Yes, Heavy Regulation Hurts the Economy. Just Look at France.
We're often told European countries are better off thanks to big-government policies. So why is the U.S. beating France in many important ways?

It's fashionable to claim that the free market ideas of Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman have failed the country, and that it's time for new policies. Campaigning in 2020, Joe Biden declared that "Milton Friedman isn't running the show anymore." More recently, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt noted that people like Friedman promised that the free market "would bring prosperity for all. It has not."
This is nonsense. For one thing, I wish we lived in a world fashioned more fully by Friedman's ideas. Sadly, while his insights have indeed influenced some U.S. economic policies, particularly during former President Ronald Reagan's administration, the extent of their implementation has been quite limited.
Friedman, for example, would be appalled that federal debt is now roughly the size of annual gross domestic product (GDP), having grown like a kudzu vine since registering at around 25 percent in the early 1980s. Taxes remain lower since the Reagan revolution took place, but our incomes are often taxed multiple times. Nearly every aspect of our lives is regulated by various agencies—local, state, and national. And—no surprise—cronyism is alive and well.
Still, Friedman's critics are right to treat him as a monumental figure. His ideas helped make trade freer and school choice mainstream. His clarity in contrasting markets with government opened many eyes to the benefits of capitalism. We are immeasurably better off for it. If you don't believe me, look at my native France, where Friedman has had almost no influence.
The French economy is weighed down by one of the heaviest tax levels among wealthy democratic nations, with regressive taxes and social security contributions representing a significant portion of GDP. This tax haul funds France's extensive web of social welfare programs, including health care, education, and pensions.
French regulation is also comprehensive, covering many aspects of employment, business operations, and environmental protection. The labor code is particularly onerous. Additionally, its government plays a direct role in the economy, with a significant number of partially state-owned enterprises and interventionist policies intended to safeguard employment and prioritize equality and social cohesion.
Let's see how they're doing.
U.S. GDP per capita is now $76,398; France's is $40,964. The U.S. unemployment rate is 3.9 percent. As of the second quarter of 2023, France's was 7.2 percent—a relatively low figure for a country that often faces double-digit rates even outside of recession periods. We shouldn't be surprised at any of this, considering France's stringent rules on working hours, dismissals, and employee benefits, which make it difficult for businesses to respond to market conditions. The country is slathered with reasons not to hire people.
Youth unemployment is a significant indicator of how well an economy integrates its young population into the job market. As of May 2023, France's youth unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, with historical data showing an average of 20.6 percent from 1983 until 2023. In November of 2012, it peaked at a Great Depression–like level of 28.20 percent. This is the result of well-documented structural issues distorting France's labor market. Rigid labor laws dissuade employers especially from hiring young, inexperienced workers.
In contrast, in October 2023, the U.S. youth unemployment rate was 8.9 percent. These are not just numbers; they have real implications for young individuals' economic prospects, skills development, and long-term career trajectories. As such, American youth, for all its complaints, is much better off than its French peers are.
Some claim that this is a fair price to pay for France's social cohesion and equity. I don't see it. Over the last decade, France has experienced significant social unrest rooted in economic, political, and social issues. One of the most notable periods of unrest was the yellow vest movement that began in 2018. It was sparked by the announcement of another increase in the fuel tax on top of hundreds of other taxes. It quickly morphed into a broader movement against economic inequality and the cost of living. The protests were marked by widespread demonstrations, some of which turned violent.
France is also renowned for its labor strikes, which often bring millions of protesters onto the streets. The frequency and intensity of these protests underscore the challenges that France faces in balancing economic reforms with social cohesion.
The U.S. isn't perfect. Its social cohesion could certainly be better. But given a choice between an economic system that has been somewhat influenced by Friedman and one that's barely been influenced by him at all, my choice is clear. I made it when I left France and became an American.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Freedom fries
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Freedom regulations.
By my math that photo shows $10/gallon of which $8 it tax.
You could also look at the current USA administration. We don't want to blame everything bad on the French.
https://reason.com/2023/11/29/biden-warns-companies-to-bring-prices-back-down-even-as-inflation-persists/
It's all the same authoritarian, Keynesian corporatist nonsense peddled by the WEF, Rockefeller Foundation, Club of Rome, etc. cargo cultists.
This whole time, Lying Jeffy is the mayor of Chicago:
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1729953590234546435
And for some reason the team nor NBA is doing anything. The girls family is refusing to talk to investigators. How much have they been paid already?
Speaking of Lying Jeffy, why weren’t all these people shot in the face?
https://twitter.com/ClownWorld_/status/1730051124764541271
What’s not to love about a country where you can sit at a cafe, get drunk and chain smoke all day while collecting a paycheck?
France is an interesting country and I've been digging into it a little more deeply lately. Partly because I've watched some documentaries about their crime/police systems and the first thing you're struck by is how "American" their crime and policing looks, unlike the rest of Europe.
In particular, the French seem to be struggling with some of the same issues we have: High crime areas with hard-charging, aggressive policing that's struggling (and failing) to deal with neighborhoods that are full of criminal and gang activity. Where the British police have almost completely devolved into waving rainbow flags and arresting TERFS for saying women are different than men, while the French are knocking heads in poor neighborhoods.
Dunno if it's true, but I've always heard that French law is based on the presumption that a suspect is guilty, not innocent (unlike English law)
Not quite. French criminal justice is based on the "preponderance of evidence" standard.
I think the 'presumption of innocence' thing originally was a Scottish law tradition.
I'm open to being incorrect about that, though. Presumably.
The presumption of innocence was originally expressed by the French cardinal and canonical jurist Jean Lemoine (1250 - 1313) in the phrase "item quilbet presumitur innocens nisi probetur nocens (a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty)", based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.
Wikipedia
The "nisi" there acquired new meaning from mystical prohibitionists. When Nixon was Duce, kids threatened with multi-year prison sentences for twigs, seeds and roots correctly concluded the legal system was in the clutches of viciously insane madmen. They fled elsewhere. "AHA!" cried the Grand Goblins, Radio Priests, Republicans, Wallace voters, Birchers and Plain Truth readers: by refusing to take a chance on being burned at the stake or caged with pederasts for violating NOBODY's rights, these teenagers are DECLARED guilty, and 50 years later cannot get expungement.
No.
"As every man is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any undue harshness that is not required to secure his person must be severely curbed by Law."
Declaration of the Right of Man and the Citizen (1789), still part of french constitutional law.
That's not true but there is a fundamental difference between judicial systems like France's (based on the Napoleanic Code) and judicial systems like England and the US (based on the principle of common law).
Under common law jurisdictions, all that which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted.
Under Napoleanic code jurisdictions, all that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.
So it's not a presumption of guilt or innocence for any particular person but it is a big difference in the presumption of what's illegal in the first place.
Laval's conservative christian buddies loved that construction and made it stick in Vichy France. Of course they were hanged by ungrateful Frenchmen after Christian National Socialism fell...
That is false too. Criminal law in particular are supposed to be strictly interpreted.
“The Law has the right to forbid only those actions that are injurious to society. Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain.”
The declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen (1789), still part of the french constitutional law. Written in part by Lafayette, under the influence of Jefferson.
Too often American of all political obedience tend to only use the rest of the world as some kind of positive of negative caricature that only serve their view on US politics. Stop doing that and… open Wikipedia?
*Between principle and reality there is always a gap, but that is not specific to France.
A lot of their crime has been caused from unchecked immigration over the last few decades. No go zones causing an absence of policing and a growth of criminal gangs.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/nz8kab/residents-of-europes-no-go-areas-talk-about-life-in-the-danger-zone
Entire areas if cities setting up their own "legal" systems no based on the laws of the countries. It allows centers for crime rings to operate out of. Akin to the Soros backed prosecutors who spend more time going after political causes than crimes.
And yet I would argue much of France's economic problems are their huge amount of immigrants from Algeria and other Muslims countries that do nothing but riot and burn cars. Something like 10% of their population (officially lower)
Also in the running: 6 weeks of paid vacation and a retirement age of 58. Which, it turns out, also attracts migrants, legal or otherwise.
It's amazing how leftards literally destroyed the free market and USA freedom and then has the nerve to blame the free market and freedom for destroying it.
Enter how to be the most ignorant bigot ever.
It's amazing how conservatives have abandoned free trade and free markets in favor of tariffs and subsidies since they started worshiping the cult of personality of a lifelong Democrat.
This again shows your complete ignorance on basically everything. Even Reagan pushed tariffs. Trading with an actor who doesn't itself promote free trade isnt actually free trade. Current theft from countries like China greatly outweighs the costs from tariffs. That theft also drives up domestic costs for losses, security costs built into prices, and reduces R&D as resources are allocated to prevent theft. But reality has never mattered to you.
It is funny watching you complain so much about tariffs while ignoring the costs from things like illegal immigration that dwarf the costs of tariffs.
Youre not a serious commenter, nor an informed one.
Even Reagan pushed tariffs.
He also doubled the debt and militarized the police in the name of the drug war. Just because you consider him to be a saint doesn't mean everyone else worships his grave.
Trading with an actor who doesn’t itself promote free trade isnt actually free trade.
Free trade is when a government doesn't restrict the ability of its own people to trade. It is not dependent upon other governments being fair. Fairness is a leftist emotion that has creeped into conservativism thanks to your crybaby in chief. Declaring that other governments need to play fair is just an excuse to abandon free trade and enact leftist restrictions on trade.
Tarrifs are also one of the few truly constitutional methods of raising funds for the government to perform the services it is supposed to provide.
Tariffs currently comprise a mere 2% of federal revenue. That makes them a device for restricting consumer trade, not funding the government.
So are you advocating higher tariffs and lower income taxes?
I would support cutting back the federal government to the point where it could be funded by tariffs. Anyone with a tiny bit of intelligence (that excludes you of course) can see that hiking tariffs in an effort to offset income taxes would simply result in consumers not buying the ridiculously expensive products, and totally defeat the purpose.
lol... "totally defeat the purpose". What is that purpose?
To keep "hiking ----income taxes---- in an effort to offset/dismiss ---tariffs--- that would simply result in consumers not buying the ridiculously expensive local products"??
Maybe China having a slave population is just 1/2 the equation. Maybe the other 1/2 of the equation is up to a 50% local tax and a 0% import tax (generally subsidized) and topped off with China itself subsidizing their exports.
"So are you advocating higher tariffs and lower income taxes?"
Right now he is. But give him 15 minutes and he'll claim the opposite and whine about being a victim when someone points out his hypocrisy.
He is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Austrian economics and libertarianism view the economy from the consumer's point of view, not the point of view of companies seeking political favors. From point of view of a business there will always be some unfairness to be rectified by government. The solution always involves restricting trade for the consumer. Proponents of free trade reject these restrictions in favor of consumer freedom.
The day you demonstrate only a 10% trade tax domestically I'll stop ignoring your BS about tariffs.
And I'm curious about all these subsidies (I take it you're referencing Trump) that he implemented? How do they compare to the Democrats party "subsidize everything" ideology? How about all those Paris Accord dismissals? A De-Regulation Committee?
Nobody here thinks everything Trump did was perfect but it takes a complete partisan hack to pick out needles in a haystack to build a blind mountain of hate.
Surely you meant shoot-first Prohibitionism backed by wiretaps, confiscation, forfeiture, fines, prison terms, padlocking and summary execution by mystical fanatics--just like today. The tariff of 1930 differed from the earlier ones by adding layer upon layer of libels, confiscation, forfeitures, raking with machine guns and 4-pound solid shot. Germany collapsed under the weight of "narcotic" limitation in July 1931 thanks to Herb Hoover's Moratorium on Brains and exporting of deadly force. Oh, Hitler and Al Capone appeared in the papers at the same time. (https://bit.ly/3EWtXLr)
France is a good example of what not to do, and the rest of the nations across the pond are also screwing up by the numbers.
I suggest watching a show on Amazon called "Clarkson's Farm". For those who don't know Jerremy Clarkson from his other shows or his battles with the British press over what he says in an off the cuff manor he is a television presenter as they say in England. He's rather well known for the shows he has done. He has bought a farm in England and has a show about the trials and tribulations of farming under the bizarre and byzantine assortment of government regulation and environmentalist madness they suffer under. It's worth a watch to see how farming is made almost impossible by the regulatory burden placed on the English farmer.
Does he mention how much the government gives farmers for farming (and not farming)? Considering the scale of the subsidies they get, a fair bit of "red tape" is probably warranted.
He complains quite a bit about how the subsidy comes nowhere near enough to pay for the BS he has to put up with. It's funny to see a man who shits on Amercians as frequently as he does complain about how his government is jacking him around.
If you've never watched his shows he shits on all ethnicities. We non hyphenated Americans are the only ones who take it in stride and laugh when he accuses us of putting cheese on everything. The rest bitch and whine a lot. Their ambassadors call the BBC and gripe. The most famous was the Mexican Ambasador to England making an official complaint when one of Clarksons copresenters said that all Mexican food looks like sick (vomit) on a plate.
This is a long but interesting post on life for ordinary people in France. No doubt cherry-picked. The main complaint is that the government soaks up so much income in taxes, doing so many "common" things, that people who want to do anything else have no money left to do it with.
Soccer and other sports are subsidized, so that's what you see on TV. But if you don't want to watch sports or go to the games, you still pay to subsidize them. The same with many other things.
That, to me, is the real crime of government in general, and socialism specifically.
https://notesonliberty.com/longform-essays/poverty-under-democratic-socialism/
Two paragraphs from about halfway down.
A final quote.
Government sucks, and socialism sucks worse.
It sucks to be poor anywhere, but it probably sucks less to be poor in France than poor in the USA.
Wealthy people do well everywhere, but the quality of life is generally better in France, unless your primary motivation is money.
You can't take it with you...
re: "it probably sucks less to be poor in France than poor in the USA"
Not according to the people actually living there. The poor in the US at least have a hope of someday becoming not-poor. The poor in France are basically trapped there. Hopelessness is a big driver of unhappiness. People who are desperately poor but who nevertheless feel that they have some control over their lives are immeasurably happier.
Note that emigration patterns support this conclusion. There are far fewer Americans emigrating to France than French moving to the US.
The best thing to do for the poor is give them opportunities instead of handouts.
"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for the rest of his life."
Even more important, get rid of the occupational licensing, minimum wage laws, and other obstacles for people to help themselves by learning to fish.
Socialism sucks except for the lazy.
More like teach a man to fish and he will drink all of your beer....
Sorry, but when did "social cohesion" become a goal? Since 1621, American culture has never been what one could call cohesive! The best anyone can claim for us is that voluntary cooperation has made us wealthy and dominant in world affairs. Every attempt to try to "unite" us ends up backfiring to the detriment of our wealth and liberty. When Americans seem to be united in cohesiveness, watch out!
There's always been that melting pot claim, but it's been hogwash too.
Discreet abortion before the quickening used to be ignored, until the Papist Irish and Italians started coming in, raising worries about the WASPs being outbred. The Chinese were accepted as long as they worked the railroad or laundries, but not gold mines. The big immigration control push came after WW I when all the Eastern European refugees started coming in, and suddenly the Irish and Italians didn't seem so bad.
The "melting pot" was a reference to metals. You melt metals with different qualities together in the right proportions and you create an alloy that out performs the original materials. The idea isn't we all become a specific grade of steel but that our contributions as decendants from other lands (mostly European was the intent of the founders) made the highest grade of steel instead of the faulty qualities of the pure elements.
And that has what to do with its common mythical usage?
Vero overlooks that Milton Friedman completely ignored Warburton's "Economic Results of Prohibition." Like Rothbard, who at least noticed that prohibition laws existed before the Crash, Friedman& Schwartz display the prominent blind spot cultivated by Republican brainwashing. Ayn Rand and Aldous Huxley understood the real situation much more clearly. But if fanatical prohibitionism was the cause, that would mean Republicans were wrong, which is heresy! (https://bit.ly/3YUQS2S)
Starting before the Maine Laws, the mystical promise was that prosperity comes from looters with guns to robbing and killing to enforce laws that make a crime of trade and production. Faith demanded that the champions of this thesis ignore all evidence and press forward to jail and murder for "the" law! China imported the idea in 1837. Whigs and Roosevelt Republicans put it to work in 1851, 1907, 1920 and 1929, 1931--and by Q1 1933 every bank had closed, Hitler ran Germany and FDR had this huge mess to clean up. 1987 and 2008 Crashes were more of the same Gee Oh Pee "regulation."
"...heavy regulation hurts the economy..."
Regulation is the initiation of violence/threats/death. It's inhumane. It's uncivilized. It's the popular politics, worldwide.
If you vote, you support it. Do you admit it to yourself, or do you, like most, pretend you are free, not self-enslaved? Your delusion is forced on all, as if popularity creates morality, reality. That's insane.
Is "Social Cohesion" the same thing as "Groupthink"?