What's wrong with conceding the point but reinterpreting the terms and explaining their significance? It's probably true that "economic freedom"--that is, capitalist production relations--causes higher economic groiwth and tends to increase, perhaps maximize wealth--for a few. And that "causes" is a real, not a statistical concept. Of course the claim has to be qualified in lots of ways that all pen-l=ers will know. For latecomers and less developed countries, high growth has been correlated with, and partly caused by, extensive planning and state intervention, so called, in th economy. "Economic freedom" for lessd deveoped countries doesn't produce high growth in comparison to the more interventionist dragon nations and in the third tier nations is just a license too loot. In the ex-Bloc countries too. And of course growth correlates imperfectly with well-being, for the obvious reason that if a tiny minority hogs all the wealth, the vast majority has nothing. But like most ideological noncepts, the purported correlation at issue is based on a grain of important truth, --Justin > > My question is this: > > -- should I compare the "economic freedom" correlation to the > vocabulary/feet example? e.g., should I say that what's *really* going on > is that those govts with neoliberal policies score highly on "economic > freedom" and are also likely to stress "growth" at the cost of other > measures of social wellbeing? this approach is appealing but raises > questions of its own... > > -- should I say instead that "economic freedom" is a bogus construct, at > least as used by Gwartney et al (e.g., with their emphasis on property > rights)? in this case, I'd like to know how we distinguish reasonable > constructs from unreasonable ones > > Seems to me this is an important issue to resolve if we're to resist the > picture we're often given of the "real world". > > C.N.Gomersall > Luther College > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
