Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone?

  1. Oct 16, 2012 #1
    Does economic freedom = deregulation?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 16, 2012 #2
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    That has been the conservative plan for how long now? That is nothing new, they've been touting that plan since I was a new born, which was about 20 years ago.

    Economic freedom in what sense, Greg??
     
  4. Oct 16, 2012 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Generally, yes. Clearly, that must be done with care to avoid abuse.
     
  5. Oct 16, 2012 #4
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Economic freedom for whom?
     
  6. Oct 16, 2012 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Everyone.

    That's what across-the-board tax cuts do, for example. A trillion dollars in tax cuts and a trillion dollars in stimulus have the same initial effect on the country's balance sheet, but the tax cuts give you the choice of how to spend the money whereas the direct stimulus is the government choosing where to spend the money (on failing alternate energy companies...?).
     
  7. Oct 16, 2012 #6
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone? Wages have been going down for 20+ years now, so I don't see much of the benefits. That is, unless, I am looking at it the wrong way. But cite some sources please.
     
  8. Oct 16, 2012 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Romney's tax cut

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-debate-romney-tax-20121003,0,3813713.story
     
  9. Oct 16, 2012 #8
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Look at economies of HK or Singapore. I doubt the US will ever have same kind of economy as those countries because you see different party every 4 years, removing all polices from the previous administration. You need a period of far more than 4 years to have something to work, government having different economic perspectives every 4 years is damaging IMO.
     
  10. Oct 16, 2012 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    I'm not sure what you are asking. What do lower wages (factual inaccuracy of the assertion aside) have to do with economic freedom/lack thereof? What are you asking me to source?
     
  11. Oct 16, 2012 #10
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    EDIT: Was responding in the debate thread, but then it ended up here.
     
  12. Oct 16, 2012 #11
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    I see now.

    @russ: I just don't know what economic freedom entails exactly. My initial thinking of it was on the fact that it had something to do with wage earning and companies being able to increase their bottom line, i.e. profit, therefore helping their employees earn more money. I am still unclear on your point though. I am also asking for a source to what you're saying so I can read a bit more into it and do my own research from there.
     
  13. Oct 16, 2012 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    I'm not sure I can provide you a source beyond a simple definition. Economic freedom equaling a lack of regulation is basically a tautology. It is tough to write a one-sentence description of economic freedom without mentioning the lack of regulation. For example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faires

    And I feel compelled to hit this again - this wrongness is stated too often to be allowed to go unchallenged:
    This is triply wrong:
    1. Only 1 of the six primary population brackets currently has an average income below what it was 20 years ago: the bottom quintile, by 1%. The bottom quintile is largely a function of unemployment rate though, not just wages, and unemployed people could have been in any quintile before becoming unemployed.
    2. While every income bracket is below its most recent peak, none of those peaks occurred 20 years ago (all were much less). Since incomes are cyclical with the economy, they never go up or down for more than about 5 years at a time, but over a long time trend up, so whether one wants to imply a continuous drop or cherry pick from the top to the bottom of a cycle or adjacent cycles, it is wrong either way.
    3. This is part prediction: while only two (the top two) of the six brackets saw increases from 2010 to 2011, the others were almost flat in that period, suggesting all brackets will see increases from 2011-2012 (it is October, after all). In other words, wages in all income brackets are currently going up, not down.

    Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H03AR_2011.xls [Broken]

    If you prefer hourly wages instead of household income (you did use the word "wage"), the data has less depth in that it is only the overall average, but it tells the same story, though with a less pronounced effect of the economic cycle (due to not counting unemployment): http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=773
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  14. Oct 16, 2012 #13
    I get it in that sense but I was thinking Greg was speaking about economic freedom in the sense of economic prosperity which was along the lines I was thinking when the question was posed. But of course, I agree that deregulation means more freedom, but more freedom is never necessarily good in my opinion.
     
  15. Oct 16, 2012 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If freedom means freedom and prosperity means prosperity, why would someone say freedom when they mean prosperity?
     
  16. Oct 17, 2012 #15
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Percent increases over from 1967 till 2011 for the adjusted to todays dollar data.

    Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H03AR_2011.xls [Broken]
    (the 2nd set of data)

    Lowest 119%
    2nd 112%
    3rd 120%
    4th 137%
    5th 170%
    top 5 188%

    Was this how trickle down was supposed to work?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  17. Oct 17, 2012 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Yes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  18. Oct 17, 2012 #17
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    So the richest people got tax cuts for them to have a bigger increase in money than the lower class?
     
  19. Oct 17, 2012 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    That's confusingly written: you're aware that Bush's tax cuts were for everyone, right?
     
  20. Oct 17, 2012 #19
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Your link makes sense but I don't understand your percentages.

    The key numbers as I see it are

    1980 income in 2011 dollars

    11,201; 27877; 46,000; 67,770; 120,834; 180571

    2011 income

    11,231; 29,204; 49,842; 80,080; 178,020; 311,444

    Wage stagnation for the bottom half of the economy, and larger and larger wage increases for the upper half.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  21. Oct 17, 2012 #20
    In the context of my post to which I laid out above, I've covered this and I don't feel like going over it again.

    But to your link, sure, you could make the argument but that link does not cover the devaluation of the American dollar either (or, factor it in but I was wrong on employee wages decreasing). However, employees work more hours yet aren't paid to the degree of production, a 3%-10% increase isn't much either when compared with other factors.

    The tax cuts seems to diminish growth in my honest opinion. Everyone gets a tax deduction isn't a feasible plan from what I've observed.

    Why would you decrease taxes yet keep spending at the same rate? Doesn't make sense to me. You'd have to decrease spending to keep up with the taxes, but the decrease in spending doesn't exactly bode well for public sector jobs either to which we would see cutbacks, i.e. teachers, police, firemen, etc... The current tax system in my opinion, doesn't work and needs to be raise, not cut even further.

    Let the Bush tax cuts expire, this little growth isn't enough.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2012
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone?
  1. How old is everyone? (Replies: 10)

Loading...