# Challenge to Economic Conservatives **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963 "2009-08-27T22:38:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/1 "2009-08-27T22:38:11Z")
I hear a lot about how laissez faire capitalism is so wonderful, and that a rising tide lifts all boats. I merely ask for one thing: Name a country that has less taxes, less regulation, and less of a social safety net than the United States does, where the median income is higher. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/2 "2009-08-27T22:59:18Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Name a country that has less taxes, less regulation, and less of a social safety net than the United States does, where the median income is higher. Take any subset of socialist countries of European Union and/or Canada Australia Japan and make any combination of countries that equal 300 million in population. I’m not aware of any combination that exceeds USA in production, economic growth, unemployment levels, technological innovation, and standard-of-living. For example, a hypothetical economic coalition of Japan+Germany+France+Britain would not exceed the USA, even though those 4 countries combined exceed the population of USA by ~30 million. (I don’t know what the composite median income of those 4 countries would be; I didn’t have time to work out the math. In any case, that metric is not important to me.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/3 "2009-08-27T23:06:14Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > I’m not aware of any combination that exceeds USA in production, economic growth, unemployment levels, technological innovation, and standard-of-living. Many countries exceed America in standard of living. Assuming of course you include such common sense factors as lifespan, health and likelihood of being assaulted or murdered in that standard instead of just including material goods and ignoring everything else. As for unemployment levels I expect it depends how you count it; America isn’t remotely realistic about how it counts the unemployed. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/4 "2009-08-27T23:08:06Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > (I don’t know what the composite median income of those 4 countries would be; I didn’t have time to work out the math. In any case, that metric is not important to me.) It’s not important to you, but I consider it important. Is the average working person (in fact, the person exactly in the middle) better off with less government involvement? I’m not bringing up the poor because I don’t want to get into the “poor are lazy and undeserving” argument (that’s been covered in countless other threads). Per capita GDP is not important to me because it tells us nothing about how a typical person is faring. For example, Bill Gates and 40 homeless bums in a room have a per capita GDP of 1 billion. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/5 "2009-08-27T23:17:19Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I hear a lot about how laissez faire capitalism is so wonderful, and that a rising tide lifts all boats. I merely ask for one thing: > > Name a country that has less taxes, less regulation, and less of a social safety net than the United States does, where the median income is higher. This is a bit of an empty game. What are your benchmark metrics. “Less regulation” really isn’t meaningful (_never mind that you are presuming laissez faire capitalism is identical to extreme US Libertarianism. Proper laissez faire thought is not ideologically opposed to regulation_), social safety net is virtually equally as vague and useless. I would propose that if you’re seeking comparatives that some baseline index be used. For the purposes of what you want to compare, it would appear that the Heritage Foundation has an index that represents the general view point you think you’re engaging. Their Top Ten for Economically Free countries is here:[http://www.heritage.org/Index/TopTen.aspx](http://www.heritage.org/Index/TopTen.aspx) Note that even they do not rate the US as No. 1. At least by using this as a reference point, one has an anchor. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/6 "2009-08-27T23:21:12Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Take any subset of socialist countries of European Union and/or Canada Australia Japan and make any combination of countries that equal 300 million in population. The EU is not “socialistic” - that is every bit as stupid as the OP’s vague framing. As you will see in the Heritage Foundation ranking, several EU members rank quite well, indeed higher than the US > [@](#): > > I’m not aware of any combination that exceeds USA in production, economic growth, unemployment levels, technological innovation, and standard-of-living. A good number of countries do better than the US in growth and overall standard of living. > [@](#): > > For example, a hypothetical economic coalition of Japan+Germany+France+Britain would not exceed the USA, even though those 4 countries combined exceed the population of USA by ~30 million. What is an “economic coalition”? That’s pure nonsense. Randomly grouping countries together to add up GDP is a meaningless exercise. One could equally throw US into a basket with Mexico and randomly compare with some flattering EU subset to make an equally meaningless point. At least EU, or perhaps core EU is has some comparable characteristics. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/7 "2009-08-27T23:22:05Z")
There isn’t one simply because the US has the highest PPP of all non-oil producing “real” countries. Besides, I don’t see your point. The US GDP per capita outstrips all of the countries that have less free economies. Isn’t that proof enough? ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/8 "2009-08-27T23:27:07Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > The EU is not “socialistic” - that is every bit as stupid as the OP’s vague framing. Give me a break. Lots of sane people describe EU in broad brush strokes as “socialistic” with no negative connotations. That’s how I’m using it here. If there is no such thing as socialism on an absolute scale than that’s fine but EU is “more” socialistic than the USA. I don’t see much disagreement there. We don’t need another “socialism” is a taboo word thread. > [@](#): > > A good number of countries do better than the US in growth and overall standard of living. I was trying to emphasize the “combination”. > [@](#): > > What is an “economic coalition”? That’s pure nonsense. Randomly grouping countries together to add up GDP is a meaningless exercise. Does the word “hypothetical” have any meaning to you? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/9 "2009-08-27T23:32:11Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Besides, I don’t see your point. The US GDP per capita outstrips all of the countries that have less free economies. Isn’t that proof enough? Not even close, if it doesn’t benefit the average person. GDP doesn’t make much sense as a goal for its own sake. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/10 "2009-08-27T23:33:41Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > At least by using this as a reference point, one has an anchor. All right, I’ll play ball using that as a reference point. I looked up the [median incomes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income) for those countries. 1. Hong Kong: $31,000 2. Singapore: $30,000 3. Australia: $38,000 4. Ireland: $35,000 5. New Zealand $41,000 6. United States: $50,233 My point stands: The guy in the middle isn’t better off in these more economically free countries. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/11 "2009-08-27T23:45:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not even close, if it doesn’t benefit the average person. GDP doesn’t make much sense as a goal for its own sake. Do you have a ranking of median income? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/12 "2009-08-27T23:50:45Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > All right, I’ll play ball using that as a reference point. I looked up the [median incomes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income) > for those countries. > > 1. Hong Kong: $31,000 > 2. Singapore: $30,000 > 3. Australia: $38,000 > 4. Ireland: $35,000 > 5. New Zealand $41,000 > 6. United States: $50,233 > > My point stands: The guy in the middle isn’t better off in these more economically free countries. Not so much. 'More economically free" needs to be defined, measured and applied and corrected for. Then, since the other countries are all not equivalent except from the standpoint of the undefined “economic freedom,” you will need to identify those pertinent differences and correct them through a regression analysis. What you have done here is the equivalent of picking out 6 women and looking at their incomes, and then rating them according to “prettiness.” Upon finding that the “prettiest” didn’t have the highest income you attempt to draw a conclusion about “prettiness” and income while ignoring factors like education, geography, background, etc. There’s a couple of other things you are doing wrong, but that should be enough to put a stake in the heart of your idea. Don’t make me come back and cut off it’s head, bury at a crossroads with garlic and whatnot, 'kay? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/13 "2009-08-27T23:54:26Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Do you have a ranking of median income? Not at hand. But you are evading the point; that isn’t the be-all and end-all of a standard of living. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/14 "2009-08-28T00:02:24Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Name a country that has less taxes, less regulation, and less of a social safety net than the United States does, where the median income is higher. Given that the US is a if not the leader of almost every industry in the world, I’m not sure what purpose is meant to be achieved by finding a second country with low taxes and less regulation. Our median income is perverted by having a significant percentage of our population still recovering from hundreds of years of slavery, followed by segregation and discrimination for a further hundred. We have also always been quite willing to take in the poor, the hungry, the huddled masses yearning to breath free…which again lowers our median since they come in poor and take several generations to work up to an equal standing. We’re not as homogeneous a society as other nations. If you don’t account for that difference, you’re not going to get reliable results. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/15 "2009-08-28T00:17:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not at hand. But you are evading the point; that isn’t the be-all and end-all of a standard of living. I never said it was, but it’s the best I have. Since you can’t seem to come up with anything better I guess I will have to stick with it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/16 "2009-08-28T00:20:27Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I never said it was, but it’s the best I have. Since you can’t seem to come up with anything better I guess I will have to stick with it. How about standard of living? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/17 "2009-08-28T00:21:28Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > How about standard of living? As defined by? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/18 "2009-08-28T00:21:47Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > All right, I’ll play ball using that as a reference point. I looked up the [median incomes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income) > for those countries. > > 1. Hong Kong: $31,000 > 2. Singapore: $30,000 > 3. Australia: $38,000 > 4. Ireland: $35,000 > 5. New Zealand $41,000 > 6. United States: $50,233 > > My point stands: The guy in the middle isn’t better off in these more economically free countries. How does that compare to the cost of living in each country? I honestly don’t know which way that would influence the list, but the fact that you didn’t recognize the need to address it doesn’t speak well for your ability to make economic arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/19 "2009-08-28T00:33:07Z")
> [@treis](#): > > As defined by? However you want. You could use gross national income per capita, and then do a pareto index thingie. I always liked refrigerators per capita. Works great except on eskimos. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963/20 "2009-08-28T00:58:59Z")
> [@treis](#): > > As defined by? Lifespan, general health, vacation time, public safety, bankruptcy rates all come to mind. To use an obvious example, you don’t find an epidemic of people in those supposedly inferior “socialist” countries ending up financially ruined due to health care costs. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenge-to-economic-conservatives/507963.md?page=2)