Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Heritage Foundation's 2006 Index Of Economic Freedom

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

US is tied for 9th place with Australia and New Zealand, just above Canada.

The top 8 are as follows:

Hong Kong

Singapore

Ireland

Luxembourg

Iceland

United Kingdom

Estonia

Denmark

Assuming that these are accurate, why is the US still referred to as the most free nation on Earth? I doubt it's accuracy a little since we're only one-hundredth of a point above Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick look tells you that it's NOT true. The UK, among many other countries on the list are nearly completely socialist. I don't know what kind of "economic freedom" they are referring to, but it is NOT Capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that these are accurate, why is the US still referred to as the most free nation on Earth? I doubt it's accuracy a little since we're only one-hundredth of a point above Canada.
At the kind of economic tier we are talking about, these differences are rather slight. Also this is a measure of economic freedom, not political freedom, which is why Singapore is doing so well on that list.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/...id=Unitedstates

Remeber, low scores are better!

Historically, the U.S. Constitution has provided strong protections for privat property and economic liberties. Since World War II, the United States ha generally taken a strong leadership position in expanding global trade throug lower tariff barriers. Subsequent moves to deregulate, cut tax rates, follo stable monetary policy, and protect intellectual property rights hav engendered strong growth. Regrettably, some recent trends have raise questions about such traditions. The U.S. Supreme Court's June 23, 2005 Kelo v. City of New London ruling on eminent domain exposes man Americans' property to arbitrary seizure; and while countries in Eastern Europ are adopting flat taxes, deregulating, and privatizing, the U.S. may be driftin toward bigger government. The U.S. has continued a leadership role in fre trade with eight ratified free trade agreements, another signed agreement, an ongoing negotiations with other countries. However, continued use of the "anti-dumping" Byrd Amendment, combined with anti-China rhetoric, indicates a ongoing protectionist mindset. Moreover, legislated government spending unde such laws as the massive farm subsidies of 2002, the massive Medicar prescription entitlement of 2003, and the massive transportation bill of 200 has expanded without constraints, and Sarbanes–Oxley and other regulator laws have raised compliance costs. The United States' trade policy score i 0.5 point better this year, and its fiscal burden of government score is 0.1 poin better. As a result, the United States' overall score is 0.06 point better this year.

Trade Policy

Score: 2.0

The World Bank reports that the United States' weighted average tariff rate in 2004 was 1.8 percent, down from the 2.6 percent for 2002 reported in the 2005 Index, based on World Bank data. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the government imposes non-tariff barriers, including quotas, tariff rate import quotas, anti-dumping provisions, countervailing duties, and licensing requirements, on a number of goods. Based on the lower tariff rate, as well as a revision of the trade factor methodology, the United States' trade policy score is 0.5 point better this year.

Fiscal Burden

Score: 3.9

According to Deloitte, the United States' top federal income tax rate is 35 percent. The top corporate tax rate is also 35 percent. In 2004, government expenditures as a share of GDP decreased 0.5 percentage point to 36 percent, compared to a 0.2 percentage point increase in 2003. On net, the United States' fiscal burden of government score is 0.1 point better this year.

Government Intervention

Score: 2.0

Based on data from the Economic Report of the President, the government consumed 15.4 percent of GDP in 2004. In 2003, based on data from the International Monetary Fund's Government Financial Statistics CD–ROM, the United States received 3.03 percent of its total revenues from state-owned enterprises and government ownership of property.

Monetary Policy

Score: 1.0

From 1995 to 2004, the United States' weighted average annual rate of inflation was 2.50 percent.

Foreign Investment

Score: 2.0

The United States welcomes foreign investment. Foreign and domestic enterprises are treated equally under the law, and foreign investors are not required to register with or seek approval from the federal government. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, however, "Foreign investments face restrictions in banking, mining, defence contracting, certain energy-related industries, fishing, shipping, communications and aviation." The government also restricts foreign acquisitions that threaten to impair national security. The U.S. imposes a general embargo against Cuba, Burma, Iran, and Sudan and limited sanctions against Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. The U.S. also has sanctions targeting specific individuals in the Balkans, the Taliban, Liberia, and Zimbabwe and those involved in terrorism and drug trafficking. There are no controls or requirements on current transfers, access to foreign exchange, or repatriation of profits. Purchase of real estate is unrestricted on a national level, although purchase of agricultural land by foreign nationals or companies with at least 10 percent foreign ownership must be reported to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Some states impose restrictions on purchases of land and other types of investments by foreign companies.

Banking and Finance

Score: 1.0

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, "The United States has the most dynamic and developed financial markets in the world…. A large network of national and regional banks…provides companies with capital and a broad array of financial services. Large multi-purpose money-centre banks with international reach manage corporate needs both at home and abroad. Legislation breaking down previously existing barriers between commercial banks, insurance companies and securities firms should spur cross-industry tie-ups…. Foreign financial institutions face few restrictions, and the largest among them are increasingly visible in the US marketplace. The US economy is very open and liberal, and offers a favourable operating environment." Federal and state governments share regulatory responsibility for banks. Reform in 1999 eliminated barriers to entry into U.S. financial markets and removed prohibitions against the purchase of banks by insurance and securities companies. However, concerns have been raised about the costs associated with complying with Sarbanes–Oxley regulations. This has facilitated both the creation of universal financial services companies and the competitiveness of U.S. banking, as well as further consolidation of the financial services industry, enabling U.S. firms to compete more effectively in global markets. Two government sponsored enterprises—the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Mortgage Loan Corporation (Freddie Mac)—account for almost half of the $8 trillion outstanding on U.S. home mortgages. While both enterprises are shareholder-owned and listed on the stock market, they enjoy privileged treatment under congressional mandates. The overall trend in financial services is toward more competition and continued product innovation. From 1993 to 2003, the number of banking institutions fell by 29 percent to about 9,000, notes the EIU, which also reports that there were 276 banking mergers in 2003 and 180 in the first eight months of 2004.

Wages and Prices

Score: 2.0

The market sets most wages and prices. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, "Price controls apply to some regulated monopolies in the United States (like utilities and the postal service), and certain states and localities control residential rents." Hawaii imposes caps on gasoline prices. The government also influences prices through subsidies, particularly for the agricultural sector, dairy products, and some forms of transportation. The federal government imposes a minimum wage.

Property Rights

Score: 1.0

The United States still does very well in most measures of property rights protection, including an honest and independent judiciary, a sound commercial code and other laws for the resolution of contract and property disputes between private parties, and the recognition of foreign arbitration and court rulings. However, the concerns outlined in recent years have worsened. Uncompensated government expropriations of property remain highly unlikely, but it is likely that local governments' abuse of eminent domain power with the seizure of private land (with some compensation) and its transfer to another party for a non-public or quasi-public use will accelerate with the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2005 Kelo v. City of New London ruling. By ruling that governments may take even non-blighted property and transfer it to another owner for the purpose of increasing the tax base, the Court's Kelo decision seriously undermines, or effectively eliminates, the U.S. Constitution's requirement that private property may be taken only for a "public use." Unless the decision is reversed or countered with legislative protections that stop the abuse of eminent domain, the practice will be difficult to isolate, and evidence of extensive use of this decision could be grounds for downgrading this factor in future editions of the Index. An even more serious problem is that governments at all levels impose numerous regulatory and land-use controls that diminish the value and enjoyment of private property. Examples include extensive "growth controls"; unreasonable zoning hurdles; facility permitting regimes; and far-reaching environmental, wetlands, and habitat restrictions on the use and development of real estate. Thus, the protections for private property are undermined by a vast bureaucracy that has the power to interfere substantially with many property rights. The level of protection for property in the United States will depend eventually on whether the courts and legislative bodies place clear limits on bureaucratic power or require cost-effective remedies for property owners whose rights have been affected. The Supreme Court's performance in such government "takings" cases has been decidedly mixed in recent years, and 2005 was worse than usual. Besides Kelo, two rent control decisions denying the recovery of any compensation further burden the owners of private property. Although the climate for judicial and legislative reform is improving, that is largely a reaction to these decisions, which are increasingly less favorable to property rights protections.

Regulation

Score: 2.0

It is easy to establish a business. "Through a fairly simple procedure," reports the Economist Intelligence Unit, a firm "can then set up offices, plants or other permanent establishments under the corporation laws of other states…. Firms may choose a location on the basis of which state's laws offer greater flexibility." The U.S. labor market is one of the world's most flexible. Regulations are applied evenly and consistently. However, many regulations—for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act, various civil rights regulations, environmental laws, health and product safety standards, food and drug labeling requirements, and Sarbanes–Oxley—although well-intentioned, can be onerous. In February 2005, the government approved the Class Action Fairness Act, a bill aimed at reducing the costs that businesses face from class-action lawsuits. Electronic commerce is minimally regulated. Corruption in the bureaucracy is rare.

Informal Market

Score: 1.5

Transparency International's 2004 score for the United States is 7.5. Therefore, the United States' informal market score is 1.5 this year.

Score: 1.84

Now how about our friends in the "Socialist" UK?

The United Kingdom, with its strong rule of law and political and economi freedom, has become the world's fourth-largest economy, up from sixt largest when Prime Minister Tony Blair assumed power. New Labour' insistence on not undoing the Thatcher revolution continues to pay dividends GDP grew by 3.1 percent in 2004. However, the government's budget move from a surplus of 1.6 percent of GDP in 2000–2001 to a 2.9 percent deficit i 2004–2005, chiefly because the Blair team showered money on antiquate public services. Economic storm clouds are looming. The regulatory burde has increased, as companies are expected to do an increasing number of job for the government through the use of payrolls. When Labour came to power 15 such regulations were on the books; the number now stands at 23. In Ma 2005, the Blair government was returned for an unprecedented third term Incredibly, given the Labour Party's history, British voters judged Blair a bette steward of the economy than the ostensibly pro-business Conservatives. Yet despite public support following the July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in London the prime minister's time is running out. The key question is whether a ne Labour leader will maintain similar economic policies and preside over th same type of economic success. The United Kingdom's fiscal burden o government score is 0.1 point better this year. As a result, its overall score i 0.01 point better this year

Trade Policy

Score: 2.0

As a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom was subject to a common EU weighted average external tariff of 1.3 percent in 2003, down from the 2.4 percent for 2002 reported in the 2005 Index, based on World Bank data. According to the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Trade Representative, the EU imposes non-tariff trade barriers through a complex regulatory system and export subsidies. Based on the revised trade factor methodology, the United Kingdom's trade policy score is unchanged.

Fiscal Burden

Score: 3.9

The United Kingdom's top income tax rate is 40 percent. The top corporate tax rate is 30 percent. In 2004, government expenditures as a share of GDP increased 0.7 percentage point to 44.1 percent, compared to the 1.6 percentage point increase in 2003. On net, the United Kingdom's fiscal burden of government score is 0.1 point better this year.

Government Intervention

Score: 2.5

Based on data from the Economist Intelligence Unit, the government consumed 21.3 percent of GDP in 2004. In the April 2003–March 2004 fiscal year, based on data from the Government Statistical Service, the United Kingdom received 2.01 percent of its total revenues from state-owned enterprises and government ownership of property.

Monetary Policy

Score: 1.0

From 1995 to 2004, the United Kingdom's weighted average annual rate of inflation was 2.80 percent.

Foreign Investment

Score: 1.0

The United Kingdom welcomes foreign investment, and foreign investors receive the same treatment as domestic businesses. "With a few exceptions," reports the U.S. Department of Commerce, "the UK does not discriminate between nationals and foreign individuals in the formation and operation of private companies…. The UK imposes few impediments to foreign ownership…. Government policies are intended to facilitate the free flow of capital and to support the flow of resources in the product and services markets." The UK is one of the most favorable destinations for foreign investment in the European Union, attracting about a quarter of all direct investment in the EU. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, "The most attractive features of the business environment will be a favourable disposition to foreign investment, deep and sophisticated capital markets, a relaxed attitude to foreign takeovers of domestic companies, and a relatively flexible labour market." The government "has some power to block foreign acquisitions (under the Industry Act 1975) and force divestments" but "generally does not exercise any discriminatory controls over foreign takeovers…. Limits exist in some privatised companies on the amount of voting shares an individual or group may own…. The main regulatory hazards for direct investors, especially those planning acquisitions, stem from Brussels, not London." The International Monetary Fund reports that both residents and non-residents may hold foreign exchange accounts. Payments and proceeds on invisible transactions and current transfers face no restrictions, profits can be repatriated freely, and there are no controls on real estate transactions. The IMF reports that the government can prohibit transfer of control of important domestic manufacturing to a non-resident if the transaction is determined not to be in the national interest. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, "Foreign investors are able to obtain credit in the local market at normal market terms, and a wide range of credit instruments is available."

Banking and Finance

Score: 1.0

The London Stock Exchange is one of the world's largest exchanges. The UK has a well-developed, competitive system of universal banking in which banking institutions are permitted to sell securities and insurance products, as well as invest in industrial firms. The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that "London offers all forms of financial services—commercial banking, investment banking, insurance, venture capital, stock and currency brokers, fund managers, commodity dealers, accounting and legal services, as well as electronic clearing and settlement systems and bank payments systems. The UK banking sector is the third largest in the world after the U.S. and Japan, with nearly 700 banks authorized to do business in the UK." According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, "Nearly all major banks around the world have subsidiaries or branches in London authorised to take deposits. Several of these are bigger than the smallest of the top ten British banks…. Foreign banks compete for commercial business in the UK on the same terms as domestic banks." Credit is allocated on market terms.

Wages and Prices

Score: 2.0

The market sets most prices in the United Kingdom. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, "The government, either directly or through regulatory agencies, has permanent price-control powers over matches, milk, most public utilities and London taxi fares…." The government also affects agricultural prices through the UK's participation in the Common Agricultural Policy, a program that heavily subsidizes agricultural goods. The United Kingdom has a minimum wage.

Property Rights

Score: 1.0

Property rights in the United Kingdom are well secured. The Economist Intelligence Unit reports that "contractual agreements are generally secure in the UK. There is no discrimination against foreign companies in court. The judiciary is of high quality when dealing with commercial cases." In March 2005, Parliament approved a bill to establish a Supreme Court.

Regulation

Score: 2.0

It is still easier to open a business in the United Kingdom than in other parts of Europe, but the regulatory environment is rapidly worsening. According to The Economist, "British business is being buried by a pile of new regulations. Some—such as the working-time directive—come from Brussels.… This supposedly business-friendly government increasingly uses companies as unpaid state employees. Through their payrolls, they now have to do 23 jobs for the government, from doling out maternity pay and tax credits to collecting fines and student loan repayments. When Labour came to power, the number was 15." Some companies spend up to 75 percent of their time dealing with the bureaucracy. Most of the complaints relate to health and safety regulations, environmental rules, and labor laws. These issues will be scrutinized and verified in the 2007 Index.

Informal Market

Score: 1.0

Transparency International's 2004 score for the United Kingdom is 8.6. Therefore, the United Kingdom's informal market score is 1 this year.

Score: 1.74

Here is a quick summary of scores.

Both nations got eqaul scores for trade policy - US=2, UK=2

Both nations got equal socres for fiscal burden - US=3.9, UK=3.9

The UK's score for Government intervention was higher - US= 2.0, UK=2.5

Both scored the same for monetary policy - US=1, UK=1

UK scored better on foreign investment - US=2, UK=1

Both scores the same for banking and finance - US=1, UK=1

Both scores the same for wages and prices - US=2, UK=2

Both scores the same for property rights - US=1, UK=1

Both scores the same for regulation - US=2, UK=2

The UK scored better on informal markey - US=1.5, UK=1

So as we can see, there are very few economic differences between the two (which explains why the UK remains one of the few dynamic economies in western europe, thanks Thatcher!) and its just the nature of the survey to take an average at the end. With the difference between the US and the UK's score being very tiny, I would hardly say that this shows that the American economic machine is faltering or loosing out to European socialists.

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
What could make anyone think that the UK is "nearly completely socialist"?
Old sources. It depends on your standard of comparison -- and note that the epithet was "socialist". Norway, OTOH, is (as a colleague living there has said) a communist country. that's a bit harsh, but given the level of pre-divestiture encroachment of the government into what ought to be private matters -- education, railways, airlines, steel, gas, medicine, broadcasting, petrol, coal, telephones, electricity, cars (British Leyland at least), the BoE -- as well as a very generous dole. The UK deserved the reputation that it got, especially in the post-war era, but the situation has changed for the better, a fact which is not generally recognised on the outside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an answer that will make you feel good: Americans are ignorant xenophobes who care nothing about the rest of the world. For the majority of my countrymen, the world outside our borders is simply a place that exists to sell us oil and to provide a dumping ground for our industrial waste. Is that what you were looking for?

Now for an answer a little closer to the truth: The guy made a mistake. England certainly has a socialist past and he probably hasn't heard of or paid attention to the changes in your country. The next time a Brit makes a mistake, I'll be sure to hold you and the rest of your countrymen responsible for it. :yarr:

As a very patriotic American, I believe that it is a little of both. Most Americans are incredibly stupid and ignorant. I believe this is largely because of our public education system. A girl in my fiancee's sorority had to have me explain to her who ADOLF HITLER was. She was 20 years old and had never heard of him. Most people in this country could not tell you who wrote the Declaration of Independence and probably 25% couldn't tell you who we won independence from. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people who could point out France, Iraq, or India on a world map. Ask some random person on the streets the difference between Hinduism and Islam and see what they say. Better yet, ask the difference between socialism and capitalism. The longer I live, the more I become convinced that the people of the United States are exceedingly ignorant and stupid.

However, I still love my country and consider it the greatest on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a very patriotic American, I believe that it is a little of both. Most Americans are incredibly stupid and ignorant. I believe this is largely because of our public education system. A girl in my fiancee's sorority had to have me explain to her who ADOLF HITLER was. She was 20 years old and had never heard of him. Most people in this country could not tell you who wrote the Declaration of Independence and probably 25% couldn't tell you who we won independence from. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people who could point out France, Iraq, or India on a world map. Ask some random person on the streets the difference between Hinduism and Islam and see what they say. Better yet, ask the difference between socialism and capitalism. The longer I live, the more I become convinced that the people of the United States are exceedingly ignorant and stupid.

However, I still love my country and consider it the greatest on earth.

*winces*

I'd say this is solely an issue of ignorance, not stupidity. Stupidity can cause ignorance, but it isn't the same thing. As you said, it's probably the education system that causes it. People assume they've been taught what they need to know once they're out of highschool.

I think us Brits are getting are starting on this same road to ignorance as well. I came out of high school with no idea who Joseph Stalin was, or what communism/socialism were. I had no idea what the declaration of independance was except from what I'd gotten from watching cartoons (!).

That reminds me of one particular TV show here in the UK: Newsround. It's a current affairs program aimed at kids, shown in the after-school hours. To say it has a leftist slant would be a big understatement. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percentage of our nations children grow up to hate America and think global warming/businesses are the biggest threat to humanity solely on the grounds of that one program. It really makes me sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that these are accurate, why is the US still referred to as the most free nation on Earth? I doubt it's accuracy a little since we're only one-hundredth of a point above Canada.

I commented on that ranking in another thread a little while back. I think its important to take into consideration that it refers to "economic freedom," rather than freedom as such. I don't know exactly what differentiates the two, in the eyes of the Heritage Foundation, but there surely is a huge difference.

Hong Kong is undoubtedly one of the freest countries in the world. From what I understand, they have a nearly lasseiz-faire government. Andy Bernstein discusses Hong Kong briefly in The Capitalist Manifesto, which I confess is my only source of information on their political atmosphere--other countries' governments aren't really a huge area of study for me.

In Singapore, however, which is ranked #2 on their list, it is illegal to possess chewing gum, and they'll cane you for crimes which would be more justly punished with a fine, like vandalism. That is not a free country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hong Kong is undoubtedly one of the freest countries in the world.
Hong Kong was the freest country. Now that China has taken it over, it isn't a country. The mainland Chinese have allowed it's economy to be de facto free because they don't want to kill the golden goose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hong Kong was the freest country. Now that China has taken it over, it isn't a country. The mainland Chinese have allowed it's economy to be de facto free because they don't want to kill the golden goose.

I was understanding that China took pretty much a hands-off policy to Honk Kong all the way around, not just regarding their economy. I'm rather uninformed about these kinds of things, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... Socialized medicine... extremely high taxes...government regulations and cameras everywhere. Now I wonder what made me say that Britain IS a socialist country? It wasn't "old information" or a "brain hemerage" but reality.

Socialism and a mixed economy are different things. Both the USA and the UK are mixed economies, yet neither should be described as socialist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism and a mixed economy are different things. Both the USA and the UK are mixed economies, yet neither should be described as socialist!

But they are. If the government appropriates property from one if its citizens then that makes it a socialist government, just as you only have to kill one person to make you a murderer. It would be wrong to say that they are absolutely socialist (i.e. communist). They are mixed economy AND socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they are. If the government appropriates property from one if its citizens then that makes it a socialist government, just as you only have to kill one person to make you a murderer. It would be wrong to say that they are absolutely socialist (i.e. communist). They are mixed economy AND socialist.

Are you saying that either the UK, the USA, or both countries are socialist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference between the UK and Sweden are you implying (you seem to be saying that the UK is not like Sweden, so I'm wondering in what way).

I am absolutely sick of having to correct peoples inaccuracies and general lack of knowledge.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp

As you can see Sweden is top of the list. The UK is in the middle. The USA is at the bottom.

And before you go off on a rant about how great that makes America, you should realise that US govt spending as a % of gdp has been rising over the last few decades, whereas UK govt spending has been falling over this time period.

Also, the UK being in the middle, just below Germany doesn't really do it justice as recognised by the Heritage Index which takes into account more than tax as a measure of economic freedom. This is because for example compared to Germany we have a very flexible labour market (easier to hire and fire). Another example is that we have whole industries that are banned in most states in America such as gambling.

Another example in which Britain beats America is the post service: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4274335.stm

I could list lots of other examples. However as I said, I am sick of correcting people.

David, it really isn't hard to see the difference between Sweden and the UK if you care to take a look at some facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, freakin' chill. He was just asking. He wasn't implying that anything you said was wrong. The reason people on here get testy with you is because you assume that our lack of knowledge about European governments is equivalent to stupidity and ignorance.

We don't live in Europe. We have not grown up learning about its politics. You may counter that you know about American politics, so we should know about European politics. Given that America is the most powerful nation in the world and the fact that what this country does has visible effects in the rest of the world, it only makes sense that you know more about American politics than we do about European politics. I would expect, for instance, that people in Iceland are more familiar with the British government that you are with the Icelandic government. Why? Because Iceland is a more innocuous country than Britain. Likewise (and this is not meant as an insult to Britain...I like Britain), Britain is a more innocuous country than the United States.

Assuming that we're ignorant for not knowing the inner politics of countries like Britain and Sweden would be like someone from South America calling you ignorant for not knowing the politics of Uruguay and Bolivia.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of another WHOLE INDUSTRY that you don't have in America.

Tax-free leveraged speculation on financial markets. Its called spread betting.

http://www.igindex.co.uk/

The average Joe can speculate on commodities, stocks, currencies etc at up to 100:1 leverage and not be taxed a penny. You can also sell short just as easily as going long. This is as free as it gets people!

In America there are strict regulations banning this kind of speculation, yet another example of America lagging behind on the freedom scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I have deleted some of the rude posts in this thread.)

By the way, one definition of socialism is “a social system in which the state holds a monopoly on the production of goods and services.” No society can be 100% socialist, since markets are a requirement for the existence of any society as such, so the identification of a country as “socialist” depends on your basis of comparison. Cuba is socialist relative to China, which is socialist relative to Sweden. The U.K. and the U.S. are better described as “mixed economy welfare states,” which means that state control is focused on the provision of welfare services, such as healthcare, insurance, and safety.

Also, measures of intelligence such as “stupid” and “smart” are comparative terms. You should only use the in them context of a control group that you are comparing them too. Otherwise, you are make a contradiction by claiming, in essence, that “most people have below (or above) average intelligence.

In the case of western countries like the U.S. and U.K. most people are both stupid and ignorant because their government education has robbed them of the knowledge or thinking skills relative to what they might have learned in a private school.

Hong Kong was the freest country. Now that China has taken it over, it isn't a country. The mainland Chinese have allowed it's economy to be de facto free because they don't want to kill the golden goose.

Actually, Hong Kong was never a country – it was formerly a possession of the U.K.

Assuming that these are accurate, why is the US still referred to as the most free nation on Earth? I doubt it's accuracy a little since we're only one-hundredth of a point above Canada.

Because people generally make that comparison in terms of political, not economic freedom. I doubt whether even this is true any more after the introduction of campaign finance laws, which effectively censor and restrict financing to the rivals of incumbents.

Whether you value political or economic freedom depends on your personal values. No clear distinction can be made between the two in any case, since economic coercion will inevitably lead to political coercion and vice verse. I would much rather live in a dictatorship with a free economy than vice versa, and I think most people would as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...