economically. I think there is an inextricable connection between property rights, along with protection of life and liberty, and living the laws of civilization. Telling the truth, refusing to steal, refusing to lie, and even controlling one’s thoughts to prevent coveting—these are all among the rules for civilization. And they are also essential for economic prosperity. So every effort to make the moral choice adds to the likelihood of prosperity.