Why I Am Not a Capitalist

[Ave]

Literally anybody can publish these indices using any criteria they want.

Of course they need have criteria in the first place before creating an index like this. It's better than just randomly saying "I think this country is free, but I have no evidence so I'm going to rely on popular superstition". Now, you can question their criteria, like in your Signapore example, but I think an index like this is better than nothing. Tbh, I feel they did a god job; the criteria is clear and based on research.

The publisher of the study (The Heritage Foundation) is an extreme right wing American think tank funded by the Koch brothers; it has a pretty biased agenda.

And yet they could still be right. That's the problem with an ad hominem attack, it proves nothing about the arguments or information being given by the person or group in question.

I personally don't agree with everything they support either, in terms of policy, but I don't see a reason why they would publish an index like this with bias either. And like I said, even if it is published with bias, that isn't the point. Pretty much any public policy think tank is going to be bias as bias in inherent in policy making. theHF is no exception there, that doesn't make their work worthless imo.

[xerx]

Of course they need have criteria in the first place before creating an index like this. It's better than just randomly saying "I think this country is free, but I have no evidence so I'm going to rely on popular superstition". Now, you can question their criteria, like in your Signapore example, but I think an index like this is better than nothing. Tbh, I feel they did a god job; the criteria is clear and based on research.

What gave you the impression that I was relying on popular stereotypes? I think I'm reasonably well read about the topic for a layperson who's never been to Sweden. I already knew that the country has been undergoing massive pro-market reforms over the past few decades.

One of my absolute favourite publications is the British magazine The Economist, which does excellent journalism while taking a critical stance that is highly supportive of free markets. Ideologically and editorially, it is very much a champion of classical liberalism. In an article specifically addressing the Sweden question, the author summarises the ongoing deregulation and massive overhauls to Sweden's welfare state. He includes the following disclaimer:

But the danger is vastly reduced by Sweden’s all-enveloping public services. Although government spending has shrunk in recent years, the Swedish state is still large (51% of GDP last year), and it spends much more than Anglo-Saxon countries do on everything from early-childhood education to job search and training. According to the OECD, more than 70% of the children of the poorest fifth of Swedes are in state-financed child-care and education schemes, compared with fewer than 30% in America.

I don't know the figure off-hand, but I don't think America's government sector is remotely equal to half its economy. Swedes still pay high taxes, and there is still massive wealth distribution in spite of all the cuts to services. Unions are also much stronger in Sweden than they are in America.

The fact is that aggregating different variables under a single index obscures much more than it clarifies. Even if Sweden does score higher on some variables related to the ease of doing business, giving it a higher rank on some fantasy ladder of "capitalism" does nothing to clarify the far more nuanced situation.

The only thing these indices are useful for is propaganda; they allow someone to pull a bait and switch by using a successful country's rank to proselytize adherence to a vague ideological disposition. It is kept vague in order to promote a basket of reforms without room for distinctions.

I personally don't agree with everything they support either, in terms of policy, but I don't see a reason why they would publish an index like this with bias either. And like I said, even if it is published with bias, that isn't the point. Pretty much any public policy think tank is going to be bias as bias in inherent in policy making. theHF is no exception there, that doesn't make their work worthless imo.

They could easily have deeply held convictions while presenting the facts completely and thoroughly, like The Economist magazine does. That's what makes a proper journalist different from a propagandist.

And yet they could still be right. That's the problem with an ad hominem attack, it proves nothing about the arguments or information being given by the person or group in question.

I was being blunt, not using ad hominems against HF.

I'm obviously not being very diplomatic, but I don't hate anybody, and I'm not trying or expecting to change anyone's mind.