Tuesday, January 21, 2014

These Indexes Are for the Birds

As a former teacher I learned one thing that proved to apply in more places than I imagined. I learned never to judge a book by its cover, a lesson that later proved to apply in other fields as well; not least of which the tendency to predict what the future of a student will be, judging by his school performance during the few months that you have him in your class. The only certainty you can rely on in such cases is that you will be wrong most of the time.

Even before that, as I went into the world where I saw many things, got involved with many of them and became a lifelong student of the human condition, one fallacy stood out as the most glaring from among the tendencies that some people develop. It is that they obsess about creating a rating system according to criteria they imagine will encapsulate the truth. And so they establish an index, rate people or nations accordingly, and project a picture of the world they want the rest of us to believe is the gospel truth. Nothing can be more false than that.

You can get a feel for all that when you read the James Pethokoukis article that came under the title: “No. 12 in the Index of Economic Freedom” and the subtitle: “We rank behind Estonia, but if we had a true accounting, we'd be even lower on the list.” It was published on January 21, 2014 in National Review Online.

As you can see, the subtitle alone points to two matters that should raise your eyebrow. The first is that the author of the article does not believe there is true accounting, which causes you to ask: Why then is he wasting his time discussing a subject he knows is false? And the second is that a great deal of emotion is involved in what is supposed to be a mathematically precise gauging of things. And that emotion is without a doubt of the worst kind because it rests on the xenophobic tendency to resent being in the company of say, Estonia.

Pethokoukis begins with the lamentation that America “down, down, down she goes” according to the ranking of economic freedom that the Heritage Foundation put together in collaboration with the Wall Street Journal some twenty years ago. And he blames what he calls Obamanomics for the trouble, a point that should tell the reader, there is a great deal of politics in them words.

But then he goes on to say that the analysis and the ranking are “too charitable” toward the current American economy, and too harsh toward the President. What? Is he now saying that Obamanomics isn't as bad as the analysis made it out to be? Hey, did you hear that, you Heritage Foundation? And you Wall Street Journal? Pethokoukis says you're wrong.

To make his point, the author of the article compares the economy of boogeyman “social-democratic” Sweden with that of America, and finds that Sweden clearly beats America in seven of the subcategories that make up the index of Economic Freedom, yet it is ranked number 20 while America is ranked as number 12.

But wait a minute, that's not the whole story because when you closely analyze the 3 categories where America beats Sweden – which he thoroughly does – you find that “if government spending were calculated in [a] more transparent way, the U.S would fall to Swedish levels if not a bit lower. Likewise, if Sweden spent the way the index thinks the U.S. does, it would take America's spot behind Estonia.”

Worse than that, says Pethokoukis, there is this fact: “Not only does America have market-distorting government as big as Sweden’s; it runs a welfare state that's heavily targeted toward the top rather than the middle or bottom.” To buttress this point, he quotes Monica Prasad who wrote: “the United States is not a laissez-faire or liberal political economy at all, and never has been.”

To which James Pethokoukis adds his own observation: “It's a worst-of-all worlds situation, and it didn't start with the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank” which is probably why he said earlier that Obamanomics isn't as bad as the heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal made it sound.

Cheer up, Mr. President, you got yourself a new friend that happens to be a right-winger.