[A-List] Economic vs. political freedom: Antithetical?

[Michael Hudson <michael.hudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

            A striking irony has arisen in the concept of economic freedom
as compared to debt peonage. The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal
2007 Index of Economic Freedom was released on January 16, 2007 ranking of
157 countries is in inverse proportion to their degree of indebtedness. Thus
North Korea is at the bottom, followed by Cuba, Libya, Zimbabwe and Burma.
Thanks to their political exclusion from the global economy, these are the
nations with a minimum of debt. Heading the list are Hong Kong, Singapore,
Australia, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom which lead
the world economy in debt. (The domestic and international debt Australia
and New Zealand soared after they adopted neoliberal policies in the early
1980s.) *(Mary Anastasia O¹Grady, Tim Kane and Kim R. Holmes, The 2007 Index
of Economic Freedom.)

            There are two ways to interpret this ranking. One is that
nations rejecting the neoliberal Washington Consensus and IMF/World Bank
planning of their economies find themselves excluded from international bond
markets, while there is little private domestic banking to extend credit
(and little to use credit for, given existing security of residential,
agricultural and commercial land tenure). The other interpretation is that
only strong governments can protect their populations from the extractive
strategy of global finance.
    Any views as to which interpretation is more interesting? Or both?

Michael Hudson