 Author
|
Topic: Re-Examination of the Spreadsheet (Read 14264 times)
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Well, user fees would be fine if the government were doing only what it is supposed to be doing. But if the government monopolizes a service and then charges an exorbitant user fee, which you have to pay because it is a monopoly, then that is a real detriment to freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Zxcv
|
Here is a quote from that document: Examples of non-tax revenues include fees and charges, which increased dramatically during the 1990's at all levels of government. System Development Charges (SDC's) for instance, which are an effort to compensate local governments for expected future costs of development and the demands it places on infrastructure, were relatively rare 10 years ago but are now a very prevalent means of raising money. The City of West Linn, for example, now charges more than $12,000 in SDC's on construction of a single-family dwelling.
User fees do make a certain amount of sense - which is why governments love them so much. They are an easy sell to citizens. But for some strange reason when costs are moved off the broadbased taxes onto fees, the broadbased taxes never go down at all. Hmmm, I wonder why?  Not only that, but there has been a lot of lobbying to throw school costs onto SDC's (I live in a high growth area so schools are crowded). Well, if they take school money out of property taxes, or income taxes, or SDC's, it doesn't matter, because I'm screwed either way. SDC's are supposed to cover infrastructure that you use when you move here, but homeschoolers don't use the damn government child warehousing facilities, so what kind of "user" fees are they? The other reason governments like fees is that it allows them to nickel and dime us to death. Governments hate being limited to a single tax because people can see the whole thing in one lump. It raises less ire when they can nibble us here and there. You can expect every state to move in the direction of "user fees", still keeping state monopolies as Jason notes. But we won't see broad-based taxes going down. That's one of the things we'll have to deal with in our chosen state. Not sure how to address it, but some think tank or other must have put some thought into it. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 13, 2003, 01:53:15 pm by Zxcv »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hank
|
We LIKE having these federal lands IF the government would just leave 'em alone and let us manage 'em. That's what Wyoming has managed to get the feds to agree to with the Bighorn National Forest. They could even let more private outfits manage grazing land like it was there own. Ownership is not the question. It is who manages of the ranges and forests. Us or them?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
Relevant to the topic at hand: From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wyfsp/message/486From: Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@y...> Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 12:06 pm Subject: Re: state sheets due MONDAY! I've had a couple questions about what "weighting array" means: it just means that you'll need to include a typical series of variable weights in the state comparisons spreadsheet ( http://www.freestateproject.org/files/statecomparisons.xls) that put your state in first. I've whipped up some typical weightings for each state, for those of you who want to use them. I've labelled each state as "not difficult," "slightly difficult," "difficult," or "very difficult" depending on how strange the weights need to be to get the state into first. Of course, spreadsheet rankings are not at all the only criteria for making a state choice, but they are among the criteria. Putting these labels next to each state is also intended to stimulate a close look at the spreadsheet and encourage people to send me any important new variables or data that should go into the spreadsheet before the ballot mailings go out. AK - not difficult
SIZE Voters 18.6
SIZE Finance 6.5
SIZE Population 2.2
SIZE Area 0.5
VIABILITY Coast 6.7
VIABILITY Border 1.6
VIABILITY Dependence 9.1
VIABILITY FedLand 5.6
CULTURE Spending 3.9
CULTURE Taxes 2.1
CULTURE Prez 0.6
CULTURE Gun Control 3.1
CULTURE Homeschooling 1.6
CULTURE Natives 1.9
CULTURE UrbanAreas 2.1
CULTURE UrbanClus 0.6
CULTURE NEA 2.1
CULTURE Ideology 2
CULTURE GovEmp 2.4
CULTURE EFI 1.1
CULTURE LandPlanning 1.2
CULTURE SBSI 1.1
CULTURE CPS 0.9
CULTURE Smoking 1.4
CULTURE SeatBelts 1.4
CULTURE Marijuana 3
QUALITY Livability 1
QUALITY Crime 2.5
QUALITY Income 1
QUALITY Jobs 8.7
QUALITY PrivLand 3
QUALITY JanTemp 0.5
DE - slightly difficult
Category Variable WEIGHT
SIZE Voters 17
SIZE Finance 7
SIZE Population 2
SIZE Area 6
VIABILITY Coast 7
VIABILITY Border 3
VIABILITY Dependence 11.5
VIABILITY FedLand 1.5
CULTURE Spending 2.7
CULTURE Taxes 1.7
CULTURE Prez 0.5
CULTURE Gun Control 2.1
CULTURE Homeschooling 1.4
CULTURE Natives 0.9
CULTURE UrbanAreas 2.8
CULTURE UrbanClus 1.4
CULTURE NEA 1.4
CULTURE Ideology 1.4
CULTURE GovEmp 2.7
CULTURE EFI 0.9
CULTURE LandPlanning 2.5
CULTURE SBSI 0.9
CULTURE CPS 0.9
CULTURE Smoking 1.1
CULTURE SeatBelts 0.9
CULTURE Marijuana 1.2
QUALITY Livability 1
QUALITY Crime 2
QUALITY Income 1.2
QUALITY Jobs 9.1
QUALITY PrivLand 3.2
QUALITY JanTemp 1.1
ID - slightly difficult
Category Variable WEIGHT
SIZE Voters 17
SIZE Finance 5
SIZE Population 1.5
SIZE Area 3
VIABILITY Coast 4
VIABILITY Border 2
VIABILITY Dependence 10
VIABILITY FedLand 6
CULTURE Spending 3.5
CULTURE Taxes 1.2
CULTURE Prez 0.7
CULTURE Gun Control 2.5
CULTURE Homeschooling 3
CULTURE Natives 1
CULTURE UrbanAreas 1
CULTURE UrbanClus 0.3
CULTURE NEA 3.5
CULTURE Ideology 2.5
CULTURE GovEmp 2.9
CULTURE EFI 1.2
CULTURE LandPlanning 1.2
CULTURE SBSI 1.2
CULTURE CPS 1.2
CULTURE Smoking 1.2
CULTURE SeatBelts 1.2
CULTURE Marijuana 1.7
QUALITY Livability 0.4
QUALITY Crime 2.4
QUALITY Income 0.5
QUALITY Jobs 11.6
QUALITY PrivLand 2.6
QUALITY JanTemp 3
ME - very difficult
Category Variable WEIGHT
SIZE Voters 14.9
SIZE Finance 1.9
SIZE Population 0.9
SIZE Area 3.9
VIABILITY Coast 15.5
VIABILITY Border 5.5
VIABILITY Dependence 6.5
VIABILITY FedLand 0
CULTURE Spending 1.5
CULTURE Taxes 0.5
CULTURE Prez 0.1
CULTURE Gun Control 1.5
CULTURE Homeschooling 0.4
CULTURE Natives 0.4
CULTURE UrbanAreas 9.5
CULTURE UrbanClus 4.5
CULTURE NEA 0.5
CULTURE Ideology 0.5
CULTURE GovEmp 7.9
CULTURE EFI 0.2
CULTURE LandPlanning 0.2
CULTURE SBSI 0.2
CULTURE CPS 1.5
CULTURE Smoking 0.7
CULTURE SeatBelts 0.2
CULTURE Marijuana 2.9
QUALITY Livability 3
QUALITY Crime 4.5
QUALITY Income 1
QUALITY Jobs 5
QUALITY PrivLand 4
QUALITY JanTemp 0.2
MT - very difficult
Category Variable WEIGHT
SIZE Voters 14
SIZE Finance 4
SIZE Population 1.8
SIZE Area 1
VIABILITY Coast 8
VIABILITY Border 5
VIABILITY Dependence 6
VIABILITY FedLand 0.1
CULTURE Spending 1
CULTURE Taxes 1
CULTURE Prez 1
CULTURE Gun Control 1.4
CULTURE Homeschooling 1.5
CULTURE Natives 0.2
CULTURE UrbanAreas 8
CULTURE UrbanClus 2.2
CULTURE NEA 2
CULTURE Ideology 1.5
CULTURE GovEmp 4
CULTURE EFI 0.5
CULTURE LandPlanning 8
CULTURE SBSI 0.5
CULTURE CPS 0.1
CULTURE Smoking 0.5
CULTURE SeatBelts 1.8
CULTURE Marijuana 0.7
QUALITY Livability 2
QUALITY Crime 0.2
QUALITY Income 0
QUALITY Jobs 11
QUALITY PrivLand 11
QUALITY JanTemp 0
ND - difficult
Category Variable WEIGHT
SIZE Voters 15
SIZE Finance 7.1
SIZE Population 2
SIZE Area 6
VIABILITY Coast 5
VIABILITY Border 4
VIABILITY Dependence 5.4
VIABILITY FedLand 0
CULTURE Spending 4.5
CULTURE Taxes 2
CULTURE Prez 0.1
CULTURE Gun Control 2.5
CULTURE Homeschooling 1
CULTURE Natives 0
CULTURE UrbanAreas 8
CULTURE UrbanClus 5
CULTURE NEA 1
CULTURE Ideology 1
CULTURE GovEmp 3.5
CULTURE EFI 0.5
CULTURE LandPlanning 6
CULTURE SBSI 0.5
CULTURE CPS 1.7
CULTURE Smoking 1
CULTURE SeatBelts 1.7
CULTURE Marijuana 0.5
QUALITY Livability 1
QUALITY Crime 5
QUALITY Income 0
QUALITY Jobs 3
QUALITY PrivLand 6
QUALITY JanTemp 0
NH - slightly difficult
Category Variable WEIGHT
SIZE Voters 17.6
SIZE Finance 7
SIZE Population 1.9
SIZE Area 2.5
VIABILITY Coast 8
VIABILITY Border 3
VIABILITY Dependence 14.5
VIABILITY FedLand 0.8
CULTURE Spending 4.5
CULTURE Taxes 2.2
CULTURE Prez 0.5
CULTURE Gun Control 2.5
CULTURE Homeschooling 1
CULTURE Natives 1.8
CULTURE UrbanAreas 1.5
CULTURE UrbanClus 0.6
CULTURE NEA 2.3
CULTURE Ideology 1.4
CULTURE GovEmp 2.7
CULTURE EFI 0.9
CULTURE LandPlanning 0.7
CULTURE SBSI 0.7
CULTURE CPS 1.1
CULTURE Smoking 1
CULTURE SeatBelts 1.1
CULTURE Marijuana 1.7
QUALITY Livability 1.5
QUALITY Crime 3.5
QUALITY Income 1
QUALITY Jobs 9
QUALITY PrivLand 1
QUALITY JanTemp 0.5
SD - difficult
SIZE Voters 17
SIZE Finance 3
SIZE Population 1.3
SIZE Area 6
VIABILITY Coast 2
VIABILITY Border 1
VIABILITY Dependence 6
VIABILITY FedLand 0
CULTURE Spending 4.4
CULTURE Taxes 2.8
CULTURE Prez 0.7
CULTURE Gun Control 2
CULTURE Homeschooling 1.3
CULTURE Natives 0.7
CULTURE UrbanAreas 4.7
CULTURE UrbanClus 2.1
CULTURE NEA 1.7
CULTURE Ideology 1
CULTURE GovEmp 4
CULTURE EFI 1.8
CULTURE LandPlanning 3.5
CULTURE SBSI 1.8
CULTURE CPS 1.1
CULTURE Smoking 1
CULTURE SeatBelts 1
CULTURE Marijuana 0.8
QUALITY Livability 2.7
QUALITY Crime 4.2
QUALITY Income 0
QUALITY Jobs 11.4
QUALITY PrivLand 9
QUALITY JanTemp 0
VT - slightly difficult
Category Variable WEIGHT
SIZE Voters 18
SIZE Finance 8
SIZE Population 2.2
SIZE Area 6
VIABILITY Coast 4.5
VIABILITY Border 2.5
VIABILITY Dependence 9.5
VIABILITY FedLand 1.5
CULTURE Spending 2.5
CULTURE Taxes 1.5
CULTURE Prez 0.5
CULTURE Gun Control 2.9
CULTURE Homeschooling 1.5
CULTURE Natives 1.5
CULTURE UrbanAreas 6
CULTURE UrbanClus 3
CULTURE NEA 1
CULTURE Ideology 0.5
CULTURE GovEmp 3.1
CULTURE EFI 0.6
CULTURE LandPlanning 1.9
CULTURE SBSI 0.6
CULTURE CPS 1.8
CULTURE Smoking 1.1
CULTURE SeatBelts 1.7
CULTURE Marijuana 1.2
QUALITY Livability 2
QUALITY Crime 2.9
QUALITY Income 1
QUALITY Jobs 6
QUALITY PrivLand 2
QUALITY JanTemp 1
WY - not difficult
SIZE Voters 18.1
SIZE Finance 8.5
SIZE Population 2
SIZE Area 2.5
VIABILITY Coast 4.6
VIABILITY Border 1
VIABILITY Dependence 13.5
VIABILITY FedLand 4.9
CULTURE Spending 3.8
CULTURE Taxes 1.6
CULTURE Prez 0.7
CULTURE Gun Control 2.2
CULTURE Homeschooling 1.1
CULTURE Natives 1.5
CULTURE UrbanAreas 1.8
CULTURE UrbanClus 0.4
CULTURE NEA 2
CULTURE Ideology 1.9
CULTURE GovEmp 2.1
CULTURE EFI 1
CULTURE LandPlanning 1
CULTURE SBSI 0.9
CULTURE CPS 0.9
CULTURE Smoking 1.4
CULTURE SeatBelts 1.1
CULTURE Marijuana 2.1
QUALITY Livability 1.2
QUALITY Crime 2.9
QUALITY Income 0.5
QUALITY Jobs 8.5
QUALITY PrivLand 3.2
QUALITY JanTemp 1.1
---- |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
Here is an interesting criticism of the Small Business Survival Index, or SBSI that is used in the spreadsheet: Here is the document cached on Google, in case you can't use Adobe Acrobat: http://ms101.mysearch.com/jsp/GGcres.jsp?id=37feue_BRqoJ&u=http://www.mncn.org/bp/special6.pdfFrom the article: " The small business survival index simply consists of adding up various tax rates and non-rate tax measurements plus the crime rate within each state. The tax rates are combined together without any attempt to weight the rates based upon their impact upon business survival. " . . . " In short, even if the measures that the small business survival index examined were comprehensive, the haphazard manner in which the index is constructed is sufficient to disqualify it as a serious measure of business survival. "
Incidentally, anybody looking for a current, up-to-date ranking that takes into account actual business survival rates by examining start-up rates, failure rates, sales, etc.? Well, ask no more, here it is: http://www.bizminer.com/2003_May_profiles/samples/BestPlaces.htm |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 02, 2003, 01:28:45 pm by Kelton, a.k.a. exitus »
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
Ranking the states using the spreadsheet factors (Culture) Spending NH>DE>SD>ND>WY>ID>VT=AK>ME>MT
Taxes AK>NH>DE>WY=SD>MT>ND>VT>ID>ME
Prez WY>ID>ND>SD>AK>MT>NH>ME>DE>VT
Gun-Control AK>VT>NH>WY=ID=ME=MT>ND>SD>DE
Homeschool AK>ID>WY=MT>VT=SD=DE=NH>ME
Natives AK>WY>NH>ID>DE>VT>MT>ME>SD>ND
Urban VT>ME>WY>SD>MT>ND>AK>NH>ID>DE
UrbanClus DE>NH>ME>ID>ND>VT>AK>SD>MT>WY
NEA ID>SD>NH>WY>DE>ND>ME>VT>MT>AK
Ideology ID>AK>WY>NH>MT>SD>DE>ND>ME>VT
GovEmp NH>DE>VT>ME>SD>ID>MT>ND>AK>WY
EFI ID>WY>SD>NH>DE>ND>MT>VT>AK>ME
Landplan WY=AK=ND=SD=MT>ID>NH=ME>VT=DE
SBSI SD>WY>NH>AK>ND>ID>DE>MT>VT>ME
EFNA DE>SD>NH>WY>VT>ID>ME=ND>AK
CPS ID>VT>NH>ND>DE>WY>ME>SD>AK>MT
Smoking WY>ID>ND>NH=AK>VT=SD=ME>DE0
SeatBelts NH>VT=ID>AK=ND=MT=SD=DE>WY>ME
Helmets NH>WY=AK=ND=SD=DE=MT=ID=ME>VT
AutoIns NH>ND>DE>ID=VT>WY>MT>AK>SD>ME
HCMand ID>ND>WY=SD>AK>VT>MT=NH>DE>ME
Liquor ND>AK>WY>SD>NH=DE>MT>ID>VT=ME
RLCper WY>ID>AK>NH>MT>SD>ME>VT>DE>ND
RLCec WY>NH>ID>AK>MT>DE>SD>ME>VT>ND
Same thing again, 0-10 linear interpolation score included:
Spending NH10>DE8.48>SD5.43>ND3.70>WY3.04>ID2.83>VT=AK2.39>ME2.17>MT0
Taxes AK10>NH8.36>DE7.31>WY=SD5.52>MT4.63>ND3.58>VT3.13>ID2.99>ME0
Prez WY10>ID9.40>ND6.88>SD6.81>AK6.46>MT6.21>NH2.53>ME1.09>DE0.28>VT0
Gun-Control AK10>VT8.75>NH7.50>WY=ID=ME=MT6.75>ND4.25>SD1.25>DE0
Homeschool AK10>ID9.00>WY=MT7.00>VT=SD=DE=NH3.00>ME2.0
Natives AK10>WY8.72>NH8.49>ID7.35>DE7.03>VT5.29>MT4.77>ME1.51>SD1.28>ND0
Urban VT10>ME8.55>WY8.38>SD8.32>MT8.30>ND6.34>AK4.65>NH4.59>ID4.18>DE0
UrbanClus DE10>NH9.13>ME8.77>ID7.28>ND7.17>VT6.85>AK6.67>SD4.93>MT4.24>WY0
NEA ID10>SD9.85>NH9.26>WY7.6>DE7.57>ND5.65>ME5.58>VT5.25>MT4.43>AK0
Ideology ID10>AK8.58>WY8.41>NH7.91>MT6.49>SD5.72>DE4.61>ND4.07>ME2.03>VT0
GovEmp NH10>DE9.88>VT8.93>ME8.57>SD5.36>ID4.76>MT4.52>ND3.57>AK0.83>WY0
EFI ID10>WY7.87>SD7.61>NH7.26>DE7.22>ND5.30>MT4.43>VT2.74>AK0.91>ME0
Landplan WY=AK=ND=SD=MT10>ID6.7>NH=ME3.30>VT=DE0
SBSI SD10>WY8.60>NH7.13>AK5.47>ND3.86>ID3.78>DE3.30>MT1.85>VT0.94>ME0
EFNA DE10>SD8.70>NH8.26>WY5.22>VT3.04>ID2.61>ME=ND0.87>AK0
CPS ID10>VT9.96>NH9.93>ND9.22>DE8.67>WY8.66>ME8.61>SD7.57>AK5.23>MT0
Smoking WY10>ID5.30>ND4.00>NH=AK3.30>VT=SD=ME2.0>DE0
SeatBelts NH10>VT=ID4.44>AK=ND=MT=SD=DE3.33>WY2.22>ME0
Helmets NH10>WY=AK=ND=SD=DE=MT=ID=ME>VT0
AutoIns NH10>ND2.00>DE1.00>ID=VT0.80>WY0.60>MT0.40>AK0.30>SD0.20>ME0
HCMand ID10>ND8.46>WY=SD7.69>AK6.15>VT4.62>MT=NH3.08>DE1.54>ME0
Liquor ND10>AK7.27>WY5.45>SD4.55>NH=DE3.64>MT2.73>ID0.91>VT=ME0
RLCper WY10>ID9.42>AK8.91>NH8.17>MT6.66>SD3.70>ME3.60>VT1.83>DE0.96>ND0
RLCec WY10>NH9.14>ID8.68>AK7.66>MT4.87>DE4.69>SD4.41>ME3.52>VT1.09>ND0
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 02, 2003, 06:19:08 pm by Kelton, a.k.a. exitus »
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
johnadams
|
Based on that report you cited, Kelton, here is how the FSP states rank on their overall index: Overall Index Rank Best Places for Business Profile: Small Business Version http://www.bizminer.com/2003_May_profiles/samples/BestPlaces.htm02 Idaho 11 Alaska 12 Vermont 15 Delaware 19 New Hampshire 33 Montana 34 North Dakota 40 Maine 45 Wyoming 50 South Dakota Most of these state rankings are not particularly suprising (Idaho seems to rank highly on many business and economic rankings, for example), though Vermont fares better than I would have expected and South Dakota worse. If these data are meaningful, that would provide a sober reminder not to let the recent victories of statists in Vermont let one forget that there are still many good capitalists in that state and it would give me some more positive hope for the future of the state of my birth. Do you have any idea of what the reputation of Bizminer is? Of course, everything depends on what is important to each individual Porcupine who votes, and business and economic factors may not be that important to many of them in making their selection, we just don't know. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
Every index has some of our states wildly all over the place. For instance, on the SBSI says South Dakota is the theoretically best place for businesses to survive, yet in actual practice, the measurements provided by bizminer (a marketing research company that has people willingly paying thousands of dollars for their reports), show a somewhat different story. I would ignore this overall factor a bit until you have first examined the components on that Bizminer page. Here is what I think is the central component of that overall index that relates to business survival: Small Business and Startup Failure RatesFailure IndexVT 0.51
DE 0.53
ID 1.00
SD 1.20
ND 1.32
WY 1.44
AK 1.76
MT 1.92
NH 1.92
ME 2.08 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2003, 02:19:28 am by Kelton, a.k.a. exitus »
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
Zxcv
|
exitus, this bizminer index is like the cognetics index that we rejected earlier, because it directly measures survival rates and entrepreneurial activity, rather than regulatory burden. It is possible for high activity to exist in states with high regulatory burdens. One can do well in such states; it just takes someone who can stomach a lot of bureaucratic oversight and interference, and even perhaps bribery. But what does that have to do with freedom?
This index and the cognetics one might make sense being placed in the "QUALITY" category, but not "CULTURE". It is a poor measure of freedom. The state with the highest number in the "failure rates" section of the index is Connecticut, and Maine is next. These two states are not very free.
But as an index of small business success, it is kind of interesting to note that DE and VT do terribly on it. This supports my notion that DE's business-friendly reputation has more to do with big out-of-state corporations, more than anything else.
Of course, bizrate then puts this caveat on it:
"When reviewing failure rates, it is important to note that low failure rates can be a sign of stability, but also of a sluggish economy with limited new vitality. Conversely, high failure rates indicate higher risk, but may also suggest high levels of new competition which may result from higher opportunity levels."
I'd also take that critique of SBSI with a grain of salt, written as it is by a group (a government organization, at that!) in a state that places 44th in the index. It is a lot easier to throw rocks than to construct a better index. Maybe SBSC missed a few small things with Minnesota, but they probably missed a few things with other states, too. Does that missed information (in Minnesota's case) mean they would have ended up much higher in the index? This group does not tell us, so it's doubtful. Minnesota needs to look at government items that make it appear poorly in the index, and it seems they are not interested in doing that.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2003, 10:00:57 am by Zxcv »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bIlluminati
|
Going back to basics: the purpose of the Free State Project is to magnify our influence by increasing the number of small government believers in a specific state.
One argument against Wyoming is that it doesn't have enough jobs. Well, if Wyoming has the same percentage of jobs as, say, Delaware but still doesn't have enough jobs, then we can't move 20,000 people into Wyoming, and we can't move the same ratio of people into Delaware, either. In this case, the problem reduces to finding the most libertarian state(s) already existing. Note that we could still rule out North Dakota, because of its shrinking job market. And we move to New Hampshire and Wyoming, which is what I believe will happen anyway, given our ornery nature.
If, however, we can move 20,000 activists into Wyoming, and I think we can, then the population formulas are relevant. However, the spreadsheet is set up as a linear regression, and I believe that non-linear factors dominate. Example: Montana - about half the people vote R and half D. Sounds ideal for a swing vote, until you look at the details. Baucus won 200,000 to 100,000, and the R rep also won 200,000 to 100,000. That means we would have to bring 100,000 voters to swing the election. That seems beyond our capabilities.
South Dakota, on the other hand, gets a statist rating, but only at the national level. And the Democrat won his Senate seat by 500 votes in Indian reservations. New Hampshire, while stuck in the northeast, has a large block of voters who live there because there is no income tax. A conservative libertarian coulld hate Vermont; a liberal libertarian could hate Idaho. So it is legitimate for there to be multiple ways, and non-linear ways, of rating the situation.
A lot of good non-linear thinking has gone into the discussion. Some of that can be quantified. It just takes some guessing on appropriate numerical factos, a la neural net. I would have sunk mine into it, if there were enough appropriate data. In five years, there will be enough data. Right now, I can say, WY is top three and ME is tenth any reasonable way to look at it. After that, the votes/jobs analysis dominates. And there is no unique way to analyze that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
|
|
|
|
Zxcv
|
There was some talk that when we get to our state, we should have a think tank. One of the jobs of the think tank would be to improve and refine our spreadsheet into a real, usable, reliable measure of the freedom quotient in all 50 states. That would give everyone in this country, who is interested in freedom, a powerful tool to help decide where they can find it. Which would increase the tendency to "move toward freedom", which is what FSP is all about, in a way. (Creating more freedom via concentration of freedom-lovers.) I really like this idea, and hope to be involved with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
Zxcv, I agree that this Bizminer index should be put in the same class as the Cognetics survey, since it measures actual results more than potential.
But it is still useful to note that while South Dakota came in first for small-business survivability in 2002 by the SBSI , the actual results show that real-life survivability is statistically difficult in South Dakota, resulting in South Dakota coming-in dead last on the Bizminer survey.
Surely there are other factors for business survivability than a composite of tax rates and crime rates for something like this to happen.
I also think that the Minnesota group that criticized the SBSI did have a few legitimate grieviances. For one thing, "the tax rates are combined together without any attempt to weight the rates based upon their impact upon business survival." The example was the death tax and how that does not have nearly as much impact, as say, a sales tax; yet the SBSI weighted them equally. Another problem is that the SBSI did not take into account a lot of different unique features of how states tax differently, as the example given about property taxes for small businesses.
One excellent point brought-out by Varrin is that people should remember that each economic index in the spreadsheet also accounts for taxes. Realize that when weighting the one tax measure highly, and the indices highly, you are actually giving a double and a triple weighting to the tax factor, only do that if you mean to do that.
All in all, I have no problem with any of the indices, so long as they are compared critically, such as here. I really like the idea of the Free State think-tank and creating a comprehensive freedom quotient, one more bulletproof than our novice attempts so far.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
johnadams
|
....I would ignore this overall factor a bit until you have first examined the components on that Bizminer page. Here is what I think is the central component of that overall index that relates to business survival:
.... It's interesting that the only state which ranks in the top five FSP states in both Overall Index score and Failure Index score is NH. However, my guess is that a study which measures actual results will be influenced by short-term economic variables like the recent national economic slowdown. So it is of course important to look at other factors, including those which are difficult to represent with numeric scores. Overall Index Rank 02 Idaho 11 Alaska 12 Vermont 15 Delaware 19 New Hampshire 33 Montana 34 North Dakota 40 Maine 45 Wyoming 50 South Dakota Small business and startup failure rates Failure Index (Higher Score is Better) ME 2.08 NH 1.92 MT 1.92 AK 1.76 WY 1.44 ND 1.32 SD 1.20 ID 1.00 DE 0.53 VT 0.51 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
johnadams
|
....This supports my notion that DE's business-friendly reputation has more to do with big out-of-state corporations, more than anything else.
.... Yes, I believe you are right on that. DE's business-friendly reputation has more to do with a single law than anything: the Financial Center Development Act of 1981. This law "lowered the state income taxes that banks must pay and eliminated the limit on how much interest and fees credit card companies could charge to customers nationwide." (Source: 1981 Banking Act: How one law transformed Delaware). This law made Delaware very popular with credit card companies: eight of the top 10 credit card companies have operations in Delaware. But it has not exactly made DE into a hotbed of entrepreneurial activity. Also, the fact that so much of Delaware's business success depends on a single law and a single narrow industry means that it is in a precarious position. If DE voters should ever rescind that law or if other states should match or surpass it, then DE will lose its advantage in the credit card sector. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 04, 2003, 12:45:52 pm by johnadams »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kelton
|
....This supports my notion that DE's business-friendly reputation has more to do with big out-of-state corporations, more than anything else.
.... Yes, I believe you are right on that. DE's business-friendly reputation has more to do with a single law than anything: the Financial Center Development Act of 1981. . . .the fact that so much of Delaware's business success depends on a single law and a single narrow industry means that it is in a precarious position. If DE voters should ever rescind that law or if other states should match or surpass it, then DE will lose its advantage in the credit card sector. The strong Reagan-inspired movement that brought-in the very libertarian-leaning conservative, Pete DuPont and massive sweeping changes in the early 1980's has largely vanished. Delaware's Credit Card industry is also being regulated to death within Delaware, making some companies move operations to different locations, now Largely to Nevada, some to South Dakota and even Utah, with American Express. The advantages to incorporating in Delaware have also largely been vanquished in the courts, where Delaware's legislation against piercing the 'corporate veil' was virtually nullified, yet remains in Nevada this link provides more on that : http://www.nvinc.com/piercecorp.htmIt all goes back to the idea that some states have a certain heritage of freedom which current political movements no longer support and it may be noted that most of the factors that harmed Delaware in the spreadsheet were the result of recent legislation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
