What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

•  
  Prowse02/19/08 Report as spam
  1

  Economic Freedom

  I think you picked the wrong economist to be approving of maximum economic freedom. Keynes approved of high levels of government intervention; Adam Smith or Hayek may have served better.

•  
  dsm@...02/19/08 Report as spam
  2

  By "liberal" you mean political, not economics

  Keynes is as far from real economic liberalism as Jimmy Carter still is from greatness. He is a leftist economist. Liberal economists are those like von Mises, Rothbart, Friedman, and most of the Austrian School. There is a confusion here between political "liberals" (which are really just re-named 1930's progressives) and the actual liberals represented by Bentham, Mills, Jefferson, and others of a more 19th Century orientation.
  Isn't PR spin an interesting thing to decipher?

•  
  scottcwilson02/20/08 Report as spam
  3

  the word liberal

  It's not really PR spin - the meaning of the word "liberal" has simply changed in the last 100 years. "Liberals" used to be interested in maximizing freedom (as opposed to intervening to achieve a specific result). Some people use the term "classic liberal" to capture the older meaning of the term.

•  
  dfyoung02/19/08 Report as spam
  4

  RE: What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

  Interesting, but I would hardly consider Keynes the poster boy for liberal
  economics. Friedman perhaps?

•  
  cbroming02/20/08 Report as spam
  5

  The Heritage Council?

  who is The Heritage Council and why does their opinion matter?

•  
  justjack03/20/08 Report as spam
  6

  Heritage Foundation=Neocon thinktank

  The mere invocation of a political-economic propaganda organization discredits this story, but a look at the map the "study" produces shows the extremist bias of the conclusions.

•  
  asellers4@...02/19/08 Report as spam
  7

  Keynesian Freedom?

  Keynesian economics, as I understand it, involves a significant amount of government intervention, well beyond the free market democracy ideal.
  High taxes, active fiscal policy, significant regulations, and extensive bureaucratic "planning" are needful things to Keynes and his followers. They are, as Ayn Rand would say, antithetical to freedom and a penalty for excellence.
  Milton Freidman and other monetarist economists are the ones who promote market solutions - property rights, low taxes, less regulation, free trade, the free movement of labor, capital, and information - these are the ideals of truly liberal economics and of truly free societies.
  All else is nothing but a road to serfdom.
  Keynes brought us nothing but ineffective and authoritarian bureaucracies, lowered living standards, and high unemployment. He wouldn't last one second in Hong Kong (though he found quite an audience in the schizophreniac governments of New York).

•  
  soetes02/19/08 Report as spam
  8

  Why does anyone still believe this?

  Talking about serfdom, I wonder whether the ordinary folks in Russia, Poland, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile (I could go on) think their dose of monetarism has made them better off.
  
  The really amazing thing is the way educated people accept this monetarist voodoo as if it's proven fact.

•  
  asellers4@...02/20/08 Report as spam
  9

  There are still Keynesians?

  History would indicate that monetarist economics and free-market economic policy is far from voodoun.
  Britain rebounded quite nicely under Thatcher, after years of misguided (and, ultimately, ineffective and destructive) socialist policies. Most socialist countries have far lower standards of living than most free-market countries. Poland, China, India, and many other examples prove the worth of the free market, and the failings of Keynesian, interventionist, fiscal policies.
  Most government agencies fail in their basic missions. They tend to hamper groth and cause nothing but misery.
  Keynesian policies fail because (amoung many other reasons) politicians never scale back spending nor increase taxes when the economy rebounds. This leads, inexorably, to inflation and (like under Carter in the US) stagflation. Fiscal policy also is far too slow to help when it's needed most.
  Government policies do not, as a rule, benefit businesses, economies, or individuals. The sole beneficiaries of government interventions are governments - legislators, bureaucrats, and civil servants. People generally act in their own self-interest, and governments are no different - but they can cause terrible economic damage.
  I'd encourage you to read the book "The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" by Yergin. (The Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "The Prize.")
  It might clue you in as to why (truly) educated people believe in monetarism, the Chicago School, and Freidman, versus Depression-era frauds like Keynes and Galbraith.
  I wonder why educated people still believe in government solutions, when history, quant economics, and common sense categorically point towards the opposite.

•  
  ksardarzaei02/20/08 Report as spam
  10

  I do believe in your message

  I have studied economics and thought more about goverment intervention effect on the economy,I think interventionist policy always go to failure especially when goverment specify a track for economy,because government can not supervise efficiently.

•  
  cbroming02/20/08 Report as spam
  11

  "free market democracy ideal"?

  sloppy thinking: you identify democracy with unregulated markets. There is no underlying necessary link between the two ideas. Open economies can exist under authoritarian political regimes (Hong Kong, Singapore, for example).
  Also, Keynes didn't bring us anything. He was an academic economist who also was a successful investor and central banker (Bank of England). He simply recognized that so-called "free" markets have been, are and always will be rigged by rules (market access laws - liquor wholesale laws, for example, consumer protections, disclosure requirements, tax rates, etc.) in any civil society and that governments always try to discourage some economic behavior and encourage others by establishing rules that - they believe - favor certain outcomes over others. The other tools (weapons) of market manipulation that governments employ consist of subsidies (direct - cash outlays - or indirect - tax breaks). His point was, in part, that since governments intervene, anyway and always, they should try to intervene wisely and judiciously.
  Since 1980, the size of federal government - as measured by its expenditures - has tripled. During this period, we have had four years of "liberal" congresses (putative gov't "expansionsists") and 21 years of "conservative" congresses (putative gov't "limiters"). The "free-market" politicians in this country (US)have attained the pinnacle of hypocrisy - spouting beliefs that are directly contrary to the actural beliefs that drive their actions.
  Keynes would have approved of much US fiscal and tax policy during the Eisenhower administration - when the highest marginal tax bracket was 90% - a favorite example of "good" government for "conservatives" politicians.
  Try reading Smith, Marshall, Ricardo, Keynes and Friedman, some day.

•  
  haeber02/19/08 Report as spam
  12

  Readers = 1 ; Writer = 0

  Chalk this up to a combination of mistaken memory from my only economics course years ago, and relying on a fellow cafe-goer for verification of my dyslexic memory.
  
  Thanks readers for your catch. My fault.

•  
  mmccomber02/19/08 Report as spam
  13

  Readers 1, Writer 0, Top Of The 2d

  I knew there were a whole slew of economics majors out there just waiting to pounce on that question they got right on their ECON 201 final so many years ago!
  
  I also knew it was just a stealth method of promoting this website without having to expend any funds:
  
  http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/
  
  You journalists are all the same, trying to pull the wool over their eyes while they think they're getting a free sweater! Yeah, you say it's 1-0 and I say it's 1-2 and your fastball is juiced!
  
  Heh heh.
  
  McM, MSEC
  ATL GA USA

•  
  soetes02/19/08 Report as spam
  14

  Not Keynes, Freedman!

  You don't mean Keynes, you mean Freedman!

•  
  shaun.marolf@...02/19/08 Report as spam
  15

  Not an economics major

  I am not an economics major but I have been to Hong Kong several times. Though I disagree with the judging method I would have to say the result is fairly accurate. Despite the many governmental overseers Hong Kong has a very vibrant economy.
  
  Something many people there feared would be shattered when Hong Kong returned to Main Land China in the early 90's. However the communists of the Main Land allowed Hong Kong to remain capitalistic. Hong Kong is a major player in world economics.
  
  Here is why I think this is. Though there are numerous regulations concerning businesses in Hong Kong they are very simple. I.E. They don't over complicate the regulations and most are made to strike a balance between the consumer's rights and the vendor's rights. Consumers expect and get fair trade of goods and services for their money and vendors expect to get paid when said same is delivered. Haggling is allowed as most businesses are small stores and shops. (There really isn't such a thing as a super center store there.)
  
  Competition is fierce so vendors are always willing to cut a good deal so long as they make a profit. Finally, though Hong Kong does have taxes they are not extreme and most taxes are actually paid by tourists and outside business men and large corporations.
  
  The hardest thing is when we look at how some Hong Kong Chinese people live we assume there is a larger separation of classes which is far from the truth. Many choose to live that way because of traditions. Reality is you would be hard pressed to find many homeless people in Hong Kong.
  
  Lets keep in mind though that Hong Kong is an Island city with a very different culture from the United States and their market traditions date back thousands of years as well. This is not to say we couldn't learn a thing or two from them. Truth is we really need to reassess some of our business practices here.

•  
  entrepreneur7602/19/08 Report as spam
  16

  RE: What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

  Did you survey forget to include Dhaka? - home of Muhammad Yunus and all his partners in future capitalism - http://www.grameen.tv

•  
  Paul Johnston02/20/08 Report as spam
  17

  RE: What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

  I thought the headline said "City". I see several countires made the "City" list.

•  
  mickhager02/20/08 Report as spam
  18

  RE: What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

  The is the most incredible use of the word "liberal" I have heard in a very long time. To be "liberal" by today's definition Hong Kong would have to be SOCIALIST!!!
  
  Hong Kong is the world's most economically free city--unregulated, unfettered and incredibly capitalistic.

•  
  lutetia3d-web@...02/20/08 Report as spam
  19

  RE: What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

  I find this passion for lists and their implied positive connotations they very funny . . . Hong Kong may be the most economically liberal city in the world but it certainly DOES NOT rank as one of the best places to live (or even VISIT). Thanks largely to Victoria Peak where one can try to get away from it all, Hong Kong is tolerable for a one-off visit but is not not a place that anyone not on a business trip would actually want to visit again and again. I (as well as many Hong Kong natives I know) would gladly take a LESS economically liberal, and far more livable city -- such as Paris, Barcelona, London, Amsterdam or Rome, over Hong Kong, any day.

•  
  leo.mol@...02/20/08 Report as spam
  20

  RE: What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

  So where is the beef? Why do articles only have a smattering of countries listed? Why not the whole list?

•  
  ksardarzaei02/20/08 Report as spam
  21

  RE: What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

  liberalizing of economy can not be the only reason for better economic performance, I think we should add social and political liberty as a base for successful performance of a liberalized economy, for example in the middle east, kingdom of saudi arabia had the most liberalized economy among 16 countries in 2006, but the united arab emirates was the most successful economy in that year beacuse gaurentee social freedom more than saudi arabia.
  
  khalil sardarzaei
  ksardar1359@gmail.com

•  
  drronsuarez@...02/24/08 Report as spam
  22

  RE: What is the Most Economically 'Free' City?

  What does the word "liberal" actually mean in this context? Was Milton Friedman's work with the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile liberal? They killed lots of people. See Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism," where she shows how "Friedman and his Chicago Boys were not all that bothered by Pinochet???s bloody rule. Quite the opposite, they recognized that their free market wet dream could never be realized in a functioning democracy and welcomed the opportunities opened up by the Chicago Boys-tutored dictatorships in Latin America???s southern cone in the 1970s."

•  
  oqleyton7@...03/18/08 Report as spam
  23

  free city, countries

  Well, Chile today is a free country, free from the comunist slavery, free to start-up businesses. Actually, the former socialists enjoys our highways, our supermarkets, our telecomunnicaction systems, and all the transformation becuase Pinochet stopped the comunists and socialist politicias from Chile.
  This country, althought the actual social-democrat parties, is still an example to follow by the others latin American countries concerning how to run the economy and the welfare of chilean people and be out of lefties ideas that always bring powerty, scarcity, lack of freedom
  
  for sure Singapur, and the "tigers from Asia", are the right path to follow is any country looks for a better economic development.