[javert]

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years)

That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception.

China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US (and most other places), and that's why they have seen economic "miracles."

If your argument is, "You don't have to have 100% freedom to have economic prosperity," _that_ is true, but it's not an interesting observation. No country in history has (quite) been a utopia of freedom.

> The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems.

You're treating the "global business community" like it's a "class," in the Marxist sense: a bunch of people who all think alike. In fact, there are just a bunch of individuals.

Most businessmen have similar values and ideas to the rest of the culture. Which is to say, not great, not horrible.

I plan to go into business eventually in some form, and I hope you don't justify punishing _me_ on the basis of your characterization of the "global business community."

[rayiner]

You're playing fast and loose with the word "free." Sure, no country in history has ever been a utopia of freedom, but I don't consider any country "free" in any sense of the word (even "1% free") that doesn't have meaningful democracy. Indeed, that's what "freedom" has meant for the better part of the last 300-400 years: political self-determination, not "economic freedom."

I can't look at a map and conceive of living in any country without a functioning democracy, even though such democracies often curtail economic freedom for the greater good. And I think most people feel the same way, deep down. There is a reason the Chinese crawl over themselves to come to America, not the other way around.

[mseebach]

What China shows (and what counters the US rhetoric) is that evidently economic freedom can (at least to some extend) cause prosperity without political freedom. Common wisdom has predicted the rise of some kind of political freedom in China for years now, but what has actually been seen to be on the rise is better governance - an oft-cited example is the case of Bo Xilai[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai#Downfall

[Steko]

"What China shows"

We certainly haven't seen the endgame of China's development. Confidently claiming that China has 'prosperity without political freedom' is simply playing fast and loose with terminology. The stronger and more educated the middle class gets, the more freedoms they demand.

Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships but get freer every year. Still it took decades of small steps to get where they are today (legitimate elections, opposition parties winning) and clearly China has a long road to even get to where those neighbors are today.

"some kind of political freedom"

While 2013 China is no poster boy for freedom hasn't the situation improved every decade for 40 years? Isn't China today far more permissive and free than in the past? Obviously in terms of elections maybe not so much but looking only at elections might be ignoring real gains made in rule of law, property rights, speech and social freedoms.

[rayiner]

The issue is causation. The American mantra for the last 50 years has been that freedom causes economic development. What we're seeing with China is economic prosperity causing increased pressure for political freedom (though at a dramatically slower rate than I think Americans circa 1960 would have predicted).

[Steko]

Definitely in agreement on the causation running the other way.

[enraged_camel]

>>There is a reason the Chinese crawl over themselves to come to America, not the other way around.

Yes, it's called "wanting to be able to make a decent living." Not "wanting to be able to say whatever one wants."

It turns out the latter is not a prerequisite of the former.

[jisaacstone]

`Free` means `able to do X`

`Vote in national elections` is the most common value of X when comparing OECDs to China, but it is not a very useful one.

The more important political freedoms (free speech, freedom of assembly, free press) are all restricted in China, but the general trend is toward less restriction, albeit with more monitoring. (The insightful will point out we are restricted and monitored in every country, but I respond there is an order of magnitude difference)

Economic freedoms are being relinquished at a much faster pace, and since that is what most people encounter in the day-to-day the average Chinese citizen will think you are pretty silly for saying he or she is not 'free'.

But the big issue for quality of life of the citizens of every country is transparency and the rule of law. And while China has been making major strides forward in the rule of law it still has abysmal transparency.

And that is a much more worrying thing than any voting metric.

[rayiner]

Since when is it not a useful value of X? Maybe it's not a flattering value of X...

Since the Enlightenment, freedom has meant political freedom. That's why the Bill of Rights has explicit guarantees about the freedom of the press and nothing, textually, about starting a business.

Yes, this is an ethnocentric way of looking at things, but my comment was made as an American criticizing American businessmen.

[javert]

No. Freedom means not having force initiated against you. That is what it has always meant, and that is the common-sense definition that normal people use.

Sure, politicians and others try to distort freedom to mean something else all the time - like "political self-determination" (i.e., the majority can dispose of you; see India, or even Soviet Russia, for an example). But they need to be called out on it, just like I'm doing now.

[rayiner]

> No. Freedom means not having force initiated against you. That is what it has always meant, and that is the common-sense definition that normal people use.

No, that's not what it means (in the political context, anyway), it's not the definition that normal people use, and importantly, it is not how the term has been used for hundreds of years in western political literature and philosophy. You can't just go around appropriating words and giving them your own idiosyncratic meanings.

[javert]

You said that freedom means "political self-determination." But what you apparently mean by "self-determination," is "majority-determination."

You should read "1984." It covers doublespeak. Apparently, in the sources you read, doublespeak about "freedom" has been going on for about 300-400 years.

[rayiner]

The "self" in "self-determination" refers to the people, not individuals.

[javert]

That wasn't lost on me. That was my point.

A better word for it would be "group-determination" or "people-determination."

[joonix]

How can you say China is "economically free" with a straight face? Surely people can't believe this. Try to import something into China. Try to take RMB out of it. etc etc. It's one of the most centrally planned economies out there with much of its wealth generated by state-owned companies.

[javert]

I said it was _more_ economically free than the US. That's setting a very low bar. The US is a quagmire of mostly (not entirely) pointless regulatory agencies, lawyers, and high taxes. I've heard from businessmen that it's _much, much_ easier to start a business in China.

Of course, if you're a huge multinational business, you can just devote .001% of your income to lawyers in the US to make those problems somewhat go away. But that situation is not relevant to me, personally.

Of course, you are going to be able to find particular issues where the US is better. For all I know, it may be harder to move RMB in and out of China than it is to move dollars in and out of the USA.

[Symmetry]

Between various sorts of capital controls, the huge amount of state owned business, and endemic corruptions I don't see any way you could talk about China being more economically free than the us, unless it's maybe in that many regulations are only sometimes enforced. I disagree with some of Heritage's methodology in their rankings, but they're consistent and there's no measure by which China is ahead of the US in the categories they look at. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

[SiVal]

I have friends and relatives running businesses in China, and I've seen the strange way that corruption makes them more economically free, in important ways, than business owners in the US. These freedoms aren't measurable by ordinary means, but they are very real.

It's difficult to know for sure, but my impression is that the number of regulations on businesses are about the same in China and the US. The difference is that, while Americans have to spend their days doing paperwork to comply with all of the regulations, the Chinese can sweep most of them out of their path by making a single payment to their local, corrupt Communist official. Best of all, no paperwork is involved!

The reduction in economic friction of letting business owners just spend their time running the business for profits instead of for regulatory compliance is enormous, and it's available for a quick "tax" payment.

As the business grows, they need to move up the Communist Party food chain and pay bigger guys more money. The bigger guys then order their subordinates to stay out of the way of the business. I've been driven down long stretches of beautiful, almost empty highway in China in a black luxury car at 150 km/h (~93mph), passing dozens of police cars along the way, and been assured that they (the cops) wouldn't bother us, because "they know who we are". That required regional authority, not local.

Of course, part of this "freedom" is the agreement to not do the unforgivable: criticize the government. Your bribes cover most issues but can't cover that one. Fortunately, that's not an issue for most businesses, because they don't make money by criticizing the government.

It's amazing how much more economic value a business can create if it gets to spend all of its time doing business instead of doing paperwork. It's also scary how easy it is for those to pay the bribes to harm those who don't (pollution, dangerous working conditions, etc.) Eliminating all regulation would be a bad idea, but there should be some measurement of how much friction loss is caused by government regulation.

Some regulations (enforced, of course) are generally helpful to an economy. Some are harmful to everyone except the regulators (worth money and power to them). The Chinese corruption way is the wrong way to go, but I'd like to see our regulators having to live within a "regulatory budget", which prevented them from adding regulatory friction every time they saw an opportunity.

[tptacek]

China is not remotely as economically free as the US. More than half of Chinese workers are employed by state-owned businesses. State-owned businesses generate something like 40% of all Chinese business profits, often by wielding monopolies.

[PeterisP]

Freedom and "economic freedom" are two orthogonal, completely different things. You can (and often do) have one without the other and vice versa.

[dmix]

Not according to Milton Friedman:

> In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman developed the argument that economic freedom, while itself an extremely important component of total freedom, is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He commented that centralized control of economic activities was always accompanied with political repression.

> He argues that, with the means for production under the auspices of the government, it is nearly impossible for real dissent and exchange of ideas to exist. Additionally, economic freedom is important, since any "bi-laterally voluntary and informed" transaction must benefit both parties to the transaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

So for example, if something like free speech is limited, economic transactions are no longer free if either side has limited information. Or if you are investing money and the government has manipulated public perception about the market or the economy itself, there is a hazard.

[danielweber]

I'm going to ask for some more explanation of how China is more economically free than the US. What are my property rights like?

[lostlogin]

Well, its more free in that you canbribe people safe in the knowledge that this is how the ruling class have acted since Mao (maybe longer?). It's just a business transaction. You can also top up your milk's protein measurements by adding melamine, then use your bribing ability to shut down investigations into the dead babies. The fraud aspect is a greater freedom. Copy and steal overseas companies products and make knockoffs, with no risk of being sued, yet another freedom.

[CamperBob2]

You can also top up your milk's protein measurements by adding melamine, then use your bribing ability to shut down investigations into the dead babies.

Yes, you can do that if your idea of a good time is a date with a firing squad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-m...

[lostlogin]

Not sure if that was punishing the crime or punishing the crime because the story broke and the world knows. How many stories are there that never got out, and no one was punished? Good find, I wasn't aware of that part of the story.

[rwmj]

Why are property rights (ie. a government granted monopoly) an indication of freedom?

Edit: I literally mean property rights, not "IP".

[lolcraft]

What? No.

> There is not a single exception. [of lack of economic freedom and economic prosperity]

Except China -- Mostly Unfree. And Brazil -- Mostly Unfree. And Argentina -- don't you know it's Repressed, of all things, according to Heritage's bullshit, yet still a G-15. And Russia -- Mostly Unfree.

You know, I just cannot fathom how someone could seriously say Bahrein is more free than Argentina, for any meaningful sense of the term. I mean, in Bahrein atheists are put to death, FFS. Just goes to show how intellectually bankrupt and self-deluded the Heritage Foundation is.

> a "class," in the Marxist sense: a bunch of people who all think alike. [...] I hope you don't justify punishing _me_ on the basis of your characterization of the "global business community."

I get you're a budding capitalist and all that, but you could at least read the philosophy of your enemies to criticize them. And stop victimizing yourself, while you're at it.

But I guess my main point is, congratulations, you took the noble, if largely unrealized, principles of the European forefathers, passed down since the Athenians through Robespierre, Paine, Marat, Jefferson, Bakunin, even Lenin... and then turned them in for the petty ideals of a shopkeeper.

[javert]

> Except China -- Mostly Unfree. And Brazil -- Mostly Unfree. And Argentina -- don't you know it's Repressed, of all things, according to Heritage's bullshit, yet still a G-15. And Russia -- Mostly Unfree.

They are all approximately prosperous relative to their economic freedom. Your list here isn't very helpful, because rather than comparing two contries and their relative economic freedom in the historical context, you're just saying "Mostly Unfree." That's like saying, "That country gets a 20," without specifying any meaningful scale.

> You know, I just cannot fathom how someone could seriously say Bahrein is more free than Argentina, for any meaningful sense of the term. I mean, in Bahrein atheists are put to death, FFS.

First, I didn't say that. "Economic prosperity" != "One rich group of families and everyone else is poor." Also, religious freedom != economic freedom.

So, yeah, you're just making a mockery of what I said.

> I get you're a budding capitalist and all that, but you could at least read the philosophy of your enemies to criticize them. And stop victimizing yourself, while you're at it.

> But I guess my main point is, congratulations, you took the noble, if largely unrealized, principles of the European forefathers, passed down since the Athenians through Robespierre, Paine, Marat, Jefferson, Bakunin, even Lenin... and then turned them in for the petty ideals of a shopkeeper.

You've stooped to the level of doling out personal insults. I don't get why you would do this. Does it help your argument? No. Does it provide intellectual stimulation? No. Is it within the ethics of this community? No.

[pod4369]

"That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception."

And your source is...? The eyeball test?

[EliRivers]

"Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes."

So why isn't Somalia, for example, the richest country on earth?

[dmix]

Lawless != freedom.

For example, the fair enforcement of property or contract laws is essential for economic prosperity.

Also the comment you cited implies relative prosperity within the country itself, not compared to every country in the world.

[EliRivers]

So what's actually needed is not freedom but a set of enforced laws conducive to economic prosperity.

[dmix]

Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation

An uncorrupted legal system, as well as police force, are a necessity for healthy economic functions. Those are the two biggest things Somalia is lacking.

[dragonwriter]

> Enforcement of property or contract laws != regulation

Property and contract laws are compulsory rules backed by government force and, therefore, regulation in every meaningful sense.

They may be desirable regulation (even assuming a value system where regulation, but for certain special exceptional cases, is undesirable), but calling them "not regulation" is just an exercise in creatively redefining terms to prevent communication.

[dmix]

Indeed - backed by court systems.

Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.