Whatever became of the "land of the free"?

[Gob]

For much of human history, most individuals have lacked economic freedom and opportunity, condemning them to poverty and deprivation.

Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2014, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Index of Economic Freedom. With its user friendly format and straight-forward analysis, readers can track up to two decades of advancement in economic freedom, prosperity, and opportunity.

The Index covers 10 freedoms – from property rights to entrepreneurship – in 186 countries.

This year, the United States continued to lose ground to its competitors in the global race to advance economic freedom and prosperity. The U.S. score has declined almost 6 points since 2007, placing the U.S. among those countries considered to be only “mostly free.”

http://www.heritage.org/index/


Top 10 Countries

1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 Australia
4 Switzerland
5 New Zealand
6 Canada
7 Chile
8 Mauritius
9 Ireland
10 Denmark

[Crackpot]

We are doing our job of exporting democracy too well

[rubato]

"... an annual guide published by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.


... "

Only in their own press releases. To the rest of the world they are merely a factory for R-W sound bytes.

yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

We are doing our job of exporting democracy too well

This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, and particularly any US export of democracy, since none of the "top 10" countries operates on a US political model (most use a British model), and I'm not even sure you can actually call Singapore "democratic."

Moreover, the whole "index" is skewed in its conception of "freedom" -- economic or otherwise -- and is solely a crude propaganda tool:

Q.3. How do you measure economic freedom?

We measure economic freedom based on 10 quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four broad categories, or pillars, of economic freedom:

Rule of Law (property rights, freedom from corruption);
Limited Government (fiscal freedom, government spending[/b]);
Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom); and
Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).

Of the "10 quantitative and qualitative factors," eight are exclusively concerned with promoting capitalist interests in private enterprise and business profit; of the remaining two, "freedom from corruption" is fairly characterized as a universal "economic freedom," but "government spending" is entirely unrelated to any concept of "freedom," except in the minds of laissez-faire ideologues.

Conspicuous by their complete absence from the Heritage Foundation's measures of "economic freedom" are freedom from poverty, freedom from economic inequality, freedom from workplace discrimination and harassment, freedom of socio-economic mobility, freedom of access to health care and freedom of access to education, to name just a few highly relevant and more broadly applicable categories off the top of my head. I really don't give a rat's ass about some capitalist's so-called "property rights."

[Big RR]

But what do you expect from the WSJ and the Heritage Foundation (and when did it become "Washington's No. 1 think tank?). They're certainly not going to count any of those points you raise, except as they affect some capitalist's economic freedom. that being said, I would probably give Canada and Denmark fairly high marks on those criteria (and I'm sure there are some others as well), proving one can balance these interests and still be hailed by the libertarians and bastions of economic freedom.

[Gob]

Conspicuous by their complete absence from the Heritage Foundation's measures of "economic freedom" are freedom from poverty, freedom from economic inequality, freedom from workplace discrimination and harassment, freedom of socio-economic mobility, freedom of access to health care and freedom of access to education, to name just a few highly relevant and more broadly applicable categories off the top of my head.

If those were measured, do you think the USA would move UP the index Sue?

[Sue U]

Conspicuous by their complete absence from the Heritage Foundation's measures of "economic freedom" are freedom from poverty, freedom from economic inequality, freedom from workplace discrimination and harassment, freedom of socio-economic mobility, freedom of access to health care and freedom of access to education, to name just a few highly relevant and more broadly applicable categories off the top of my head.

If those were measured, do you think the USA would move UP the index Sue?

Obviously not. But the point of this "index" is not to make any meaningful or even rational assessment of socio-economic conditions around the world. Its only real purpose is to be used as a propaganda piece to push American big business's public policy agenda by generating "buzz" (i.e., hysteria among the ignorant and unthinking) that the US is losing out to other countries in some undefined but OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT contest and in DIRE PERIL of having its "economic freedom" extinguished:

This year, the United States continued to lose ground to its competitors in the global race to advance economic freedom and prosperity. The U.S. score has declined almost 6 points since 2007, placing the U.S. among those countries considered to be only “mostly free.”

Oh noes! How can the U.S. of A not be NUMBER ONE in everything! If only our leaders would follow the genius philosophies espoused by the Heritage Foundation, the Wall Street Journal, the US Chamber of Commerce and Koch Industries! Then we'd surely be back on top! With freedumb! USA! USA! USA!

[Gob]

Obviously not. :

Damn, that would have been an interesting line of thought to follow!

[Crackpot]

Probably would beat out Hong Kong and Singapore tho...

[oldr_n_wsr]

I have a question.

freedom from poverty,
freedom from economic inequality,

What do mean by these?

I understand the rest of your post where you say:

freedom from workplace discrimination and harassment, freedom of socio-economic mobility, freedom of access to health care and freedom of access to education,

as these are impedements to individual (and perhaps business) success. They do not guarantee success but at least they remove certain barriers that would block people from succeeding.

[dgs49]

Conspicuous by their complete absence from the Heritage Foundation's measures of "economic freedom" are freedom from poverty, freedom from economic inequality, freedom from workplace discrimination and harassment, freedom of socio-economic mobility, freedom of access to health care and freedom of access to education, to name just a few highly relevant and more broadly applicable categories off the top of my head. I really don't give a rat's ass about some capitalist's so-called "property rights."

One can only say, "Wow!"

"Freedom from economic inequality"? Are you fucking SERIOUS? Travel to Cuba or North Korea recently? Now THEY've got "freedom from economic inequality" in SPADES! Economic freedom MEANS, some people will succeed and some people will fail. If you have NO ECONOMIC FREEDOM then everyone gets the same (at least in theory).

Freedom of access to education? What are you smoking? Who in the U.S. is denied access to education?

"Off the top of my head," indeed. More like, "pulled out of my ass."

[Big RR]

Economic freedom MEANS, some people will succeed and some people will fail.

and economic inequality means some people start out with a much, much better chance to win than others. Freedom from economic inequality would give all a fighting chance. A bad thing?

Who in the U.S. is denied access to education?

I'm surprised a person who has ripped the US educational system as many times as you and has said it is ineffective would ask that question. Many children are, especially those in the poorer and underfunded (not always the same) districts. Access to education means more than walking into a school. Toss in higher education and we see many more disenfranchised due to economics.

[oldr_n_wsr]

economic inequality means some people start out with a much, much better chance to win than others. Freedom from economic inequality would give all a fighting chance. A bad thing?

It would be nice if everyone started at the same starting line but it ain't never going to happen.
Actually, I don't know if it would be "nice" then there would be no "rags to riches" stories for others to see that it can be done and to emulate.

And what about us parents who busted our asses and scrimped and saved to give our kids a fighting chance? or a better chance (aka paying for a better school, tutors, etc) IS my kid now supposed to start at the same point as some kid who's parents did nothing to help their kid (or themselves) get ahead?

Are we going to put my kid to the lower starting point or are we going to raise the other kids up to my kids starting point? Or are we going to grab the lower kids and my kid and go to the even better starting point? And if any of that happened, why did I bother busting my ass for any of it?

But lets just say we are going to change things to get everyone at the same starting line. How would one go about doing that?

And the way I am seeing things going, the starting lines are being pushed way back for more and more people.
Seems the "race to the bottom" is picking up steam.

[Big RR]

And what about us parents who busted our asses and scrimped and saved to give our kids a fighting chance? or a better chance (aka paying for a better school, tutors, etc) IS my kid now supposed to start at the same point as some kid who's parents did nothing to help their kid (or themselves) get ahead?

I don't know about you, but I busted my ass to let my kids get a chance, not to get them ahead in any line. At some point their intelligence, talent, and other qualities have to carry them, not me busting my ass. So I really don't care if another kid gets a chance as well--I don't see it as a zero sum game. But we all lose when the next Einstein doesn't get a chance.

Are we going to put my kid to the lower starting point or are we going to raise the other kids up to my kids starting point? Or are we going to grab the lower kids and my kid and go to the even better starting point? And if any of that happened, why did I bother busting my ass for any of it?

Not sure what you mean here.

But lets just say we are going to change things to get everyone at the same starting line. How would one go about doing that?

I can't say for sure, but one thing is to show that economic inequality leads to a continual cycle of poverty in many, and not just in the untalented and the unintelligent. And another is to show people that someone else getting a chance is not taking away your kid's chance. Once we see it as a desirable end, we can address the means.

And the way I am seeing things going, the starting lines are being pushed way back for more and more people.
Seems the "race to the bottom" is picking up steam.

then it's definitely going the wrong way; but people can't race to the top unless they're equipped, and have the opportunity, to do so.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I don't know about you, but I busted my ass to let my kids get a chance, not to get them ahead in any line. At some point their intelligence, talent, and other qualities have to carry them, not me busting my ass. So I really don't care if another kid gets a chance as well--I don't see it as a zero sum game. But we all lose when the next Einstein doesn't get a chance.

Not ahead in any line, just to a reasonably positioned starting gate. That is, a good education, good study/work habits, integrity, responsibility, things like that. Of course having some extra money helps in some of those things via tutors and living in a good school area which requires busting my ass so I can afford the property taxes of said school.

Not sure what you mean here.

There are inequalities. In order to minimize them, are we going to "dumb down" some to match others or bring them up to some "even point"?

economic inequality leads to a continual cycle of poverty in many

I agree with that. But I also believe that even if you somehow atrificially lifted people from poverty to lets say, middle class, I doubt it would yield the desired results. I would bet that many/most? would be back at the poverty level within a few years. Responsibility and work ethic are very very important and sadly, I see those traits disappearing more and more. Mediocrity (or less then mediocre) seems to be too acceptible. Especially if it's somewhat comfortable and one doesn't have to strain to get there.

I'm rambling now so I'll leave for now. Perhaps a nap will clear my head a bit. Hope I made some sense.

[Sue U]

No time to talk today, but here:



Also, here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/@working_poor

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/ha ... d=all&_r=0

ETA:

Also this:

[rubato]

"All that makes existence valuable to any one depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people."
John Stuart Mill



yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

So restraining someone elses actions makes my existance more valuable. I did not know that.

[Sue U]

Also too:

[rubato]

Freedom of speech
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear


I don't see these freedoms in their metric.


yrs,
rubato