Posted on 01/04/2006 8:15:59 AM PST by grundle
The 2006 Index of Economic Freedom measures 161 countries against a list of 50 independent variables divided into 10 broad factors of economic freedom. Low scores are more desirable. The higher the score on a factor, the greater the level of government interference in the economy and the less economic freedom a country enjoys.
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
I find it hard to believe that Hong Kong is number 1. Surely the thought that at any moment China could do whatever it pleases would downgrade them.
bump
Ping!
Mentioned but not downgraded.
The U.S. Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, Kelo v. City of New London ruling on eminent domain exposes many Americans' property to arbitrary seizure; and while countries in Eastern Europe are adopting flat taxes, deregulating, and privatizing, the U.S. may be drifting toward bigger government. The U.S. has continued a leadership role in free trade with eight ratified free trade agreements, another signed agreement, and ongoing negotiations with other countries. However, continued use of the "anti-dumping" Byrd Amendment, combined with anti-China rhetoric, indicates an ongoing protectionist mindset. Moreover, legislated government spending under such laws as the massive farm subsidies of 2002, the massive Medicare prescription entitlement of 2003, and the massive transportation bill of 2005 has expanded without constraints, and Sarbanes�Oxley and other regulatory laws have raised compliance costs. ....Court's Kelo decision seriously undermines, or effectively eliminates, the U.S. Constitution's requirement that private property may be taken only for a "public use." Unless the decision is reversed or countered with legislative protections that stop the abuse of eminent domain, the practice will be difficult to isolate, and evidence of extensive use of this decision could be grounds for downgrading this factor in future editions of the Index. An even more serious problem is that governments at all levels impose numerous regulatory and land-use controls that diminish the value and enjoyment of private property. Examples include extensive "growth controls"; unreasonable zoning hurdles; facility permitting regimes; and far-reaching environmental, wetlands, and habitat restrictions on the use and development of real estate. Thus, the protections for private property are undermined by a vast bureaucracy that has the power to interfere substantially with many property rights.
For years, each time the index has come out, they talked about the threats to property rights. For years, they kept threatening to downgrade the rating, and said they were waiting for a Supreme Court ruling.
But now that such a Supreme Court ruling has come, they did not downgrade their rating. It appears that their past threats to downgrade the rating were empty.
If Kelo had happened in any other country, the country's rating would have been downgraded. They are giving the U.S. unfair special treatment in the ratings. I am very disappointed at this.
And on the other end, didn't we free Haiti to let them exercise their own free will back in the 90's?
Ping regarding Kelo v. New London.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Ireland
The U.S. fell out of the top ten for the first time last year. And your "they said" comment is BS.
The rating for the Property Rights cateogory for the U.S. has always been 1.0.
My comment about "they said" is true.
BS. The Index has some 50 variables. Your fixation on one is myopic. As far as the truth of your "they said" comment, prove it and I'll apologize.
This is from the 2005 Index. This is from post 2 in this thread. The bolding is mine:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1315444/posts
Property Rights
Score:1.0
The United States does very well in most measures of property rights protection, including an independent judiciary, a sound commercial code and other laws for the resolution of property disputes between private parties, and the recognition of foreign arbitration and court rulings. However, the concerns outlined in recent years linger. Uncompensated government expropriations of property remain highly unlikely, but local governments’ abuse of eminent domain power with the seizure of private land (with some compensation) and its transfer to another party for a non-public or quasi-public use has become more common—despite some successful legal challenges to that practice. An even more serious problem is that governments at all levels impose numerous regulatory and land-use controls that diminish the value and enjoyment of private property. Examples include extensive “growth controls”; unreasonable zoning hurdles; facility permitting regimes; and far-reaching environmental, wetlands, and habitat restrictions on the use and development of real estate. Thus, the protections for private property are undermined by a vast bureaucracy that has the power to interfere substantially with many property rights. The level of protection for property in the United States will depend eventually on whether the courts and legislative bodies place clear limits on bureaucratic power or require cost-effective remedies for property owners whose rights have been affected. The Supreme Court’s performance in such government “takings” cases has been decidedly mixed in recent years. The past year was a disappointment, with the Court declining to hear any important case, including three cases challenging the constitutional scope of the national wetlands regulations.
http://cf.heritage.org/index2004test/country2.cfm?id=Unitedstates
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Score: 1.0
The United States does very well in most measures of property rights protection, including an independent judiciary, a sound commercial code and other laws for the resolution of property disputes between private parties, and the recognition of foreign arbitration and court rulings. However, the concerns outlined in the 2003 Index linger. Uncompensated government expropriations of property remain highly unlikely, but local governments’ abuse of eminent domain power with the seizure of private land (with some compensation) and its transfer to another party for a non-public or quasi-public use has become more common—despite some successful legal challenges to that practice. An even more serious problem is that governments at all levels impose numerous regulatory and land-use controls that diminish the value and enjoyment of private property. Examples include extensive “growth controls”; unreasonable zoning hurdles; facility permitting regimes; and far-reaching environmental, wetlands, and habitat restrictions on the use and development of real estate. Thus, the protections for private property are undermined by a vast bureaucracy that has the power to interfere substantially with many property rights. The level of protection for property in the United States may eventually turn on whether the courts place clear limits on bureaucratic power or require cost-effective remedies for property owners whose rights have been affected. In recent years, the Supreme Court’s performance in such government “takings” cases has been decidedly mixed. The past year was a disappointment, with the Court reversing itself in Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington and holding that states may seize the interest from certain attorney–client trust accounts and not pay compensation.
"Didn't Ireland have a Terrorist/Poverty problem a while back? Wonder what they did to turn things around?"
I think they reduced taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.