dagblog - Comments for "Libertarian Wonderland Is Not So Great"

This is the most factually

Anonymous — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:43:56 +0000

In reply to Libertarian Wonderland Is Not So Great

This is the most factually untrue, and intellectually misguided article I think I have ever read. Let me clear up some of your mistakes with actual facts. Fact 1). New Hampshire unemployment rate 4.8%, 2nd best in the country, Massachusetts unemployment rate 7.4%. Fact 2). Poverty level per state New Hampshire best in the country at only 7.6% of the population below poverty line. Massachusetts poverty level is at 9.2%. Fact 3). Income inequality New Hampshire has the second smallest income inequality in the country, Massachusetts has the fourth largest. Fact 4). New Hampshire highest median income as of 2010. Fact 5). New Hampshire ranks as the freest/most libertarian state in America. Massachusetts comes in at 43rd. Galt's granite gulch should be a bright shining light for the rest of the country to follow.

Here's a more specific

Brandon — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:39:22 +0000

In reply to It's true. There are a lot of

Here's a more specific version of my claim: the economy New Hampshire does have is primarily driven by outsiders: either by tourism or by southern New Hampshire's parasitic relationship with Massachusetts. New Hampshire doesn't produce a lot. It's all tourism and commuters.

Where do you think Massachusetts' economy comes from? They're just selling goods and services to other Mass. residents? Or they're sending goods and services to other states and foreign countries too? By the reasoning you apply to New Hampshire, Massachusetts is just as "parasitic" as well.

Which is your fundamental error. This is commerce: it's not parasitic. That would mean that New Hampshire residents working in Mass. are somehow harming Mass. Which it certainly doesn't. Nor could "New Hampshire" even be parasitic upon "Massachusetts". Some workers who live in New Hampshire choose to work in Massachusetts. This has nothing to do with the individual states; they aren't competing with each other.

And, contrary to your claim above (as a previous commenter already pointed out), when you compare the economies per capita, New Hampshire does "produce quite a lot". In fact, MA only slightly beats out NH when GDP is adjusted per capita). But even by that measuring stick, Washington D.C. has the absolute highest GDP per capita--and yet (speaking as a former resident) the D.C. area produces almost nothing.

1) Lower taxes 2) ?? 3)

Brandon — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:20:36 +0000

In reply to Yes, per capita is better.

1) Lower taxes 2) ?? 3) profit! is not a plan.

You seem to have this erroneous belief that the State of New Hampshire actively attempts to earn profit--as if it has some kind of business purpose. It does not.

It's true. There are a lot of

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:22:01 +0000

In reply to Oh come on. I call the same

It's true. There are a lot of factors beside taxation that go into economic development. Lots of them. Let's start right there: lower taxation is not a magic bullet.

Here's a more specific version of my claim: the economy New Hampshire does have is primarily driven by outsiders: either by tourism or by southern New Hampshire's parasitic relationship with Massachusetts. New Hampshire doesn't produce a lot. It's all tourism and commuters.

That's the big difference from Vermont, which is not only inland, but doesn't border any heavily economically developed areas. Vermont is like New Hampshire without Greater Boston to lean on.

And if you're the Patrick that I think you are, you have a *lot* of evidence for Southern New Hampshire's economic dependence on Massachusetts. If you're not, forget I said anything.

Oh come on. I call the same

Patrick — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:55:59 +0000

In reply to Libertarian Wonderland Is Not So Great

Oh come on. I call the same foul as others have about lack of evidence.

How about comparing Massachusetts to Vermont, which is virtually identical in size and topography but has a history of higher taxes? Vermont is the flip side of the New Hampshire coin. Look at where Vermont falls on your gross state product ranking.

I have no idea where you get the Portsmouth and Newburyport comparison. For all I know, Portsmouth is doing better than Newburyport. Evidence?

You also need to consider the amount of coastline and historical importance of ports as an economic driver for Massachusetts. (I will concede that NH's limited coast gives it an advantage over Vermont)

Is a big economy necessarily

William K. Wolfrum — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:11:05 +0000

In reply to Is a big economy necessarily

Is a big economy necessarily good? Massachusetts with their big government probably wastes a lot of money.

Ah, the economic theory of "It sucks to win the lottery because you have to pay so much in taxes."

Is a big economy necessarily

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:39:45 +0000

In reply to Yes, per capita is better.

Is a big economy necessarily good? Massachusetts with their big government probably wastes a lot of money. For example, lets say that semis are outlawed. Therefore, it will take a lot more people to ship everything. Everyone will have a job, zero unemployment. However, that is terribly inefficient and that's the way most governments run. NH is probably more efficient and they don't waste money by having people do things that the free market wouldn't want in the first place. Lets raise taxes spend out of control to grow our economy and then ask for a bailout because our economy can't support the public sector. Great idea

You imply, doctor, that the

acanuck — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:03:19 +0000

In reply to Yes, per capita is better.

You imply, doctor, that the Atlantic Ocean has higher taxes than New Hampshire. That may be about to change. I understand the ocean expects a budgetary windfall, after initialing a contract with BP to lease much of its surface as storage capacity. It's a long-term deal.

Yes, per capita is better.

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:41:56 +0000

In reply to To be fair, I think that you

Yes, per capita is better. Thanks.

I wasn't intending to argue that bigger government always leads to more economic growth. Obviously, that is not always true. I am just trying to point out that low taxes and limited government do not always triumph economically. 1) Lower taxes 2) ?? 3) profit! is not a plan.

Modern conservatism deals with a lot of complicated questions as one-variable problems. I'm not interested in doing that with a different variable. But thanks for your very perceptive coments.

To be fair, I think that you

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:06:26 +0000

In reply to Consider it

To be fair, I think that you need a per capita comparison. Otherwise, you've got some trouble with Texas, a low tax state at #2. MA still beats NH, but it's 3 to 9. Also, I think that you've overstated your case a bit. There are many factors that made MA an industrial powerhouse relative to NH. I doubt that taxes played much of a role. But taken as a counterexample to the libertarian belief that small government = big economy, without the stronger claim that big government = big economy, it's a fair argument. Also a great read, regardless.