Whaddaya mean no economical freedom? Ain't there a slot machine in every nook and cranny of this fair country, or a bingo parlor on every Main Street?

The scores in the Heritage study sidebar "Quick Study" for a country do not match those in the text writeup on the same page. Am I missing something. Anyway this entire thing is so subjective as to be meaningless. When the UK scores higher in banking and finance and in informal markets than the US, I'm skeptical. If you use the scores in the writeup, the UK averages a 2 and the US a 2. In fact the US scores a 2 on every category in the text blurb which is at variance with the "quick study."

If you read papers in Britain, you'd think that our wealth is at the expense of the developing world, and that the coming environmental cataclysm resulting from economic development is the biggest challenge facing the world today. . . free trade, economic freedom, transparent, pluralistic governments are the ingredients for the long-term elevation of the third world, and wealth drives sound economic policies. . . Shaking Spears

Laddy,

"entire thing is so subjective as to be meaningless."

I trust you've purchased the book to view the methodologies used to see how "subjective" this study is?

The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation have been putting this out for over a decade. It has passed far more critical review than your assessment.

And this is with a Republican administration; I shudder to think about the implications of having a true free-spending and -taxing administration. Although it's getting harder and harder to tell the Republicans and Democrats apart in this area, a truly disappointing development.

I'm glad you make this note. Republicans are not for any sort of small government anymore. They used to preach it but do the opposite. Today, they don't even pretend. Republicans don't know or desire economic freedom.

There did seem to be a technical problem with the scoring in the text, but I believe the problem has been resolved. The summary scores are correct as are all the scores in the PDF file.

Index grading is mostly quantitative, but has some subjective analysis as identified in the methodology. If you are interested in the methodology, it can be downloaded in full in "Chapter 5" in the "Downloads" section on the websight.

We believe in full transparency.

Best Wishes,

Brett Schaefer

Brett, thanks for the update.

Jonathan, I don't agree with your contention that "Republicans don't know or desire economic freedom." I'm sure if you asked any Republican legislator about this, they'd say they are all for such freedom. The problem is that they don't have the discipline -- or, often, the wisdom -- necessary to achieve it.

It's not news that the Journal sees the ability of wealthiest in our society to merge, spend, downsize, outsource, dump, poison, union-bust, scam, and exploit with impunity as a measure of economic freedom. It's long past time for the left to take back the language of economic freedom to discuss the meaningful control over one's own life which is fostered by the economic security the Journal is doing everything it can to destroy for working Americans. It's not seemly, of course, for the Journal to appear to be waging class war on behalf of the wealthiest in America, so readers get the obligatory claim that shredding social insurance and regulation is good for the poor. Funny thing is, the US (supposedly the 13th most economically free country) had a 17% poverty rate in 2004, while Norway (all the way down at #30) was at 6.4%. So if you believe, as most Americans do and even the Journal (itself "pay[ing] lip service to fighting poverty") claims to, that poverty is a blight on a decent society, think again before trying the Journal's prescription.

OTOH, the Big Old Euro Guys (Germany, Austria, France, Italy and Spain) are conspicuous in their absence from the general categorization as "free."

It should be noted that Germany's score of 2.00 makes it "mostly free", while the Netherland's 1.95 makes it "free". That distinction seems arbitrary rather than meaningful.

I agree with Laddy where he said this is all so subjective.

But still, as I pointed out in my blog yesterday, Bush isn't trying very hard to reduce the size of government.

Josh,

It's not news that the Left sees the ability of government in our society to overtax, spend, over-regulate, subsidize, imprison, oppress, patronize cronies, scam, and exploit with impunity as a measure of economic freedom.

While both have their problems, the difference is that the private sector is at relatively efficient and innovative.

Eric, really great interaction on this post of yours, including - especially - the update from Brett.

I think you're displaying the workings of the 'virtual town square' you discussed in an earlier post. And I think it's this kind of near-intantaneous feedback/response that established media like the Greenvoro News-Record envy and want to embrace more.

Jeff, it's with all modesty that I can say that what you're seeing is nothing more than the awesome power of an Instalanche! It's nothing I've done. ;-)

But, yes...being able to provide a means for near-instantaneous feedback from someone directly associated with the study is definitely a positive thing.

lose the nasty yellow on the sides of your site and you got it made dood.

Like, wow, man...like I never knew it could be so easy! Thanx for the phat tip, dood!

"Funny thing is, the US (supposedly the 13th most economically free country) had a 17% poverty rate in 2004, while Norway (all the way down at #30) was at 6.4%. "

Poverty is a relative term. The "poor" will always be with us, even when they're rich and everyone else is richer.

If we could control the crime problem and do away with the regulation-induced shortages in housing, medical care, and education, that would do a hell of a lot more to improve the lives of our poor than dreaming up new ways to put the screws to the rich ever will.

"It's not news that the Journal sees the ability of wealthiest in our society to merge, spend, downsize, outsource, dump, poison, union-bust, scam, and exploit with impunity as a measure of economic freedom."

No, it's not. Because, the ability and freedom of the wealthiest (and everyone else) to cooperate, spend (spend? what's wrong with that?), save money, get a better deal, donate, take out the trash, give the finger to those who try to set up monopolies in what you're buying, negotiate, and buy and sell are excellent measures of economic freedom.

In reply to Sean's comment about me:

I note that marginal tax rates are used as a component of factor 2, fiscal burden. There is no mention of VAT or sales taxes. Are they not also an impediment to economic development or has there been a new economic discovery that these types of taxes are not burdensome? This is what I mean by subjective. A zero marginal income tax rate country with very high VAT or ST would get a better ranking. That makes no sense to me. This is why I hate these quick and dirty types of rankings and why I find them suspect. I couldn't care less how long they've been around.

Hard to believe. Here's my anecdotal, outdated observation:

Lived in Denmark 6 years ago, and had a friend who wanted to start a business. According to him, there were mountains of regulations, fees, etc. necessary to even get started and as a result he failed before he even opened.

I haven't read the report, so I don't know if or to what extent it considered entreprenurial barriers. But these days, as I drive down any commercial street in a small US city, I marvel at the huge number of businesses - from rental centers to nail salons to pet groomers to computer repair - as compared to the city in Denmark where I lived, where it was unlikely you'd have much choice or competition.

- an Instalanchee