WEBVTT

NOTE Economic Freedom

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.800
I was going to mention that I have two vintage lawn-jart sets.

2
00:00:05.800 --> 00:00:08.400
Do you know what lawn-jarts are?

3
00:00:08.400 --> 00:00:11.600
Lawn-darts or lawn-jarts?

4
00:00:11.600 --> 00:00:13.600
Briggs, do you know what they are? What are they?

5
00:00:13.600 --> 00:00:18.800
Giant metal things that grow in apparently illegal modes of phenomena.

6
00:00:18.800 --> 00:00:22.000
Yeah, they're metal spikes about a foot long.

7
00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:27.000
And it's sort of like cornhole, that beanbag game that plays.

8
00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:57.000
Cornhole was a, you know, a girl's game, I mean, this is a metal spike you would throw through the air and you'd try to get it inside the hole and it was like three points if you got it in the hole or something like that, or in the, like, a round circle, and, you know, three kids died and something like 8,000 emergency room visits or something were associated with this, eyes were put out, and I should mention my mother is here, hi mom, and my aunt. They're visiting for the week, so I, but this was great fun, I mean, if you,

9
00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:33.040
Two perfectly playable vintage lawn jarred sets, and I actually think the Libertarian

10
00:01:33.040 --> 00:01:36.440
Club should have a lawn jarred tournament.

11
00:01:36.440 --> 00:01:41.200
I might say, however, that the university attorney might frown on the practice, but

12
00:01:41.200 --> 00:01:46.880
so you might want to have to sign some waivers or whatever, but so that's my Libertarian

13
00:01:46.880 --> 00:01:47.880
thing.

14
00:01:47.880 --> 00:01:51.840
Playing lawn jars, it's a lot of fun, but truly throwing spikes through the air with

15
00:01:51.840 --> 00:01:56.920
beer involved is not really all that smart, but it was great fun in the 70s and 80s.

16
00:01:56.920 --> 00:02:00.480
okay so with that introduction I'm going to talk about the economic freedom of the

17
00:02:00.480 --> 00:02:05.000
world it's terribly boring I'm sorry it's a project that I've been involved with

18
00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:10.360
forever I'm gonna throw out a shout out to the Mises Institute. Can I do that to the

19
00:02:10.360 --> 00:02:14.520
Mises Institute? You all know because you're at Auburn you must okay I was

20
00:02:14.520 --> 00:02:21.720
actually at the second ever Mises University in 1987 when I was your age

21
00:02:21.720 --> 00:02:25.280
and it wasn't even called the Mises University and it wasn't even in Auburn

22
00:02:25.280 --> 00:02:29.920
The Mises Institute wasn't even at Auburn then. I don't know where it was, but I was out of Stanford.

23
00:02:29.920 --> 00:02:36.160
So if you haven't already made the trek over and met those folks, you should certainly do that.

24
00:02:36.160 --> 00:02:42.560
No Auburn libertarian should not be aware of the Mises Institute, and they're all good friends of

25
00:02:42.560 --> 00:02:47.440
mine. And despite the fact that I published this book with the Cato Institute, the Cato Institute

26
00:02:47.440 --> 00:02:53.040
and the Mises Institute have had some intra-family battles over the years, but that's how these,

27
00:02:53.040 --> 00:02:55.040
Politics, that's how it is.

28
00:02:55.040 --> 00:02:57.040
Okay, I'm going to talk about this now.

29
00:02:57.040 --> 00:02:59.040
This book just came out last week.

30
00:02:59.040 --> 00:03:01.040
The first three people to come to my office,

31
00:03:01.040 --> 00:03:03.040
which is in the third floor of Lauder,

32
00:03:03.040 --> 00:03:05.040
get a free copy of the book.

33
00:03:05.040 --> 00:03:07.040
Okay, first three people.

34
00:03:07.040 --> 00:03:13.040
The only reason I don't have them now to hand to you is because I was too lazy to go to my office before I came here.

35
00:03:13.040 --> 00:03:15.040
But first three people come to my office,

36
00:03:15.040 --> 00:03:17.040
third floor, I don't know what number it is, it's like 320 something,

37
00:03:17.040 --> 00:03:19.040
get to the third floor of Lauder and you'll find me.

38
00:03:19.040 --> 00:03:21.040
You can have a copy of the book for free.

39
00:03:21.040 --> 00:03:25.880
for free. If you don't get there in the first three, you can go online and you can download

40
00:03:25.880 --> 00:03:31.480
it for free. I'll give you the URL later. Okay, so let's talk about economics. Alright,

41
00:03:31.480 --> 00:03:36.600
so when I was a college student like you, I was at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, which

42
00:03:36.600 --> 00:03:42.760
is a far, far better institution than Auburn, if only because it has about 20 bars and you

43
00:03:42.760 --> 00:03:50.580
guys have like six. We completely win the bar competition. And we used to have these

44
00:03:50.580 --> 00:03:53.940
These great debates, and actually I don't think you all have the debates that we had then,

45
00:03:53.940 --> 00:04:00.180
because when I was a student, it was 1985 or 6, I was a freshman or sophomore or junior,

46
00:04:00.180 --> 00:04:07.060
and the Soviet Union was still a going concern, there were people who wore red armbands on

47
00:04:07.060 --> 00:04:14.660
May Day at campus and had a parade. They don't have that here, do they? There were people

48
00:04:14.660 --> 00:04:18.380
who would proudly call themselves socialists and even proudly call themselves Marxists

49
00:04:48.380 --> 00:04:55.380
For the purposes of a very short evening talk, I'm going to characterize it as the Smith vs. Marx debate.

50
00:04:55.380 --> 00:04:59.380
This is not fair to Smith or Marx. There are many, many other people involved.

51
00:04:59.380 --> 00:05:03.380
But for our shorthand purposes, it's Smith vs. Marx.

52
00:05:03.380 --> 00:05:09.380
Smith, writing in the late 18th century, advocated a system of what he called natural liberty,

53
00:05:09.380 --> 00:05:14.380
a system that you and I would call today libertarianism in one form or another.

54
00:05:14.380 --> 00:05:21.380
Smith was a libertarian. He advocated a system of limited government, private property, freedom of exchange, free trade.

55
00:05:21.380 --> 00:05:33.380
We could argue the details with the anarcho-libertarians and the various other types. I happen to be an anarcho myself, so I would join in some criticisms of Smith myself.

56
00:05:33.380 --> 00:05:42.380
But Smith was a libertarian in today's language. And Smith left a legacy, and that legacy came through economics to Ricardo and to John Stuart Mill,

57
00:05:42.380 --> 00:05:48.380
to Alfred Marshall, all the way into the Chicago School to Milton Friedman's and so on.

58
00:05:48.380 --> 00:05:53.380
A vision of the world that basically says, you know, the world works better if we leave people alone.

59
00:05:53.380 --> 00:05:58.380
If you leave people alone, just give them security and their property and their persons and their places and things,

60
00:05:58.380 --> 00:06:03.380
let them trade with each other, things will pretty much all by themselves handle themselves

61
00:06:03.380 --> 00:06:05.380
and the world works reasonably smoothly.

62
00:06:05.380 --> 00:06:11.380
It's not the Garden of Eden, but it works reasonably smoothly and people will prosper and do just fine.

63
00:06:41.380 --> 00:07:11.380
He said, yeah, but, Marx wrote in the tradition of Smith, he carried Smith's stupid labor theory of value, if you've studied that, but he said, yeah, but, really it doesn't work, the smooth system of natural liberty doesn't work smoothly, in fact you have all these contradictions, all these problems, these exploitations and so on and so forth, and that he advocated, again it's hard to characterize Marx,

64
00:07:11.380 --> 00:07:41.380
and I'm unfair to Marx when I say this, but basically he advocated a system of planning and control and you can name names that go on from Marx forward, of course Keynes ultimately in economics, but guys like John Kenneth Galbraith, today Paul Krugman I guess is the standard bearer, and I think Paul Krugman, it's not fair to call Paul Krugman a Marxist, I mean there aren't many Marxists running around today in that sense, but he's part of that intellectual tradition that basically

65
00:07:41.380 --> 00:07:47.380
is skeptical of the system of natural liberty, so we have these two views of the world, the

66
00:07:47.380 --> 00:07:50.580
system of natural liberty on the one hand, just leave people alone, the world will work

67
00:07:50.580 --> 00:07:56.700
reasonably well, not perfect, not perfect, but it'll work okay, in fact it'll work pretty

68
00:07:56.700 --> 00:08:00.660
doggone good, and then you have this view that says no, we can't let the world run on

69
00:08:00.660 --> 00:08:05.300
its own, we can't leave people free in their affairs, we need a planning agency, we need

70
00:08:05.300 --> 00:08:07.300
The Theory of Money and Credit

71
00:08:35.300 --> 00:08:39.300
The Great Debate

72
00:09:05.300 --> 00:09:09.300
And the interesting thing about that debate is that after four years of undergraduate college,

73
00:09:09.300 --> 00:09:16.300
university, not a single one of my friends was convinced that I was right.

74
00:09:16.300 --> 00:09:22.300
As hard as I tried and as much beer as I poured down their throats, they never once agreed with me.

75
00:09:22.300 --> 00:09:26.300
And at the same time, they had not budged me one bit.

76
00:09:26.300 --> 00:09:32.300
And so it was fun, it was fun, the debate was fun, but it wasn't productive.

77
00:09:32.300 --> 00:09:40.300
It didn't lead us to truth. We didn't actually convince each other of our side being the correct view of the world.

78
00:09:40.300 --> 00:09:49.300
And I bring that up because how would such a debate go on if it was in the natural sciences?

79
00:09:49.300 --> 00:09:55.300
So this is the character of the debate that I had with my friends in college.

80
00:09:55.300 --> 00:09:57.300
I would say, freedom works. They would say, no, it doesn't.

81
00:09:57.300 --> 00:09:59.300
I would say, yes, it does. And they would say, no, it doesn't.

82
00:09:59.300 --> 00:10:03.140
and they would say well communism or planning works and I would say no it doesn't and we would

83
00:10:03.140 --> 00:10:08.580
just go back and forth and never got anywhere no one ever won the debate and how would natural

84
00:10:08.580 --> 00:10:12.420
scientists if they were if natural scientists or chemists were having a debate suppose you had two

85
00:10:12.420 --> 00:10:19.060
chemists and one chemist had a beaker of some I'm not a natural science guy so forgive me but

86
00:10:19.060 --> 00:10:22.260
we're at the land grant universities half of you are probably biology majors or something

87
00:10:22.900 --> 00:10:27.540
but if we had you know a chemical gunk here and a chemical stuff here and so one chemist says if

88
00:10:27.540 --> 00:10:32.180
If you mix them together, it'll smell like roses.

89
00:10:32.180 --> 00:10:33.980
The other guy says, no, you're crazy.

90
00:10:33.980 --> 00:10:35.460
He says, no, my equations, I've written it all out.

91
00:10:35.460 --> 00:10:38.900
My equations say if you mix these two chemicals, they'll smell like roses.

92
00:10:38.900 --> 00:10:42.340
But the other chemist says, no, no, no, your equations are all wrong.

93
00:10:42.340 --> 00:10:48.820
My equations say if you mix these two chemicals, they'll smell like rotten eggs.

94
00:10:48.820 --> 00:10:49.660
And so what are we going to do?

95
00:10:49.660 --> 00:10:53.980
We're going to argue about this for decades?

96
00:10:53.980 --> 00:10:54.940
No.

97
00:10:54.940 --> 00:10:57.220
At some point, we're going to mix the two chemicals together.

98
00:10:57.220 --> 00:11:03.220
If it smells like rotten eggs, the second guy is right, it smells like roses, the first guy is right, and the debate is over.

99
00:11:03.220 --> 00:11:06.220
We're going to hit the laboratory and decide.

100
00:11:06.220 --> 00:11:14.220
I mean, at the end of the day, in natural sciences, when you have a debate, it's typically settled by an empirical experiment.

101
00:11:14.220 --> 00:11:19.220
Now, you can't do that. We can't not necessarily do that in social sciences, to be fair.

102
00:11:19.220 --> 00:11:26.220
But one of the problems with the social sciences is that we have these people who have these competing theories

103
00:11:26.220 --> 00:11:32.780
of how the world works, and they're arguing, and arguing, and arguing, and arguing,

104
00:11:32.780 --> 00:11:39.020
but they're not convincing each other based on the pure logic or the beauty of their theories, obviously.

105
00:11:39.020 --> 00:11:41.660
And they never take that step that natural scientists would do,

106
00:11:41.660 --> 00:11:50.060
how do we develop an experiment, or how do we collect data, how do we empirically test these theories?

107
00:11:50.060 --> 00:11:53.580
Which is where the project that I'm going to talk about comes in.

108
00:11:53.580 --> 00:12:05.580
So what I'd like to do is forget about libertarian ideology and philosophy as much as I like that stuff and I was like you, I started as a student studying that stuff.

109
00:12:05.580 --> 00:12:14.580
And like I said, let's forget about whether or not we think markets work or don't work or whether or not. Let's just go out and study the world as it is.

110
00:12:14.580 --> 00:12:19.580
Let's collect data. Let's do the best we can to act like natural scientists.

111
00:12:19.580 --> 00:12:25.580
And so that brings us to the project that we're going to talk about, oops, I've got to go back.

112
00:12:25.580 --> 00:12:27.580
Measuring Economic Freedom.

113
00:12:27.580 --> 00:12:35.580
Okay, so the Smithians and the Milton Friedman types, and Milton was a big inspiration to our project.

114
00:12:35.580 --> 00:12:45.580
He was a participant in the project and wrote the foreword to our first edition of the book, which we wrote with Walter Block,

115
00:12:45.580 --> 00:12:53.580
Who comes to Auburn a lot, by the way, if you haven't seen Walter, you should definitely go to one Walter Block speech in your life.

116
00:12:53.580 --> 00:12:57.580
So, measuring economic freedom. We want to try to measure economic freedom.

117
00:12:57.580 --> 00:13:05.580
Well, you know what? The Milton Friedman types, the Walter Block types, the Mises types, they say the world works better if you have more economic freedom.

118
00:13:05.580 --> 00:13:16.580
private property, freedom to trade, libertarianism, small l, we can debate the details, but some version of freedom works better.

119
00:13:16.580 --> 00:13:25.580
Let's go out and measure that and see if it does. I mean, let's mix the two chemicals together and see what happens.

120
00:13:25.580 --> 00:13:33.580
So Jim Gortney, my mentor at Florida State and I, along with Walter Block, who at the time was working for the Fraser Institute of Think Tank in Canada,

121
00:13:33.580 --> 00:13:40.580
set out to try to measure economic freedom. This is too long ago now. It's 24, 25 years ago.

122
00:13:40.580 --> 00:13:46.580
And we published our first edition in 1996. We've been coming out every year since.

123
00:13:46.580 --> 00:13:49.580
And we're trying to measure economic freedom. How do you measure freedom?

124
00:13:49.580 --> 00:13:56.580
It seems kind of very kind of high-falutin, esoteric. I mean, well, how many econ students?

125
00:13:56.580 --> 00:14:02.580
Gross domestic product. It's the value of everything produced in the country.

126
00:14:02.580 --> 00:14:06.580
What do you think is being produced in the country, roughly?

127
00:14:06.580 --> 00:14:08.580
That's pretty esoteric.

128
00:14:08.580 --> 00:14:13.580
That's haircuts and lawn mowing jobs and mechanics fixing brakes

129
00:14:13.580 --> 00:14:16.580
and super colliders and computers.

130
00:14:16.580 --> 00:14:22.580
GDP is an incredibly complex, diverse, huge, difficult thing.

131
00:14:22.580 --> 00:14:26.580
Try to get your mind around what gross domestic product really is.

132
00:14:26.580 --> 00:14:29.580
It's big, it's huge, it's complicated, I don't know.

133
00:14:29.580 --> 00:14:37.340
What do we do every year? We put a number on it. We say it's $12 billion, $1 trillion.

134
00:14:37.340 --> 00:14:40.780
Is that number right? No, it's wrong. We know the number is wrong. But we do our best to

135
00:14:40.780 --> 00:14:44.420
try to measure gross domestic product, the value of everything that's produced in the

136
00:14:44.420 --> 00:14:53.420
country. Well, I don't think freedom is terribly more complicated or complex to measure than

137
00:14:53.420 --> 00:14:55.420
The Theory of Money and Credit

138
00:15:23.420 --> 00:15:30.020
141. We have 42 different components, pieces of data that we collect from all kinds of

139
00:15:30.020 --> 00:15:35.340
different sources. Mostly they're evil organizations like the IMF and the World Bank, or God forbid

140
00:15:35.340 --> 00:15:41.140
the UN. Sometimes they're private, for-profit organizations like the PRS Group, which is

141
00:15:41.140 --> 00:15:48.800
a consulting firm in New York, upper state New York, and they do country risk analyses

142
00:15:48.800 --> 00:15:53.340
and we actually buy their data. They're very nice to us and give us a discount because

143
00:15:53.340 --> 00:16:05.340
There's a group in Switzerland, you may have heard of the World Economic Forum, and they do a survey, international survey every year, and I get their data also. They're kind enough to give it to me.

144
00:16:05.340 --> 00:16:13.340
So I collect data from a range of sources, some of them are public, and frankly not all that libertarian, but some of them are private.

145
00:16:13.340 --> 00:16:21.340
I collect data from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the international tax consulting firm, and things like that.

146
00:16:21.340 --> 00:16:51.340
And things like that. So we collect a lot of data. The data can be objective, like, what's the tax rate? What's the tariff rate? What's the top marginal tax rate? Things that are very hard. You know, hard numbers. Just put in a number. And some of them are subjective, though. They'll be like, how easy is it to open a business? Which is kind of fuzzy, right? So some of the data are really hard, and some of them are a little bit softer, a little bit fuzzier, okay? And the index that we're going to have is 42 variables. Some of them are really hard numbers. Some of them are a little softer.

147
00:16:51.340 --> 00:17:09.340
I put them all these numbers in, and out comes another number, which is on a 0 to 10 scale, 10 is Adam Smith, and 0 is Marx.

148
00:17:09.340 --> 00:17:14.340
If you're a Marxian and you want to invert that scale, you're welcome to do that.

149
00:17:14.340 --> 00:17:20.980
It's simple, simple to do with a spreadsheet. But since I did it, I like Smith. So Smith gets the higher numbers, okay?

150
00:17:21.700 --> 00:17:25.300
And if I don't have a copy of the book because I was too lazy to go to the office,

151
00:17:25.300 --> 00:17:31.820
but if you go to the book or go online and look at it, it's entirely boring. You'll never, it's horrible.

152
00:17:31.820 --> 00:17:35.540
It's just hundreds of pages of numbers. It's all it is, just numbers.

153
00:17:35.740 --> 00:17:40.340
So it's all about transparency and it's all about data collecting, okay?

154
00:17:40.340 --> 00:17:43.060
So the entire operation is simply collecting lots of data

155
00:17:43.060 --> 00:17:48.580
about economic freedom whether in different dimensions and trying to

156
00:17:48.580 --> 00:17:52.340
quantify those things. For our purposes it's easiest to think about these in five

157
00:17:52.340 --> 00:17:56.980
areas so we got we got five basic areas and each of those 42 components is put

158
00:17:56.980 --> 00:18:00.620
into one of these five areas but you don't want to see all 42 it's where

159
00:18:00.620 --> 00:18:05.540
you'll glaze over and your head will hit the desk and you know you all you know

160
00:18:05.540 --> 00:18:09.860
it'll be dead. So we got five areas, size of government, how big is the

161
00:18:09.860 --> 00:18:17.860
What's the government? Taxes, basically. How big is taxes? So who's the worst there?

162
00:18:17.860 --> 00:18:27.860
No, not yet. Give Obama a couple years. No, they're bad. No, China's way low.

163
00:18:27.860 --> 00:18:35.860
Sweden and Denmark keep fighting for who's the highest tax. So the first area is taxes and spending.

164
00:18:35.860 --> 00:18:54.860
The US is among high-income countries. The US actually scores reasonably well there, although we're a high-tax country, relative to sort of the high-income, like Western Europe, we're pretty low-tax.

165
00:18:54.860 --> 00:19:01.860
No, we're not even close. Not even close. Even with Obama, we're not even close.

166
00:19:01.860 --> 00:19:06.860
Sweden and Denmark are hitting 50% of gross domestic product with government spending.

167
00:19:06.860 --> 00:19:12.860
We're going to maybe hit, worst case scenario, maybe 40. It's probably going to be in the upper 30s.

168
00:19:12.860 --> 00:19:19.860
So we're nowhere near, I mean, maybe the second term, we'll hit that.

169
00:19:19.860 --> 00:19:24.860
The second area is a very important area. It's property rights and legal structure.

170
00:19:24.860 --> 00:19:29.860
And this is almost all survey day. We have actually seven components from three different sources.

171
00:19:29.860 --> 00:19:59.860
But it's things like how impartial are the judges, how many, there's a great source from the World Bank called the Doing Business Project, if you haven't looked at it, it's a great source of data, they actually present data on how many days does it take to settle a contract dispute, and in some places, in the United States it's about a year, I think it's 365, the estimate is about a year to settle, if you and I have a simple dispute, like I owe you money but I flaked out and didn't pay you money,

172
00:19:59.860 --> 00:20:02.500
How long would it take for you to go to court and get the money?

173
00:20:02.500 --> 00:20:07.460
About a year to settle that, which is too long probably, but in some places it's like 25 years,

174
00:20:07.460 --> 00:20:12.500
which is to say you're never getting your money. In some places it's like six months, which is

175
00:20:12.500 --> 00:20:18.180
pretty good. So there's this great data source on how quickly the legal system works to settle

176
00:20:18.180 --> 00:20:23.620
disputes and so forth. So this is all about security of property rights and the sort of

177
00:20:23.620 --> 00:20:34.620
Ease of operation of the legal structure. It's a very important area of the index, and in this area, who do you think does great there?

178
00:20:34.620 --> 00:20:40.620
Who did worse than number one was Sweden and Denmark. Actually, those are the countries that do the best, actually. Scandinavian countries rock.

179
00:20:40.620 --> 00:20:48.620
If you ever land in court, you want to land in a Finnish court or a Swedish court, because those guys, they may tax the heck out of you,

180
00:20:48.620 --> 00:20:55.620
Man, their judges are quick and fast and sharp and efficient, and they're unbiased, and they're not corrupt, they don't take bribes.

181
00:20:55.620 --> 00:21:01.620
The Scandinavian court systems are, you know, best in the world.

182
00:21:01.620 --> 00:21:03.620
As is true, frankly, of England.

183
00:21:03.620 --> 00:21:06.620
The United States, in a world context, is as bad as our legal system may think it is.

184
00:21:06.620 --> 00:21:10.620
It's still, in a world context, still actually one of the better ones.

185
00:21:10.620 --> 00:21:12.620
Okay, the third area, sound money.

186
00:21:12.620 --> 00:21:17.620
This is sort of a classical, this is a Misesian, this is something near and dear,

187
00:21:17.620 --> 00:21:24.820
at least a Rothbard kind of thing. This is basically how risky is, how much at

188
00:21:24.820 --> 00:21:27.980
risk are you of the government stealing your money through inflation. There's

189
00:21:27.980 --> 00:21:31.860
several different parts of this index, that part of the index, I think we have

190
00:21:31.860 --> 00:21:38.180
four components. Basically it's about inflation and your risk of inflation

191
00:21:38.180 --> 00:21:41.540
stealing your money. If you have money in a bank account and they run a lot of

192
00:21:41.540 --> 00:21:46.900
inflation, they're just stealing from you, they're taxing you. This is not as

193
00:21:46.900 --> 00:21:52.900
This is not as much of a concern today. I used to say that. I should maybe back off on that.

194
00:21:52.900 --> 00:22:00.900
A couple years ago when I gave this talk, I would say this is not as much a concern today as it was, say, in the 1970s, when we had runaway inflation in much of the world, like Latin America.

195
00:22:00.900 --> 00:22:04.900
And we had significant inflation, even in the Western world, like the United States.

196
00:22:04.900 --> 00:22:14.900
In 1978, inflation reached 14% in the United States or something like that, which is not hyperinflation, but it's significant.

197
00:22:14.900 --> 00:22:20.900
There's obviously some worry about inflation in the next few years. We'll see what happens.

198
00:22:20.900 --> 00:22:24.900
So this is about that. And there are still, even today though, a lot of countries have trouble here.

199
00:22:24.900 --> 00:22:28.900
Zimbabwe is the most notable country along those lines.

200
00:22:28.900 --> 00:22:34.900
I think inflation there is like a gazillion percent. It's incalculably high, actually.

201
00:22:34.900 --> 00:22:43.900
The fourth is international trade, free trade. So it's tariffs, quotas, non-tariff barriers, capital controls, different kinds.

202
00:22:43.900 --> 00:22:49.820
This is a very large area, I think there must be like ten of the 42 components, about ten

203
00:22:49.820 --> 00:22:54.260
of them are in area four, because there's so many dimensions to international trade

204
00:22:54.260 --> 00:22:57.860
that we're trying to capture.

205
00:22:57.860 --> 00:23:03.100
And then the last area is also a large area, it's got I think fourteen components total,

206
00:23:03.100 --> 00:23:09.380
it's different types of regulations, regulations by their very nature are very ad hoc and they're

207
00:23:09.380 --> 00:23:16.100
Hard to Characterize, but we have one area on credit, which is sort of like banking regulations.

208
00:23:16.100 --> 00:23:19.780
A lot of countries have banking regulations of different kinds. We try to measure those

209
00:23:19.780 --> 00:23:23.380
a handful of different ways. We have labor regulations. Those are easy, like minimum

210
00:23:23.380 --> 00:23:28.420
wages, hiring and firing regulations. You know, in some countries of the world, you

211
00:23:28.420 --> 00:23:31.860
want to fire an employee, you have to give them six months of severance pay or something

212
00:23:31.860 --> 00:23:34.780
like that. We don't have that in the United States, but a lot of Western European countries,

213
00:23:34.780 --> 00:23:44.780
and then we have general business regulations like price controls, start-up of business restrictions, licenses, things like that.

214
00:23:44.780 --> 00:23:58.780
This is a very short version but there's 42 numbers, they all get put into 5 areas and they all get turned, all these raw numbers, tariffs, tax numbers, different types of survey data, all of them get turned into 0 to 10s.

215
00:23:58.780 --> 00:24:05.780
So we can combine them all into something useful, and out comes a number for every country.

216
00:24:05.780 --> 00:24:11.780
If you read the book, it's all well itemized and documented.

217
00:24:11.780 --> 00:24:15.780
My experience is no one really wants to see those details.

218
00:24:15.780 --> 00:24:20.780
So this is sort of the top group. I forgot, I should have not put that up.

219
00:24:20.780 --> 00:24:25.780
I was going to ask, who's the number one country in the world?

220
00:24:25.780 --> 00:24:30.780
It's Hong Kong. It's not a close call. It's not even close to a close call.

221
00:24:30.780 --> 00:24:40.780
I did not need to do a grand study for two decades of economic freedom to know that Hong Kong is by far the freest economy on earth.

222
00:24:40.780 --> 00:24:49.780
Taxes are no more than 10% of GDP. There is literally zero tariffs in quotas. There is complete free trade.

223
00:24:49.780 --> 00:25:00.780
The monetary system is tied to the United States dollar and therefore is no worse than the US dollar, which at least in the recent period hasn't been awful as far as inflation is concerned.

224
00:25:00.780 --> 00:25:15.780
They have almost no regulations. They just passed the minimum wage for the first time and it's trivial. It's like $2 an hour, which in Hong Kong is not even really effective.

225
00:25:15.780 --> 00:25:20.500
So Hong Kong is by far the number one, and you didn't need a study to know that.

226
00:25:20.500 --> 00:25:23.780
Singapore is number two. If you know a lot about Singapore, you don't need to know that.

227
00:25:23.780 --> 00:25:27.540
This highlights a point, though. This is an economic freedom index, not a political freedom index,

228
00:25:27.540 --> 00:25:33.300
or civil freedoms index. We are very narrowly looking at economic matters in the narrowest sense.

229
00:25:33.940 --> 00:25:37.860
So Singapore is a place that's a little bit weird because they give you a lot of freedom.

230
00:25:37.860 --> 00:25:42.340
If you want to run a business in Singapore, you have no taxes, very low, no, no, low taxes,

231
00:25:42.340 --> 00:25:46.940
is low regulations, complete freedom to buy and sell and do whatever you want in your economic life.

232
00:25:46.940 --> 00:25:50.840
You ought not to criticize the government though in Singapore, that's probably a bad idea.

233
00:25:50.840 --> 00:25:53.940
Or smoke a joint, that's also a bad idea, okay?

234
00:25:53.940 --> 00:25:57.840
So when it comes to political or civil liberties, Singapore does not score well,

235
00:25:57.840 --> 00:26:04.940
but when it comes to sort of the mundane economic in the narrowest sense, they do quite well.

236
00:26:04.940 --> 00:26:08.840
Having said that, the rest of the countries are all, with the exception of Chile,

237
00:26:08.840 --> 00:26:13.460
which has risen significantly in the last few year index years they're all

238
00:26:13.460 --> 00:26:19.080
Western European countries that are basically liberal market democracies and

239
00:26:19.080 --> 00:26:22.640
the United States is sixth they were eighth last year they notched up a bit

240
00:26:22.640 --> 00:26:26.480
but the US is on a bit of a slot and if I have time for any questions maybe I'll

241
00:26:26.480 --> 00:26:29.560
talk a little bit what's going on in the United States in the last few years of

242
00:26:29.560 --> 00:26:33.840
what I think might happen in the next few but basically you'll see this is a

243
00:26:33.840 --> 00:26:36.040
list and it you know if you were putting together a list of what are the freest

244
00:26:36.040 --> 00:26:43.040
This is just some of the other countries. The colors will be meaningful in just a second, but this is just some of the other large-scale countries.

245
00:26:43.040 --> 00:26:53.040
and by far the most reforming towards liberalism, towards market economic freedom in the last 20 years and they privatized social security,

246
00:26:53.040 --> 00:26:58.040
they reduced their tariffs and quotas dramatically and have done a lot of good stuff.

247
00:26:58.040 --> 00:27:06.040
This is just some of the other countries, the colors will be meaningful in just a second but this is just some of the other large countries,

248
00:27:06.040 --> 00:27:11.040
it may be a little hard to read them, sorry, but some of the larger more significant countries,

249
00:27:11.040 --> 00:27:19.040
There's 141 countries in the index, I can't list them all, it'd be like negative two font or something, you know, you couldn't read it.

250
00:27:19.040 --> 00:27:30.040
But just see, you know, Japan and Germany come in around the 25, or 27, 28, this is the most recent numbers, this is the first time I've actually used the 2009 results.

251
00:27:30.040 --> 00:27:34.040
And that's a typo, it should say for the year 2007.

252
00:27:34.040 --> 00:27:44.040
So we released the index on Monday of last week, but the data are for 2007, because we're always two years behind, just FYI. I need to change that slide.

253
00:27:44.040 --> 00:27:56.040
So Germany and Japan, you know, they're market economies, they're not socialist, communist rat holes, but you know, they're not Hong Kong either, so there you see them.

254
00:27:56.040 --> 00:28:03.040
Then you see the sort of France, Sweden, the sort of social welfare states of Western Europe come in, sort of that next tier of countries.

255
00:28:03.040 --> 00:28:09.340
And then you get into the South Africa's and Mexico's of the world where you're in sort of the middle group.

256
00:28:09.340 --> 00:28:15.740
What is South Africa? Is it a capitalist country or is it essentially...

257
00:28:15.740 --> 00:28:22.940
It wants to be both and it comes out sort of very much in the middle on the index, maybe a little bit on the upper middle.

258
00:28:22.940 --> 00:28:24.140
Same thing with Mexico.

259
00:28:24.140 --> 00:28:32.940
I mean, they want to have a market economy but the politicians just can't restrain themselves from passing a new law every three days to regulate this or that.

260
00:28:32.940 --> 00:28:34.940
And that's Mexico's experience.

261
00:28:34.940 --> 00:28:36.940
Then you get in China.

262
00:28:36.940 --> 00:28:39.940
India is really close to China and Russia there.

263
00:28:39.940 --> 00:28:43.940
Those are the three largest economies in the world in terms of people.

264
00:28:43.940 --> 00:28:47.940
And they've all come up a lot, actually.

265
00:28:47.940 --> 00:28:49.940
Even Russia finally is starting to move upward a little bit.

266
00:28:49.940 --> 00:28:53.940
But for all the talk about economic reform in China and India,

267
00:28:53.940 --> 00:28:58.940
let's face it, they're still very much government-controlled economies.

268
00:28:58.940 --> 00:29:05.940
China only looks liberal today because it started in abject communism.

269
00:29:05.940 --> 00:29:11.940
This is the scale. This doesn't work on the thing, does it?

270
00:29:11.940 --> 00:29:14.940
They started down here, they came up to here.

271
00:29:14.940 --> 00:29:19.940
Well, that still means Hong Kong is up here. They've got a long, long way to go.

272
00:29:19.940 --> 00:29:23.940
I get a lot of questions about why China doesn't score so much higher,

273
00:29:23.940 --> 00:29:26.940
because you read all these things about how China is now a free market economy,

274
00:29:26.940 --> 00:29:36.940
China has more rules and regulations and government interference in business than all but 81 countries, at least according to our measure.

275
00:29:36.940 --> 00:29:42.940
That's way better than they were 20 years ago. Where they would have been at the bottom of the list was Zimbabwe.

276
00:29:42.940 --> 00:29:52.940
So you have to give credit where credit is due, but let's not overblow the reforms in China or India or Russia for that matter.

277
00:29:52.940 --> 00:29:57.940
And then you see some countries that are just, they didn't get the memo.

278
00:29:57.940 --> 00:30:01.940
The memo that went around about 20 years ago that said free markets works better.

279
00:30:01.940 --> 00:30:07.940
Brazil and Chavez and Venezuela and Mugabe and Zimbabwe, they didn't get it.

280
00:30:07.940 --> 00:30:12.940
There are other countries down there and those countries are really just disasters.

281
00:30:12.940 --> 00:30:20.940
Venezuela and Zimbabwe are truly tragic because we actually have data going back as far as 1970 for both of those countries.

282
00:30:20.940 --> 00:30:26.940
And if you go back to the 1970s, Zimbabwe would have been one of the highest functioning countries in Africa.

283
00:30:26.940 --> 00:30:32.940
Now maybe that's faint praise because Africa is not a high functioning continent, but Zimbabwe would have been considered a really decent place.

284
00:30:32.940 --> 00:30:42.940
Well, say, 75 right after the creation of, right after the Rhodesian, it's a lot of history, but right after the creation of the country of Zimbabwe.

285
00:30:42.940 --> 00:30:45.940
They would have been considered a garden spot of Africa.

286
00:30:45.940 --> 00:30:53.380
in America. Relatively rich, relatively stable, relatively prosperous, a food exporting nation,

287
00:30:53.380 --> 00:30:57.500
and today people are literally starving to death in Zimbabwe. It's a true tragedy, and

288
00:30:57.500 --> 00:31:01.700
it's not because of the weather, it's because of an idiot named Bugabe who's ruined the

289
00:31:01.700 --> 00:31:09.100
country. Venezuela is very similar. It's an oil rich country, Latin American or Central

290
00:31:09.100 --> 00:31:13.860
American, South American standards, a high income country. It was one of the highest,

291
00:31:13.860 --> 00:31:24.860
I think it was the richest country in South America in 1970-75, and it has had negative 1% growth every year for the last 25 years.

292
00:31:24.860 --> 00:31:31.860
It's like having your money in a bank account that was going south 1% a year, compounded for 25 years.

293
00:31:31.860 --> 00:31:36.860
That's Venezuela. And they have oil.

294
00:31:36.860 --> 00:31:42.860
It's inexcusable to have negative economic growth, long-term economic growth for a country that's oil rich.

295
00:31:42.860 --> 00:31:49.340
Absolutely inexcusable. You actually have to work hard to have negative growth in a country

296
00:31:49.340 --> 00:31:54.500
like Zimbabwe when you're sitting on oil reserves like they sit on. It's truly tragic.

297
00:31:54.500 --> 00:31:58.700
The reason is because they're just taxing, they've nationalized the oil industries, they're

298
00:31:58.700 --> 00:32:06.060
taxing. You all know what Chavez is doing. But it actually, it even was before Chavez.

299
00:32:06.060 --> 00:32:11.980
He's a symptom, really. I don't think he's completely the cause. So this is a map, the

300
00:32:11.980 --> 00:32:18.980
The most recent map, this gives you a sort of a broad brush picture. Again, I can't put 141 countries on things, so this gives you an idea of where, what's going on.

301
00:32:18.980 --> 00:32:36.980
You can see, so blue is good. Blue is the upper 20th, upper quartile, upper 25th percent group. The greens are the second 25 percent, the yellows are the third, and the reds are the bottom 25 percent, so that's sort of the scale there.

302
00:32:36.980 --> 00:33:06.980
So you can see, blues like the United States, most of Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, they're all upper 20, they're market economies, yeah they're not free market Rothbardian paradises, but they're market economies, you can see Chile's blue, you can see Arab Emirates is blue, Israel blue, South Korea, Japan,

303
00:33:06.980 --> 00:33:13.460
Taiwan, blue, some countries aren't rated. You'll see we don't have North Korea rated

304
00:33:14.420 --> 00:33:20.500
because we're data driven and North Korea doesn't release data and they don't let people give

305
00:33:20.500 --> 00:33:25.780
surveys in North Korea. Now if we were putting them in we all know they would be the deepest

306
00:33:25.780 --> 00:33:31.700
shade of red we could find but you know that's why you'll see some holes there. Undoubtedly the

307
00:33:31.700 --> 00:33:36.020
countries that we don't have there are probably reds also. I mean we don't know that for sure I

308
00:33:36.020 --> 00:33:42.020
One of my favorite countries in the world is this country right here. It's green.

309
00:33:42.020 --> 00:33:49.020
Do you know what that country is right there? It's Georgia. I do a lot of consulting in Georgia.

310
00:33:49.020 --> 00:33:53.020
Georgia is the fastest economic reforming country of the old Soviet Union.

311
00:33:53.020 --> 00:34:02.020
You see Kazakhstan is also green, but Georgia by far is the fastest reforming country of the old, true Soviet Union.

312
00:34:02.020 --> 00:34:06.020
through Soviet Union. Some countries in the old former Soviet bloc like Estonia have done

313
00:34:06.020 --> 00:34:10.900
really well as well, but of the former Soviet Socialist Republics, Georgia has come the

314
00:34:10.900 --> 00:34:16.660
farthest from central planning to a market economy. I do a lot of consulting there. I

315
00:34:16.660 --> 00:34:25.460
was actually there last year when the Russians invaded, so that was kind of fun.

316
00:34:25.460 --> 00:34:28.700
I can probably answer specific questions. If you have a country that you love or care

317
00:34:28.700 --> 00:34:45.700
There is good news in the world. It's worth mentioning some good news because the age of Obama doesn't leave libertarians with a lot of happy news.

318
00:34:45.700 --> 00:34:55.700
But in the long run, if you have a little bit more time horizon than maybe you all have, it's so much better.

319
00:34:55.700 --> 00:35:00.700
The world of intellectual, and the debate is much better today than it was then.

320
00:35:00.700 --> 00:35:04.700
I mean, today the debate is, yes, we're debating this healthcare stuff.

321
00:35:04.700 --> 00:35:07.700
There's always a policy debate du jour.

322
00:35:07.700 --> 00:35:12.700
But when I was a student at your age, there was a legitimate intellectual debate

323
00:35:12.700 --> 00:35:15.700
about the wisdom of Soviet-style central planning.

324
00:35:15.700 --> 00:35:21.700
Soviet-style central planning was considered to be an intellectually respectable opinion to hold.

325
00:35:21.700 --> 00:35:30.700
Today, no one, no one, your worst, most communist professor doesn't come into class and say he thinks we should have Soviet-style central planning.

326
00:35:30.700 --> 00:35:33.700
No one says that. It's completely discredited.

327
00:35:33.700 --> 00:35:38.700
That's good. That's good. That means we've shifted the debate in our direction.

328
00:35:38.700 --> 00:35:45.700
The world is today much freer than it was economically, freer than it was 20 years ago.

329
00:35:45.700 --> 00:35:50.700
We don't worry about inflation like we used to. We have much freer trade.

330
00:35:50.700 --> 00:35:53.900
Marginal tax rates, and generally the growth of government has slowed.

331
00:35:53.900 --> 00:35:55.900
It's almost zero now around the world.

332
00:35:55.900 --> 00:35:59.100
Now the United States is trying to buck that trend, I know.

333
00:35:59.100 --> 00:36:02.300
Regulations on some margins have gone down, some margins have gone up.

334
00:36:02.300 --> 00:36:10.300
But in general, the climate of intellectual opinion and policy world that we see today in 19, or 2000, whatever it is,

335
00:36:10.300 --> 00:36:13.200
2000, what year is it, 2009, is so much better.

336
00:36:13.200 --> 00:36:20.000
Compare this to 1979, where we had waging price controls and people were lining up the street to get gas.

337
00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:25.600
you know seriously we had we had a big gas price run up last year

338
00:36:25.600 --> 00:36:29.600
nobody even the craziest politician in washington

339
00:36:29.600 --> 00:36:34.560
nobody came out and said we should have price controls on gasoline again

340
00:36:34.560 --> 00:36:37.600
because we've learned that price controls on gasoline makes people line up

341
00:36:37.600 --> 00:36:40.960
down the street my mom's not here she's like she remembers doing that

342
00:36:40.960 --> 00:36:44.640
i was a kid i remember doing that remember lining up for gas no one said

343
00:36:44.640 --> 00:36:47.840
that so price controls for gasoline is off

344
00:36:47.840 --> 00:36:54.400
off the table. That's huge progress. So I think the world is better. Not in every dimension.

345
00:36:54.400 --> 00:36:57.680
There are many, many areas of our economic lives that are more controlled today, like

346
00:36:57.680 --> 00:37:02.880
the environmental rules and so on. But in general, I think we are living in a more free

347
00:37:02.880 --> 00:37:08.600
and economic environment today than we had in the 1970s. And the data are showing that

348
00:37:08.600 --> 00:37:12.840
if you look, this is the average of the index of all the countries in the index. It's gotten

349
00:37:12.840 --> 00:37:21.840
It's gotten higher, and I think that's true. Again, not in every dimension, but in most dimensions it's gotten better.

350
00:37:21.840 --> 00:37:26.840
So let's talk about that beaker thing. I'm going to try to wrap up real quick, Hilary.

351
00:37:26.840 --> 00:37:32.840
So the great debate was, if you mix the two chemicals together, does it smell good or does it smell bad?

352
00:37:32.840 --> 00:37:37.840
And in our context, if you have economic freedom, does it work or does it not work?

353
00:37:37.840 --> 00:37:43.840
I don't know why we need to argue until 3 in the morning and drink beer all night, although that's fun, to answer that debate.

354
00:37:43.840 --> 00:37:46.840
Let's go out and collect some data, which I've done, and let's try to figure out.

355
00:37:46.840 --> 00:37:58.840
This is the Economic Freedom Index, this is by quartile, so this is the reds, or the lowest, the bottom 25%, second 25%, third, and then the highest 25% is blue.

356
00:37:58.840 --> 00:38:05.840
And this is income per capita, it's GDP per capita, it's not a perfect measure, but that's a nice picture.

357
00:38:05.840 --> 00:38:11.840
That was Milton Friedman's favorite picture. I dropped a name. He loved that picture. He says, look, we're right.

358
00:38:11.840 --> 00:38:21.840
That's not an obvious picture 25 years ago. There were people who would argue that if you have centralized planning, if you have less economic freedom, you should have a richer economy.

359
00:38:21.840 --> 00:38:27.840
It's going to work better, we'll have more prosperity if we have centralized planning. They were projecting that it should step down the other way.

360
00:38:27.840 --> 00:38:34.840
And they're wrong. They're flat out wrong. We all know that today, but this was an open question not too long ago.

361
00:38:34.840 --> 00:38:42.160
People who really debated, who really thought economic freedom didn't work and made us poorer.

362
00:38:42.160 --> 00:38:43.160
Growth is a little harder.

363
00:38:43.160 --> 00:38:45.820
You really need to do econometric studies of growth, but even, and that's what that

364
00:38:45.820 --> 00:38:51.160
quote's all about, but if you do it, even with growth, you'll see you'll have higher

365
00:38:51.160 --> 00:38:52.720
growth with more economic freedom.

366
00:38:52.720 --> 00:38:55.380
It's not as clear a relationship as before.

367
00:38:55.380 --> 00:38:59.160
Growth is fuzzier, and you really need to do formal studies.

368
00:38:59.160 --> 00:39:01.720
All the formal studies that have been done with the economic freedom index and growth

369
00:39:01.720 --> 00:39:03.780
have shown that more economic freedom means more growth.

370
00:39:03.780 --> 00:39:04.780
Every one of them.

371
00:39:04.780 --> 00:39:08.780
not a single one, and there are dozens out there now, so that's cool.

372
00:39:08.780 --> 00:39:12.780
Alright, so what did my friends say when I would corner them?

373
00:39:12.780 --> 00:39:16.780
I'd say, you know, economic freedom, markets, capitalism, it works better,

374
00:39:16.780 --> 00:39:20.780
people are richer, and they would say, yeah, people are richer, but

375
00:39:20.780 --> 00:39:24.780
it screws the poor, or the income distribution is too unequal.

376
00:39:24.780 --> 00:39:28.780
That's what they say, right? Guess what?

377
00:39:28.780 --> 00:39:32.780
That's a lie, it's not true. This is the share of income

378
00:39:32.780 --> 00:39:38.360
The share of income held by the lowest 10%, the share of income held by the poorest 10%,

379
00:39:38.360 --> 00:39:43.900
bi-quartile. So if you look around the world, you've got 140, there's actually, yeah, there's,

380
00:39:43.900 --> 00:39:47.420
I think that data set has about 100 countries in it. Got 100 countries, you look at the

381
00:39:47.420 --> 00:39:51.300
100 countries in the world, you look at the share of the income held by the bottom 10%,

382
00:39:51.300 --> 00:39:58.020
the bottom quartile, the third, the second, the most, what do you see? It's really about

383
00:39:58.020 --> 00:40:08.820
It's about 2-2.5%, which sucks. That means 10% of the people have 2-2.5% of the money.

384
00:40:08.820 --> 00:40:14.580
The news there is being poor is no fun. But guess what? It really doesn't matter in terms

385
00:40:14.580 --> 00:40:18.660
of the share of income, in terms of the distribution of income. Whether you're in a high economic

386
00:40:18.660 --> 00:40:22.380
freedom country or a low economic freedom, you're going to have about 2-2.5% of income.

387
00:40:22.380 --> 00:40:25.340
If anything, it looks a little bit better in the high income, but I'm not going to push

388
00:40:25.340 --> 00:40:39.340
It really doesn't matter. The evidence is overwhelming that market-oriented, liberal market economies, free market capitalist economies, do not have, in general, more unequal distributions of income.

389
00:40:39.340 --> 00:40:47.340
They just don't. So it's a great lie. And leftists get away with this lie. They just get away with it. We all got our heads, oh yeah, that's a problem we should deal with.

390
00:40:47.340 --> 00:40:56.340
No, it's a lie. Don't let leftists say that capitalism creates unequal distribution. It's a simply, it's a bald lie.

391
00:40:56.340 --> 00:41:01.340
And the only reason they get away with it is because no one ever argues from data.

392
00:41:01.340 --> 00:41:07.340
They just argue from rhetoric and just they throw things out. The data tell us it's not true.

393
00:41:07.340 --> 00:41:12.340
So burn that one in your brain and bring it up the next time you tell them it's a lie.

394
00:41:12.340 --> 00:41:15.340
You can't get away with those kind of lies. This one really annoys me.

395
00:41:15.340 --> 00:41:19.340
But guess what? If you want to be poor, where do you want to be poor?

396
00:41:19.340 --> 00:41:22.340
You want to be poor in a free country, because why? Because free countries are rich.

397
00:41:22.340 --> 00:41:28.340
I'd rather be poor in a rich country than poor in a poor country.

398
00:41:28.340 --> 00:41:35.340
I'd actually rather be poor in a rich country than rich in a poor country, probably, but that's debatable.

399
00:41:35.340 --> 00:41:41.340
In any case, this is the actual level of income earned by the average person in the bottom 10%.

400
00:41:41.340 --> 00:41:48.340
It's about a tenfold, it's about an order of magnitude, it's more than an order of magnitude difference between the bottom and the top, okay?

401
00:41:48.340 --> 00:41:59.340
So, you know, the average per... actually, in the United States, the average income, just for record, the average income for people in the United States, in the bottom 10% of the U.S. income distribution is about $13,000 per person.

402
00:42:01.340 --> 00:42:05.340
Which sucks, I wouldn't want to live on $13,000 in the United States, right?

403
00:42:05.340 --> 00:42:13.340
But I would rather have $13,000, which is, by the way, $13,000 per person for the poorest 10% of the United States is better.

404
00:42:13.340 --> 00:42:15.340
That's the average income in Mexico.

405
00:42:15.340 --> 00:42:19.340
And it's about 10 times the income, say, in Haiti.

406
00:42:19.340 --> 00:42:23.340
So would you rather be a rich person in Haiti?

407
00:42:23.340 --> 00:42:29.340
I mean, I don't mean super rich, but would you rather be upper income in Haiti or poor in the United States?

408
00:42:29.340 --> 00:42:31.340
It's a no-brainer to be poor in the United States.

409
00:42:31.340 --> 00:42:33.340
It's not even a close call.

410
00:42:33.340 --> 00:42:37.340
I don't want to make light of that. I don't want to make light of being poor in the United States is no fun.

411
00:42:37.340 --> 00:42:39.340
I'd rather be rich in the United States than poor in the United States.

412
00:42:39.340 --> 00:42:43.340
I don't want to make light of the fact that being poor isn't fun.

413
00:42:43.340 --> 00:42:49.340
But this is simply calling for some perspective on the fact that, you know,

414
00:42:49.340 --> 00:42:53.340
what we live in the most free quarter like the people in the United States,

415
00:42:53.340 --> 00:43:00.340
what we call poor is actually pretty doggone good in any kind of sense.

416
00:43:00.340 --> 00:43:05.340
Alright, let's get away from money. This is my favorite chart. This is life expectancy from birth.

417
00:43:05.340 --> 00:43:11.340
I would like to do life expectancy from different ages, but the birth life expectancy is the best data you have.

418
00:43:11.340 --> 00:43:15.340
It's about a 20-year difference between the top and the bottom quartiles, and this is huge.

419
00:43:15.340 --> 00:43:19.340
I mean, if you think, what's the difference between living to 60 and living to 80?

420
00:43:19.340 --> 00:43:27.340
If you live to 60, you probably don't get to know your grandchildren. You don't get to see your grandchildren grow up.

421
00:43:27.340 --> 00:43:37.340
And if you lived to 80, you do. This is not about money. This is about quality of life. This is way beyond money.

422
00:43:37.340 --> 00:43:45.340
And this is my favorite chart because anyone who's a grandparent will tell you that it's pretty cool to live to 80.

423
00:43:45.340 --> 00:43:50.340
I hope you lived to 80. You're not there yet. But it's way better than living to 60.

424
00:43:50.340 --> 00:43:53.340
It's literally different from knowing your grandchildren or not knowing your grandchildren.

425
00:43:53.340 --> 00:44:10.340
This is my favorite because I think it puts a more human face on it. We talk about GDP per cap and all these numbers. I throw this up for my liberal green friends. I like to climb mountains but I'm not much of an environmentalist, I must confess.

426
00:44:10.340 --> 00:44:21.340
Anyway, there's an environmental quality index put out by some kind of group, I don't know, Columbia or some place, some kind of tree-hugger group in the northeast.

427
00:44:21.340 --> 00:44:28.340
in the Middle East, and they have an environmental quality index, I think it's on a scale of 100 and so higher numbers are better, and you'll see again.

428
00:44:28.340 --> 00:44:34.340
One of the other great lies is that people will say, well, you have to have government control of the economy to protect the environment.

429
00:44:34.340 --> 00:44:39.340
Well, if you look at the actual data and you find the places that have the least government have the best environments,

430
00:44:39.340 --> 00:44:46.340
places that have the most governments have the worst environments, you know, again, you can argue about some of the details on some of those margins,

431
00:44:46.340 --> 00:44:52.940
The fact is you can't let someone say free market economies or market-oriented economies hurt the environment.

432
00:44:52.940 --> 00:44:56.020
On net, they actually help the environment. They have better scores.

433
00:44:56.020 --> 00:45:00.020
And this is a group that is a bunch of left-wing kind of environmental types.

434
00:45:00.020 --> 00:45:08.780
And I'm just using their data and their data tells the story that says economic freedom works better for the environment.

435
00:45:08.780 --> 00:45:14.580
It also works better if you care about political rights like voting, freedom of speech, civil

436
00:45:14.580 --> 00:45:17.780
liberties, freedom from search and seizure.

437
00:45:17.780 --> 00:45:20.000
This is the index from the Freedom House Group.

438
00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:24.680
Their index is backwards, so lower numbers are good, so I flipped the index so it looks

439
00:45:24.680 --> 00:45:29.700
right to our eyes, but the bottom line is that more economic freedom also correlates

440
00:45:29.700 --> 00:45:34.860
very strongly with more political rights and civil liberties and less torture.

441
00:45:34.860 --> 00:45:41.500
I've got a paper on torture, there's a great data set on torture, and those kinds of things.

442
00:45:41.500 --> 00:45:45.020
So if you care about those things, as you probably, if you're a human being, you probably

443
00:45:45.020 --> 00:45:48.420
should, then economic freedom works with those too.

444
00:45:48.420 --> 00:45:50.300
There really isn't much of a trade-off.

445
00:45:50.300 --> 00:45:55.460
One of the things that I've, one of the themes I've advanced is that there isn't a trade-off

446
00:45:55.460 --> 00:45:56.460
with economic freedom.

447
00:45:56.460 --> 00:46:00.740
You might say, well, we'll get more economic freedom, we'll have to sacrifice some, something.

448
00:46:00.740 --> 00:46:04.340
No, I'm not, if you look at the data, you don't find those trade-offs.

449
00:46:04.340 --> 00:46:10.340
In fact, economic freedom seems to be a reinforcing element in whatever it is that you care about.

450
00:46:10.340 --> 00:46:13.340
If you happen to care about the environment, you should like the environment. You should like this.

451
00:46:13.340 --> 00:46:20.340
I've got a paper on feminists right now on beauty contests. You know feminists hate beauty contests, right?

452
00:46:20.340 --> 00:46:26.340
They hate them. I kind of like them, personally, but feminists hate beauty contests.

453
00:46:26.340 --> 00:46:33.340
And guess what? Beauty pageant success is negatively correlated with economic freedom,

454
00:46:33.340 --> 00:46:38.340
Which means, if you have more economic freedom, you have fewer beauty pageant winners.

455
00:46:38.340 --> 00:46:42.340
Controlling for population and all this other stuff, it's all.

456
00:46:42.340 --> 00:46:50.340
And so feminists should like economic freedom, because economic freedom means people will be less interested in joining up with beauty pageants.

457
00:46:50.340 --> 00:46:53.340
That's my latest paper.

458
00:46:53.340 --> 00:46:57.340
Alright, and this is just going to conclude. This is our website.

459
00:46:57.340 --> 00:47:04.100
Some marketing whiz at the Frasier Institute came up with this freetheworld.com, which I think is the stupidest

460
00:47:04.660 --> 00:47:07.180
URL I've ever heard, but there you have it.

461
00:47:07.540 --> 00:47:12.460
So if you want to look at the book, if you are one of the first to read in my office, you can have a book,

462
00:47:12.460 --> 00:47:15.940
but if you want to look at it, you can download the whole thing for free and print it out.

463
00:47:16.940 --> 00:47:19.820
And you can, the data, if you're doing a paper,

464
00:47:20.060 --> 00:47:24.860
like, you know, any kind of paper, if you want to download the data, there's a huge Excel file

465
00:47:24.860 --> 00:47:31.860
I've been in Spanish classes here at the University, and it's pretty common for Spanish teachers to talk about how terrible that is, how the U.S. goes in and ruins the economy.

466
00:47:54.860 --> 00:48:14.860
So they say that, well, maybe we have a good environment, but what really happens is that the U.S. goes into these countries that have less economic freedom and we destroy theirs instead of ruining our own. So how would you like that?

467
00:48:24.860 --> 00:48:40.860
5, that's the actual number, 5 times, or destabilized El Salvador several times, so if by we they mean the U.S. government, I'm on board, the U.S. government has done everything it can.

468
00:48:40.860 --> 00:48:53.860
But if by we you mean me, buying coffee, I completely disagree, I don't see how we make people in Colombia better by not buying coffee from them.

469
00:48:53.860 --> 00:49:01.860
If you don't buy coffee for them, they go to their next best alternative, which is cocaine or something, I guess.

470
00:49:01.860 --> 00:49:05.860
But, you know, you have to, yeah, it's important to distinguish.

471
00:49:05.860 --> 00:49:11.860
I mean, most, your Spanish teachers probably have this sort of holistic view of the United States as one thing.

472
00:49:11.860 --> 00:49:19.860
And it's not. We have the government. Government policy has been, in general, bad for Latin America.

473
00:49:19.860 --> 00:49:28.860
But concluding that trade with Latin America is bad, I think is just horribly wrong.

474
00:49:28.860 --> 00:49:35.860
In our book, each year we have a special chapter.

475
00:49:35.860 --> 00:49:41.860
There's a great article in, I think, two years ago by Bill Easterly that I would recommend to you.

476
00:49:41.860 --> 00:49:49.860
It's a great article about how the U.S. foreign policy and foreign aid has been bad.

477
00:49:49.860 --> 00:49:52.860
So there have been a lot of bad policies.

478
00:49:52.860 --> 00:49:58.860
How would the United States have grown without foreign trade?

479
00:49:58.860 --> 00:50:02.860
The United States started out extremely poor.

480
00:50:02.860 --> 00:50:05.860
We grew because we traded with Europe.

481
00:50:05.860 --> 00:50:10.860
We imported capital from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to build factories.

482
00:50:10.860 --> 00:50:17.500
and we exported our goods, our timber, you know, most of Western Europe is built with timber that was

483
00:50:17.500 --> 00:50:24.620
cut down in Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia, and I'm sure if they were around then they would

484
00:50:24.620 --> 00:50:29.260
have talked about how we're, you know, the Europeans are exploiting the poor North Americans, but that's

485
00:50:29.260 --> 00:50:35.820
how the North Americans grew their economies and prospered. You know, we don't live in the land of

486
00:50:35.820 --> 00:50:40.820
And the milk and honey. You just don't go from poor to rich overnight.

487
00:50:40.820 --> 00:50:44.820
It takes years of capital investment and a cursor trade.

488
00:50:44.820 --> 00:50:51.820
So I think you have to be real careful about who's we.

489
00:50:51.820 --> 00:50:55.820
That's the thing. And you ought not to confuse the we of the government

490
00:50:55.820 --> 00:51:01.820
with the we of just consumers and people privately trading, which is good.

491
00:51:31.820 --> 00:51:59.820
You know, at some point you have to just say you're nuts, too. I mean, at some point you have to say, look, what you're saying is that these people should stay poor and should have their children die from diseases so that they can live in a rainforest.

492
00:51:59.820 --> 00:52:25.820
Even from the Austrian perspective, you can't even extrapolate to say that a tin would even raise life expectancy, it would raise income, you know, it's not sort of empirical when people want to believe they're going to live with it.

493
00:52:29.820 --> 00:52:39.320
is this, some people will respond to a pure logic, you know, sort of a Rothbardian sort of line of logic,

494
00:52:39.320 --> 00:52:49.820
and I was one of them myself, but let's admit reality. Reality is that line of logic has not, and will not, convince most people.

495
00:52:49.820 --> 00:52:55.320
And so that's why I think as a sort of second line of defense, the empirical arguments are the best you can do.

496
00:52:55.320 --> 00:53:00.320
At the same time, you're not going to convince everybody of this.

497
00:53:00.320 --> 00:53:04.320
There are going to be people who simply have their head in the sand.

498
00:53:04.320 --> 00:53:09.320
There are people, for example, right now that freak out with Chile being number six, because of Pinochet.

499
00:53:09.320 --> 00:53:15.320
Pinochet was an ugly man, but as dictator goes, he wasn't that ugly.

500
00:53:15.320 --> 00:53:20.320
That right there would get me a firing squad with some leftists, I know.

501
00:53:20.320 --> 00:53:33.320
But the fact of the matter is, Pinochet was a bad guy, but the fact of the matter is also, Chile liberalized its economy and the people of Chile are living vastly better lives than they otherwise would have.

502
00:53:33.320 --> 00:53:43.320
So that sort of empirical thing will sway some people who are at least open to that kind of argument. Not everybody is, of course.

503
00:53:43.320 --> 00:53:49.320
I think that's not the whole point of that. They feel like they're just having to accept to us being there to some extent.

504
00:53:49.320 --> 00:53:51.320
Right, to make some choice.

505
00:53:51.320 --> 00:53:58.320
Generally, we go to them and we talk to their government and they let us do that, and people are not happy to say anything to us.

506
00:53:58.320 --> 00:54:11.320
I mean, if they really wanted to, if they were that concerned about their environment or whatever, they would bar centers and we can't do much short work actually invading them with an army to do whatever.

507
00:54:11.320 --> 00:54:22.280
Well, what you find mostly is that it's Americans who value those natural amenities, who want

508
00:54:22.280 --> 00:54:26.160
to see them protected, but the locals don't really care, because they would rather make

509
00:54:26.160 --> 00:54:34.040
the trade-off between temporary trade-offs of their environment with prosperity, and

510
00:54:34.040 --> 00:54:39.000
that seems to be perfectly reasonable, it's exactly the trade-off that we made in the

511
00:54:39.000 --> 00:54:41.240
in the 19th century, in our country.

512
00:54:41.240 --> 00:54:44.640
So with your income data, are you adjusting to purchasing power, or is that...

513
00:54:44.640 --> 00:54:48.640
Those are all, those are all PPP, purchasing power numbers, yeah.

514
00:54:48.640 --> 00:55:02.640
And you made other charts also for, I mean, you had the five quarters, do you also have other charts for within the top quarter?

515
00:55:02.640 --> 00:55:04.640
Within the top quarter?

516
00:55:04.640 --> 00:55:05.640
Yeah.

517
00:55:05.640 --> 00:55:07.640
Not really, and I could do it, but...

518
00:55:07.640 --> 00:55:22.480
Right. Right. Actually, one of the questions I sometimes get in these things is, what have

519
00:55:22.480 --> 00:55:26.720
I learned from this index, doing this thing for 20 years? One of the things I've learned

520
00:55:26.720 --> 00:55:31.800
is not really to sweat the small stuff. If you look at the countries in the top quarter,

521
00:55:31.800 --> 00:55:36.920
you're going to have everything from the United States, you know, at the near the top, to

522
00:55:36.920 --> 00:56:06.920
The bottom of the quarter is probably Taiwan, huge differences really between Taiwan and the United States, but in the context of the world, they're small, and I just, I don't get nearly as uptight about the small stuff as I used to, because I don't think this stuff really matters, so I don't, you know, there are differences between the United States, for example Sweden, Sweden is in the second quartile, but the differences between the United States and Sweden are small, in comparison to the differences between Sweden and the United States and Kenya.

523
00:56:06.920 --> 00:56:24.920
That's the real differences in the world. The real battle isn't between whether our taxes are 30% of GDP or 40%, the real battle are between can I open a business without a guy with a billy club going to hit me over the head if I don't give him a bribe today?

524
00:56:24.920 --> 00:56:29.920
That's the real problem for economic liberty for most people living on the planet.

525
00:56:29.920 --> 00:56:49.920
So what we think of it being our big problems, they're problems, but most people would trade 30% taxes or 40% taxes for the rule of law and the open trade and the security that we have any day, that kind of liberalism.

526
00:56:49.920 --> 00:56:55.920
You've been looking at us for a long time. You said you don't sort the small stuff anymore?

527
00:56:55.920 --> 00:56:56.920
No, yeah.

528
00:56:56.920 --> 00:57:03.920
In the most recent times, we've had a lot of the buy-in-out, and we've seen the trend of possibly more buy-in-out.

529
00:57:03.920 --> 00:57:09.920
I agree with you on a lot of stuff. What's your opinion on what we're going to be expecting?

530
00:57:09.920 --> 00:57:14.920
It's testing my optimism, and there's no question. Again, the chips will fall where they chip.

531
00:57:14.920 --> 00:57:17.920
I just put the numbers in the computer, and we'll see what happens.

532
00:57:17.920 --> 00:57:22.920
The numbers we just have are for 2007, which is before most of this really took off.

533
00:57:22.920 --> 00:57:28.920
A year from now, we'll be putting out the 2008 data, and a year from that, the 2009 data.

534
00:57:28.920 --> 00:57:32.920
So within a year or two, we'll see what's going to happen.

535
00:57:32.920 --> 00:57:36.920
Obviously, on the fiscal side, the United States numbers are going to just take a hit.

536
00:57:36.920 --> 00:57:38.920
There's simply no question.

537
00:57:38.920 --> 00:57:40.920
The deficit right now is 11 percent.

538
00:57:40.920 --> 00:57:44.920
The deficit, the federal government's deficit, is 11 percent of GDP.

539
00:57:44.920 --> 00:57:46.920
As far as I'm concerned, that should be the budget.

540
00:57:46.920 --> 00:57:52.040
And, actually, that's about 11% more than I would have the budget, but still, I mean,

541
00:57:52.040 --> 00:57:53.040
that's the deficit.

542
00:57:53.040 --> 00:57:56.640
I mean, you know, government spending in the United States is just shooting through the

543
00:57:56.640 --> 00:57:57.640
roof.

544
00:57:57.640 --> 00:58:01.280
The inflation risks, which may or may not occur, depending on your point of view, are

545
00:58:01.280 --> 00:58:02.400
huge.

546
00:58:02.400 --> 00:58:06.440
So I don't see there's anywhere for the United States ranking to go up.

547
00:58:06.440 --> 00:58:09.040
If I was a betting man, I should not be betting on this.

548
00:58:09.040 --> 00:58:11.240
I'm the one that puts this together, I mean.

549
00:58:11.240 --> 00:58:15.720
But if I was a betting man, I'd say we're going to hit, we're going to go into the next

550
00:58:15.720 --> 00:58:45.720
I don't see how it can be avoided except for the fact that everybody else is screwing up, too, and rankings are like that. If everybody else goes down, when you go down, your ranking doesn't necessarily change, but I see the rating, at least the numerical rating for the United States, can only go downward. It's already gone downward. In 2000, in the year 2000, which for us would have been the

551
00:58:45.720 --> 00:58:51.720
2002 report. But in the year 2000, we had the United States rate second in the world,

552
00:58:51.720 --> 00:58:58.360
and it's gone down to six or eight or so. It's clearly moved, and a big part of the

553
00:58:58.360 --> 00:59:04.400
move was area two on legal structure and property rights. And I really think that George Bush

554
00:59:04.400 --> 00:59:11.720
has taken your shoes off at the airport, and wireless taps, Guantanamo, and torture, and

555
00:59:11.720 --> 00:59:17.960
Kilo and a whole host of things really took a hit on the United States on those things.

556
00:59:17.960 --> 00:59:25.080
Obama actually may improve on some of those margins, but it's not so far really.

557
00:59:25.080 --> 00:59:28.080
So I think the U.S. is going to get worse.

558
00:59:28.080 --> 00:59:31.400
The current report actually has two essays, the one that just came out last week has two

559
00:59:31.400 --> 00:59:36.680
essays on it about financial crises and the whole what happens to economic freedom when

560
00:59:36.680 --> 00:59:41.680
And we have recessions and crises like this, and you know, it's hard to...

561
00:59:52.680 --> 00:59:56.680
That's the good news, there's almost no countries that have really gone down a lot.

562
00:59:56.680 --> 01:00:03.680
I think if you go from 1980 to the present, there's only like five or six countries that have actually had negative rating changes.

563
01:00:03.680 --> 01:00:08.320
Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Democratic Republic of Congo, which used to be

564
01:00:08.320 --> 01:00:12.120
Zaire, Myanmar, which is a

565
01:00:12.120 --> 01:00:14.880
complete disaster.

566
01:00:14.880 --> 01:00:20.160
So, two of those countries, by the way, changed names. It's in my working theory

567
01:00:20.160 --> 01:00:22.160
that changing names is never good.

568
01:00:22.160 --> 01:00:26.480
If a country decides to change names, it can't be for a good reason. It's usually some new guy took over and

569
01:00:26.480 --> 01:00:28.600
decided, I'm going to change the name of the country.

570
01:00:28.600 --> 01:00:34.840
Well, it's now the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela, if you want to be precise.

571
01:00:34.840 --> 01:00:37.440
So there's actually, the good news is there's very few.

572
01:00:37.440 --> 01:00:40.360
There's very few. I mean, again, if you look at the hard numbers, there's been a

573
01:00:40.360 --> 01:00:43.520
general trend for lower taxes, more stable money

574
01:00:43.520 --> 01:00:48.520
for your trade and mostly lower regulations. Again,

575
01:00:48.520 --> 01:00:49.600
that's

576
01:00:49.600 --> 01:00:51.080
uneven.

577
01:00:51.080 --> 01:00:55.280
It's, again, compared to where we were, both in terms of the actual evidence and

578
01:00:55.280 --> 01:00:58.160
I think in terms of the rhetoric going around, the intellectual climate,

579
01:00:58.160 --> 01:01:00.160
I think we're better off today than we were then.

580
01:01:00.160 --> 01:01:07.160
That's horrible to say, because I'm as depressed as the next guy about reading the paper right now.

581
01:01:07.160 --> 01:01:12.160
This car thing, I'm kind of a car guy.

582
01:01:12.160 --> 01:01:19.160
Watching a guy destroy a car is just, it absolutely is the most offensive thing I've ever seen in my life.

583
01:01:19.160 --> 01:01:25.160
So I've got to destroy a Corvette. It's just criminal. It's absolutely criminally insane to destroy a Corvette.

584
01:01:25.160 --> 01:01:30.120
Too many 19-year-old boys would like to take that car for free, and they destroyed it.

585
01:01:30.120 --> 01:01:34.320
We don't make ourselves richer by destroying stuff, I mean, that's just the most stupid

586
01:01:34.320 --> 01:01:35.320
thing.

587
01:01:35.320 --> 01:01:38.640
So I'm absolutely, I'm vacillating right now, but you know, this project, which is sort

588
01:01:38.640 --> 01:01:42.740
of the long view, makes me look sort of optimistic.

589
01:01:42.740 --> 01:01:46.400
And then I open the paper, and I see, or I hop on YouTube, and I see him destroying a

590
01:01:46.400 --> 01:01:54.880
perfectly good car, which is just, I mean, no version of economics makes that make sense.

591
01:01:54.880 --> 01:02:09.880
So, I'm currently, I guess I'm going through a pessimistic phase, but again, overall, the climate of opinion has just changed so much since when I was a student, like you, and we have these vacillations and stupid ideas will never go away.

592
01:02:09.880 --> 01:02:11.880
And the number of variables has changed since you started.

593
01:02:11.880 --> 01:02:22.880
Yeah, it's changed a lot. We've gotten a lot more sophisticated, which has presented a little bit of a challenge for comparing years. We actually have a way of doing that, dealing with that.

594
01:02:22.880 --> 01:02:39.400
What about places like the office in Luxembourg that have a lot of Americans and other citizens

595
01:02:39.400 --> 01:02:48.400
hiding their money there? Is that a three year rating or a lot of times four?

596
01:02:52.880 --> 01:03:02.880
Most of the real tax havens aren't in the index, like Cayman, for example. Lichtenstein is not in the index.

597
01:03:02.880 --> 01:03:06.880
Lichtenstein didn't even have GDP calculated until about five years ago. God bless them.

598
01:03:06.880 --> 01:03:13.880
The little side story, I was drinking with the Prince of Lichtenstein once, how's that cool?

599
01:03:13.880 --> 01:03:21.880
In his castle, and he said that he had fought, he's a banker by day, but he's actually the prince of the country also.

600
01:03:21.880 --> 01:03:25.880
also. And he says, well, I fought them. I fought them and fought them and fought them.

601
01:03:25.880 --> 01:03:31.280
They finally made us start calculating GDP. This is a couple of years ago. So the real

602
01:03:31.280 --> 01:03:36.680
tax havens, we don't know where they really rank. I'm sure they're all Hong Kong-like

603
01:03:36.680 --> 01:03:44.200
though. But the Bahamas, for example, is not. I mean, Bahamas is a terrible place to hide

604
01:03:44.200 --> 01:03:51.200
your money. They're corrupt. They have capital controls. It's not a tax haven in any sense.

605
01:03:51.200 --> 01:04:00.200
It's surprising they shouldn't be. If they had half an ounce of brains down there, they would be a tax haven, because that would be a great asset for them.

606
01:04:00.200 --> 01:04:08.200
They have beaches, and if they could combine their beaches with some good safe banking, that would be a great asset, but they actually are horrible.

607
01:04:08.200 --> 01:04:11.200
It's a very difficult place to park your money.

608
01:04:11.200 --> 01:04:14.200
Caymans, I'm sure, would do well, but we don't...

609
01:04:14.200 --> 01:04:44.200
We do resident Luxembourg and they score, you know, I'm going to guess 16 or 17 or 20. They're in that, they're in that tier, but you know, they're also a social welfare state. I'm sure they have national health, they have high taxes, they've got all the usual pathologies of Western Europe that Switzerland and Liechtenstein managed to avoid, for the most, relatively speaking, managed to avoid. But Luxembourg is very French in its approach, really. Belgian, really. Same thing.

610
01:04:44.200 --> 01:05:02.200
In your definition of what a free country is, you factor in when a government prohibits something out of a mix of people like example frauds, does that factor in?

611
01:05:14.200 --> 01:05:28.200
There's really no variation there. Essentially, with minor variations like Holland, it's prohibited everywhere, so adding a variable that is a column of zeros doesn't do anything to the index.

612
01:05:28.200 --> 01:05:37.200
So for us, one of the criteria that we look for when we think about a variable in the index is we're looking for variation. There has to be some countries that do it right and some that don't.

613
01:05:37.200 --> 01:05:42.200
And in drug policy, everybody does it wrong, from a libertarian point of view.

614
01:05:42.200 --> 01:05:53.200
Now, one of the things I sort of worry about sometimes is what would happen if a few countries did actually liberalize in a real way, not even like the stupid Netherlands way.

615
01:05:53.200 --> 01:06:02.200
But then, what would happen? I suspect one of my co-authors would not be real happy with that. He's kind of a more conservative guy.

616
01:06:02.200 --> 01:06:10.200
But the answer for me is I would push to include such a variable if it became meaningful to do so.

617
01:06:10.200 --> 01:06:28.200
It would have no meaning in the index today. Again, if 20 countries tomorrow said we're going to legalize drugs so that we would have like 10, 20 with 10s and the rest with 0s, I would push to include that in the index.

618
01:06:28.200 --> 01:06:39.200
We have some variables that are almost like that, that are almost zero ones. I mean, you have or you don't. One example is conscription. We have military conscription, one of the 42 variables.

619
01:06:39.200 --> 01:06:47.200
This is somewhat in homage to Milton Friedman, who was a big figure in eliminating the draft in the United States.

620
01:06:47.200 --> 01:06:55.200
But, I mean, it's a violation of economic freedom to take your body and force you to go into the army.

621
01:06:55.200 --> 01:07:02.200
It's a violation, a clear violation of economic freedom, and it's something that leftists should applaud.

622
01:07:02.200 --> 01:07:22.200
So again, I would include drugs. If we had anybody legalizing drugs, I'd include it, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that either. I'm afraid it'd be hard to even score places like Netherlands, where it's such a half-assed legalization.

623
01:07:22.200 --> 01:07:25.880
you can do it on like that street but not that it's just very I don't even know

624
01:07:25.880 --> 01:07:28.920
if you can how I would score a place like Holland I mean guess it's like a

625
01:07:28.920 --> 01:07:34.840
it's not a ten it's a that's the other thing is the measurement issue would be

626
01:07:34.840 --> 01:07:43.040
an issue for us how about one more question or no more yeah

627
01:07:52.200 --> 01:08:00.200
Where would the Federal Reserve, missing out a lot of money to other central banks, where would that play in?

628
01:08:22.200 --> 01:08:30.200
monetary reserves that ended up creating M1 type money, it would show up in the index as well.

629
01:08:32.200 --> 01:08:37.200
You know, again, time will tell. I'm holding my breath on that. I don't know.

630
01:08:37.200 --> 01:08:42.200
I'm not 100% willing to say we're going to have inflation.

631
01:08:42.200 --> 01:08:47.200
I guess if you forced me to bet, I would say, yeah, we're going to have some pretty serious inflation.

632
01:08:47.200 --> 01:08:59.200
It's hard to imagine how we avoid it, but, you know, and to the extent that was exported around the world, it should show up, and it'll show up. If it shows up, it'll show up.

633
01:08:59.200 --> 01:09:10.200
I don't know, though, until I see it. There are some pretty reasonable people who are smart who say it may not be as inflationary as it appears to be on paper, but I mean, the Fed's balance sheet is a scary thing.

634
01:09:10.200 --> 01:09:40.200
I didn't pull up the Wi-Fi, but you got to take a look at the Fed's balance sheet, it's just, I mean, it's just, I mean, it's, you know, it went vertical, I mean, it's just the shockiest thing in the world, and it's not, it's not treasury bills, it's all kinds of crap that they're holding that I don't, I don't even know what that stuff's worth. I mean, actually, I hope it's worth nothing, because if it's worth nothing, then maybe it didn't go up as high as it. I mean, I hope the Fed lost all that money, really,

635
01:09:40.200 --> 01:09:44.200
That would not be inflationary, maybe, I don't know.

636
01:09:44.200 --> 01:09:46.200
Alright, thanks.