Doug wrote: >How ever do they define "economic freedom," anyway? Freedom from hunger, or >freedom to fire 5,000 workers? Don't know; guess I'll have to read the book (sigh). FYI, "The Economist" in its quasi-review feels that "[economic freedom] cannot be measured by looking at the size of public spending relative to GDP, say, or at the extent of state ownership of industry, or at the level of trade barriers. It is a combination of these and many other factors, which leaves lots of room for debate about different elements of the mix. Stripped to its essentials, economic freedom is concerned with property rights and choice. Individuals are economically free if property they have legally acquired is protected from invasions or intrusions by others, and if they are free to use, exchange or give away their property so long as their actions do not violate other people's similar rights." And so on. BTW, the issue of correlation I raised reminds me of an earlier thread started last fall, I think, by Michael Perelman (?): in that thread, someone eventually claimed that Greenspan had "caused" a number of deaths. That seemed to me then, and now, to exemplify the "sloppy" thinking Eric Nilsson has castigated w.r.t. the "economic freedom and growth" relationship ;-) C.N.Gomersall Luther College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
