U.S. election should focus or what works and what doesn’t work

As Republicans and Democrats make their final pitch to voters, they’ve converged on some common themes. Kamala Harris wants to regulate the price of food. Donald Trump wants to regulate the price of credit. Harris wants the tax code to favour the 2.5 per cent of workers who earn tips. So does Trump. Harris wants the government to steer more labour and capital into manufacturing. And so does Trump.

With each of these proposals, the candidates think the United States would be better off if the government made more economic decisions and—by implication—if individual citizens made fewer economic decisions. Both should pay closer attention to Zimbabwe. Yes, Zimbabwe.

Why does a country with abundant natural resources, rich culture and unparalleled beauty have one-sixth the average income of neighbouring Botswana? While we’re at it, why do twice as many children die in infancy in Azerbaijan as across the border in Georgia? Why do Hungarians work 20 per cent longer than their Austrian neighbours but earn 45 per cent less? Why is extreme poverty 200 times more common in Laos than across the Mekong River in Thailand?

Or how about this one: Why were more than one-quarter of Estonians formerly exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution when the country was socialist while today nearly every Estonian breathes clean air in what is ranked the cleanest country in the world.

These are anecdotes. However, the plural of anecdote is data, and through careful and systematic study of the data, we can learn what works and what doesn’t. Unfortunately, the populist economic policies in vogue among Democrats and Republicans do not work.

What does work is economic freedom.

Economic freedoms are a subset of human freedoms. When people have more economic freedom, they are allowed to make more of their own economic choices—choices about work, about buying and selling goods and services, about acquiring and using property, and about forming contracts with others.

For nearly 30 years, the Fraser Institute has been measuring economic freedom across countries. On one hand, governments can stop people from making their own economic choices through taxes, regulations, barriers to trade and manipulation of the value of money (see the proposals of Harris and Trump above). On the other hand, governments can enable individual economic choice by protecting people and their property.

The index published in Fraser’s annual Economic Freedom of the World report incorporates 45 indicators to measure how governments either prevent or enable individual economic choice. The result reveals the degree of economic freedom in 165 countries and territories worldwide, with data going back to 1970.

According to the latest report, comparatively wealthy Botswanans rank 84 places ahead of Zimbabweans in terms of the economic freedom their government permits them. Georgians rank 107 places ahead of Azerbaijanis, Thais rank 60 places ahead of Laotians, and Austrians are 32 places ahead of Hungarians.

The benefits of economic freedom go far beyond anecdotes and rankings. As Estonia—once one of the least economically free places in the world and now among the freest—dramatically shows, freer countries tend not only to be more prosperous but greener and healthier.

In fact, economists and other social scientists have conducted nearly 1,000 studies using the index to assess the effect of economic freedom on different aspects of human wellbeing. Their statistical comparisons include hundreds and sometimes thousands of data points and carefully control for other factors like geography, natural resources and disease environment.

Their results overwhelmingly support the idea that when people are permitted more economic freedom, they prosper. Those who live in freer places enjoy higher and faster-growing incomes, better health, longer life, cleaner environments, more tolerance, less violence, lower infant mortality and less poverty.

Economic freedom isn’t the only thing that matters for prosperity. Research suggests that culture and geography matter as well. While policymakers can’t always change people’s attitudes or move mountains, they can permit their citizens more economic freedom. If more did so, more people would enjoy the living standards of Botswana or Estonia and fewer people would be stuck in poverty.

As for the U.S., it remains relatively free and prosperous. Whatever its problems, decades of research cast doubt on the notion that America would be better off with policies that chip away at the ability of Americans to make their own economic choices.

Author:

Matthew D. Mitchell

Senior Fellow in the Centre for Economic Freedom, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #MatthewMitchell #USElection EconomicFreedom USEconomy

Up Next

Joe Rogan Tells Elon Musk He ‘Changed’ History By Buying Twitter, Calls Out Previous Government Interference

Don't Miss

Canada’s Digital ID Drama Heats Up as Regulators Sidestep Parliament

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Is There Any Canadian Province More Proud of their Premier Today…

Business / 8 hours ago

Trump signs executive order banning government censorship

International / 8 hours ago

Trump orders U.S. withdrawal from World Health Organization

Business

Our energy policies have made us more vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs

Published on January 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jason Clemens

As Donald Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Monday, threatens to impose tariffs on Canadian exports including oil and natural gas, the calls from some Canadian politicians and analysts for greater energy trade diversification grow louder. However, these calls highlight a hard truth—Canada has repeatedly foregone opportunities to reduce our dependence on the United States by cancelling already approved pipelines and failing to approve new pipeline and LNG projects that could have increased our access to global markets.

The U.S. is not just Canada’s largest energy customer—it’s nearly our only customer. In 2023, 97 per cent of crude oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports were sent south of the border. This dependence on the U.S. for exports leaves Canadian producers and the Canadian economy exposed to policy shifts in Washington and even state capitals.

Consider Energy East, a pipeline proposed by TransCanada (now TC Energy) to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and export terminals in Atlantic Canada. The pipeline would have reduced Atlantic Canada’s reliance on imported oil and opened export markets for Canadian oil to Europe.

However, in 2017 the Trudeau government introduced new criteria for evaluating and approving major pipeline projects, and for the first time assessments included not only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from constructing the pipeline but also emissions from producing and using the oil it would transport. Later that year, TransCanada suspended its application for the project, effectively cancelling it. The CEO of TransCanada blamed “changed circumstances” but many observers recognized it was a combination of the new regulations and opposition from Quebec, particularly the City of Montreal. Consequently, the refineries in Atlantic Canada continue to rely on imported oil.

A year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.

Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes.

Meanwhile, Canada currently has no operational infrastructure for exporting liquified natural gas (LNG). While LNG Canada, the country’s first LNG export terminal, is expected to become operational this year in British Columbia, it’s long overdue.

Indeed, several energy companies have cancelled or delayed high-profile LNG projects in Canada due largely to onerous regulations that make approvals uncertain or even unlikely, including the $36 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in 2017, the $9 billion Énergie Saguenay LNG project in 2020, Kitimat LNG in 2021 and East Coast Canada LNG in 2023.

This all adds up to a missed opportunity, as global demand for LNG increases. If governments in Canada allowed or even facilitated more development of LNG facilities, Canadian companies could supply high-demand regions such as Asia and Europe. Indeed, during Europe’s 2022 energy crisis, Germany and several other countries turned to Canada for reliable LNG supply, but the Trudeau government rejected the requests.

The contrast with the U.S. is stark. Since 2011, 18 LNG export facilities have been proposed in Canada but only one—LNG Canada Phase 1—is nearing completion, more than 12 years after it was announced. Meanwhile, as of January 2025, the U.S. has built eight LNG export terminals and approved 20 more, securing its position as a global LNG leader.

Years of inaction and regulatory roadblocks have left Canadian energy producers overly dependent on a single trading partner and vulnerable to shifting U.S. policies. The looming threat of tariffs should be a wake-up call. To secure its energy future, Canada must address the regulatory barriers that have long hindered progress and prioritize the development of infrastructure to connect our energy resources to global markets.

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Business

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Published on January 18, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In the days following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, there has been much ink spilt about his legacy. One effusively positive review of Trudeau’s tenure claimed that his successors “will be hard-pressed to improve on his economic track record.”

But this claim is difficult to square with the historical record, which shows the economic story of the Trudeau years has been one of dismal growth. Indeed, when the growth performance of Canada’s economy is properly measured, Trudeau has the worst record of any prime minister in recent history.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic success. However, growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—an indicator of living standards and incomes—remains an important and broad measure. In short, it measures how quickly the economy is growing while adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Back when he was first running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau recognized the importance of long-term economic growth, often pointing to slow growth under his predecessor Stephen Harper. On the campaign trail, Trudeau blasted Harper for having the “worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

And growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government endured the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario. During Harper’s tenure as prime minister, per-person GDP growth was 0.5 per cent annually—which is lower than his predecessors Brian Mulroney (0.8 per cent) and Jean Chrétien (2.4 per cent).

So, growth was weak under Harper, but Trudeau misdiagnosed the causes. Shortly after taking office, Trudeau said looser fiscal policy—with more spending, borrowing and bigger deficits—would help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world).

Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth. In fact, things went from bad to worse. Annual per-person GDP growth under Trudeau (0.3 per cent) was even worse than under Harper.

The reasons for weak economic growth (under Harper and Trudeau) are complicated. But when it comes to performance, there’s no disputing that Trudeau’s record is worse than any long-serving prime minister in recent history. According to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which compared the growth performance of the five most recent long-serving prime ministers, annual per-person GDP growth was highest under Chrétien followed by Martin, Mulroney, Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Of course, some defenders will blame COVID for Trudeau’s poor economic growth record, but you can’t reasonably blame the steep but relatively short pandemic-related recession for nearly a decade of stagnation.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic performance, but per-person inflation-adjusted economic growth is an important and widely-used measure of economic success and prosperity. Despite any claims to the contrary, Justin Trudeau’s legacy on economic growth is—in historical terms—dismal. All Canadians should hope that his successor has more success and oversees faster growth in the years ahead.