User:Cretog8/Scratchpad6

Recent note CRETOG8(t/c) 17:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC): Check on interpretation of Altman's results re: this diff, and in general.

Reducing this to just notes since the economic freedom article is in flux.

For "rule of law" section: Private property rights: mention... Government assignment of property rights can also be a limit on economic freedom. The clearest case of this is inintellectual property?

test

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argued that "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends." Hayek criticized social democratic policies as starting the slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Economists such as Gordon Tullock have argued that Hayek's analysis predicted totalitarian governments in much of Europe in the late 20th century. While praising the classical liberal notion of economic freedom, Tullock used as a counter-example to "the Hayek-Friedman argument" Sweden, in which the government at that time controlled 63 percent of GNP. Tullock says, "The basic problem with The Road to Serfdom was that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden has not led to any loss of non-economic freedoms." Tullock still praises the classical liberal notion of economic freedom, saying, "Arguments for political freedom are strong, as are the arguments for economic freedom. We needn’t make one set of arguments depend on the other."

Others say Hayek's argument was weaker, that (according to Robert Skidelsky), "Hayek at least safeguarded himself from such retrospective refutation." Skidelsky argues that Hayek's argument was contingent, and that, "By the 1970s there was some evidence of the slippery slope…and then there was Thatcher. Hayek's warning played a critical part in her determination to 'roll back the state.'"

Related articles

List of countries by economic freedom Indices of economic freedom

EF OR

Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Economic_freedom CRETOG8(t/c) 22:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Labor rights

Labor rights include, and are protected by, the freedom to organize labor unions and engage in collective bargaining.

John L. Lewis argued that collective bargaining was an outgrowth of economic freedom in the form of private property and freedom of contract.

Mancur Olson writes that collective bargaining rights may be in conflict with economic freedom, but believes it is a necessary trade-off.

Labor leaders such as John L. Lewis and A. Philip Randolph argued that other rights could be unimportant to a worker without satisfactory economic prospects, and that unions, as democratic organizations of workers, were the best institution to protect those prospects. At times, collective bargaining rights and freedom of contract can be in conflict.

Poverty and inequality

Amartya Sen sees poverty and economic inequality as barriers to freedom.

According to Friedrich Hayek, equality before the law is incompatible with any activity of the government aiming to achieve the material equality of different people. He asserts that a state's attempt to place people in the same (or similar) material position leads to an unequal treatment of individuals and to a compulsory redistribution of income.

Freedom from government interference and freedom from poverty can coexist.

(Freedom from want)

notes

Economic historian Daniel Jacoby describes tension between individual freedom to contract and collective action for practical freedom, and argues that workers should not be allowed to contract away their rights:

History reminds us that collective action has been essential in our struggle for freedom. It also reminds us that collective action invariably threatens individual liberties; that to act collectively is to attempt to bind individuals to their larger group interest.

Eleanor Roosevelt:

By defining democracy as the presumption of freedom we guard against the notion that freedom can be absolutized. When absolutized it becomes nonfreedom ... economic freedom moves toward monopoly, exploitation, and unemployment... (some more)

Lord:Watt took the case of the steam engine to parliament to extend the patent.

The Mercantilist philosophy, of course, supported patent rights and monopolies, and though, in 1775, Burke raised his voice for freedom, and against the patent, Watt's Bill was passed by both Houses, and his monopoly extended to 1800.

Friedman noted trouble with intellectual property: [1]

"Order in the jungle", Economist (magazine), Mar 13, 2008

"[I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept "workers' democracy" as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done." [2]

Criticism from the more-libertarian: [3], [4]

Copied June 23, 2008. This looks like pretty well-written, but still POV. Try to figure out how to redeem it. See Talk:Economic_freedom#NPOV_tag_again

Generally, it needs sources from less right-identified sources. Friedman and Hayek are good and all, but don't encourage belief in NPOV.

The term itself does need some qualification. For instance, some people would strongly believe that unions promote economic freedom, while others would argue they diminish it. (I wonder how the indices deal with that?)

Question: do studies show that economic freedom causes these good things, or does it show association? I hate to bang the "correlation is not causality" drum, since that's way over-used, but it is worth looking into.

Not a great source, but a place to look for inspiration: [5], "The successful effort by the Heritage Foundation and its allies to capture the term "economic freedom" is not just a propaganda coup, it is a heist."

Worth noting is that, as long as so much of the article relies on conservative-agenda sources, it's fair to balance that with liberal-agenda sources. Of course, it would be better to use little of either.

Criticism (someone must have made it)--by aggregating into a single dimension, studies of "economic freedom" lose much of their analytic power. Some parts may be negatively correlated to growth, but that might be invisible. (Probably already been handled by the Fraser Institute?)

It's also worth considering that those constructing the indices in the first place knew a lot about the supposed "effects" when they were deciding the "causes".

"Partisans of different economic systems ... can sometimes accept "economic freedom" for individuals as an objective held in common. But after they have done so, one seldom finds them closer to agreement on policy ...",

Intellectual property would be another area where "economic freedom" would mean different things to different people.

"The economic power exercised by these corporate employers in the field of labor relations, demands some faith counterpoise in the collective power of the workers. After all, the labor unions are rooted in the institutions of our country. They are grounded on the rights of private property. They exist in response to the wage system. Their claim to negotiate collectively with employers is the assertion of that freedom of contract which is the basis of economic freedom.", John L. Lewis [6]

The problem is we don't want "Economic Freedom" to become a political term. After all, choice is good, life is good, democracy is good, fairness is good, therefore Pro-choice, Pro-life, Economic democracy, and Fair trade are all good, right?

Check out John J. Lewis biography

Book "The C. I. O. and Free Enterprise", p.114? [7]

FDR speech: [8]

Look for A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin

Also, book [9] includes references to Lewis-affiliated organization "American association for economic freedom". Hard to find much else on it.

"In response to the race riots of 1919, Randolph and Owen formed the National Association for the Promotion of Labor Unionism Among Negroes. Soon a group of Pullman car workers asked Randolph to help them organize the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters." at [10]

"Mr. Randolph's struggle for equality for oppressed people was reached when he headed the famous "March on Washington, in which more than 250.000 Americans joined together under the slogan of "Jobs and Freedom." Still relentlessly pressing for full economic freedom, Mr. Randolph then presented, in 1966, the Freedom Budget to the nation. This called for the spending of $185 billion over ten years by the U.S. government to fight against poverty, "The labor movement traditionally has been the only haven for the dispossessed, the despised, the neglected, the downtrodden and the poor."" at [11]

March on Washington for jobs and freedom

A. Philip Randolph Institute

[12]

"Political Freedom without economic equality is a pretense, a fraud, a lie; and the workers want no lying." Mikhail Bakunin

recent student essay?

Lewis on National Industrial Recovery Act, National Industrial Recovery Act. [13]

old book review on monopoly

Wilson speech

Likely to be material in Wage slavery

this was linked earlier, but removed

criticism edit

Things to look for: "As Gastil and Wright shared their views on economic liberty, it was obvious that they differed significantly from those of most conference participants. The Gastil-Wright approach reflected the Freedom House perspective that democratic political procedures and civil liberties were the most important aspects of freedom. According to this philosophy, highly progressive taxation and large income transfers are entirely consistent with individual liberty, if policies in these areas are approved by democratic majorities of legislative bodies. For the presentation of this view, see Lindsey M. Wright, "A Comparative Survey of Economic Freedoms" in Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 1982, ed. Raymond D. Gastil (Westport and London: Greenwood Press, 1982), pp. 51-90 and Raymond D. Gastil and Lindsey M. Wright, "The State of the World: Political and Economic Freedom," in Freedom, Democracy and Economic Welfare, ed. Michael Walker (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1988), pp. 85-119. For a detailed criticism of this view, see Alvin Rabushka "Freedom House Survey of Economic Freedoms," in Economic Freedom: Toward a Theory of Measurement, ed. Walter Block (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1991), pp.57-71."

Raymond Gastil and Lindsay Wright of Freedom House took part with in mid-1980's discussions about studying economic freedom. Michael A. Walker of the Fraser Institute noted that:

As Gastil and Wright shared their views on economic liberty, it was obvious that they differed significantly from those of most conference participants. The Gastil-Wright approach reflected the Freedom House perspective that democratic political procedures and civil liberties were the most important aspects of freedom. According to this philosophy, highly progressive taxation and large income transfers are entirely consistent with individual liberty, if policies in these areas are approved by democratic majorities of legislative bodies.