Skip to comments.
The 2004 Index of Economic Freedom -"Free Markets, Free People"
Wall Street Journal ^
| Jan 9, 2004
| MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
Posted on 01/09/2004 1:24:13 AM PST by The Raven
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Despite another year under the dark shadow of Islamist terrorism, the world remains on a path toward greater liberty, according to the findings of The 2004 Index of Economic Freedom released today.
In this 10th anniversary edition of the Index, published each year by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, Europe continued an important trend begun last year, with seven more countries exhibiting an increase in freedom than exhibited a decline. North America and Europe are now home to seven of the world's 10 most liberal economies.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: economicfreedom; heritagefoundation; hongkong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
1
posted on
01/09/2004 1:24:14 AM PST
by
The Raven
To: The Raven
WE'RE NUMBER TEN!!
WE'RE NUMBER TEN!!
WE'RE NUMBER TEN!!
Gee I'm proud. And with Ashcroft taking a chainsaw to the rest of our rights...
2
posted on
01/09/2004 4:42:27 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: All
Rank |
Location |
Receipts |
Donors/Avg |
Freepers/Avg |
Monthlies |
47 |
Thailand |
50.00
|
1
|
50.00
|
7
|
7.14
|
|
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
3
posted on
01/09/2004 4:42:49 AM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: eno_
>>And with Ashcroft taking a chainsaw to the rest of our rights...
Jeeze --- we have seminar callers right here on FR!!!!
And which right do you find yourself without this fine Friday?
4
posted on
01/09/2004 4:49:16 AM PST
by
The Raven
To: eno_
North America and Europe are now home to seven of the world's 10 most liberal economies. Actually, I don't consider "liberal" as translating to mean "free".
The fact that Singapore (the ultimate nanny state) is rated more free than the US casts doubt on this study.
5
posted on
01/09/2004 4:51:43 AM PST
by
farmguy
To: farmguy
The term "liberal" has far more meaning that what it means politically in the US.
Quit being so provincial.
6
posted on
01/09/2004 5:10:35 AM PST
by
Guillermo
(It's tough being a Miami Dolphins fan)
To: The Raven
For guy listing Free to Choose on his reccommended reading, you are conveniently overlooking the impact of economic freedom on overall freedom.
I've been to Singapore, and I know several business owners in Singapore. As a significant shareholder in a couple of small/medium businesses in the U.S. I can tell you they are more free than I am. They and their companies spend far less time of government bullsh*t than I do.
In terms of personal freedom, they do not face the kinds of intrusive financial and medical reporting laws we have. You can walk an neighborhood of Singapore any time of day or night. You can send your daughter, alone, across the second busiest port city on Earth in perfect confidence nothing will happen to her.
Car taxes are high and you need special extra-cost permits to drive in the city center, but that is the only thing I can think of that Americans would find unfree about Singapore.
7
posted on
01/09/2004 5:18:00 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: farmguy
>>I don't consider "liberal" as translating to mean "free You have Sweden up there too.....but this isn't political freedom - it's ecomic freedom. See for example
Hong Kong, as well
8
posted on
01/09/2004 5:23:03 AM PST
by
The Raven
To: Guillermo
My mistake.
The fact that this article written in a US paper misled me into believing I could use the standard US meanings for words.
You're right, socialist nanny states do have greater freedom
9
posted on
01/09/2004 5:23:24 AM PST
by
farmguy
To: eno_
As for economic freedom, who do you suppose pays for a nanny state.
10
posted on
01/09/2004 5:38:02 AM PST
by
farmguy
To: farmguy
You have problems with "economic liberalism?" You'd rather have State Capitalism, or Fascism?
The fact is, we are not very free. We are NOT the freest. Others are gaining freedom, and, with medical, financial, and other regulations here we have lost many many freedoms since the 1950s.
We have no banking privacy. We have no medical privacy. we have pervasive communications snooping. We have 100,000+ armed federal law enforcement agent. We have twice as many police per capita as China.
We are NOT free. We are sort of free, in a lame kind of way. Is it worth your kid's life to defend "sort of free?"
11
posted on
01/09/2004 5:42:04 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: eno_
And you believe the first nine countries on this list have more banking privacy, more medical privacy, less communications snooping...
12
posted on
01/09/2004 5:48:34 AM PST
by
farmguy
To: farmguy
Yes. They do have more communications privacy. Some places still have doctor/patient privacy. Only Israel - which has a pressing need - has more communications snooping than we do. We have a much larger federal domestic "information gathering" mechanism than most countries that are both economically and socially less free than we are.
13
posted on
01/09/2004 5:54:19 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: The Raven
It's a sad day when Denmark, Estonia, New Zealand, and the practically socialist UK rank ahead of the USA for economic freedom.
14
posted on
01/09/2004 5:56:02 AM PST
by
Capitalism2003
(Got principles? http://www.LP.org)
To: farmguy
In Singapore, the top marginal rate will decline to 20% in 2004. They must have efficient nannies.
15
posted on
01/09/2004 5:56:35 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: Capitalism2003
That would be the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Estonia. Liberated in 1991. In 13 years they have become more free than the U.S.
WE'RE NUMBER TEN!! (Waving big foam finger - you know which finger)
16
posted on
01/09/2004 6:00:32 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: farmguy
Here is the "standard US meaning" for liberal:
lib·er·al
( P ) Pronunciation Key (l
b
r-
l, l
b
r
l)
adj.
-
- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
- Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
- Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
-
- Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
- Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
- Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
- Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
-
- Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
- Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
- A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
- Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
17
posted on
01/09/2004 6:06:05 AM PST
by
Guillermo
(It's tough being a Miami Dolphins fan)
To: Guillermo
the "true" U.S. definition...
Li*ber*al (n.) --one who advocates an ever expanding government including but not limited to more regulation, higher taxation, wealth redistribution, and other socialist/communist policies that promote the equal distribution of misery among everyone.
18
posted on
01/09/2004 6:16:09 AM PST
by
Capitalism2003
(Got principles? http://www.LP.org)
To: Guillermo
The term "liberal" has far more meaning that what it means politically in the US.
19
posted on
01/09/2004 6:19:19 AM PST
by
farmguy
To: Capitalism2003
That's "liberal" as it describes left wing (and many republican) politicians in the US.
Now, if one lived in Iran, North Korea or any of the Gulf States and was a "liberal," that would mean they were for freedom. If one speaks of "liberalizing" those countries, think of them as wanting to "liberate" them.
20
posted on
01/09/2004 6:35:34 AM PST
by
Guillermo
(It's tough being a Miami Dolphins fan)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson