When I googled &quot;list of countries by size of government&quot; to see if I could spot some trends, I found this very interesting article as the 4th hit: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;anepigone.blogspot.ca&#x2F;2008&#x2F;03&#x2F;government-spending-as-percentage-of.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;anepigone.blogspot.ca&#x2F;2008&#x2F;03&#x2F;government-spending-as-...</a><p>It essentially confirms my temporary conclusion, what I&#x27;ve been reasoning in my comments on this page so far. Socialist policies at worst won&#x27;t hurt the economy, and at best will contribute to it. In any case the neo con &#x2F; libertarian position that Molyneux defends is flawed, indeed based on nothing (I wonder how he gets his data, besides from the economic freedom index which comes from the Wall Street Journal). Here are the highlights from the article, below (marked with <i>).<p>Now I really wonder how come Molyneux gets such a beautiful correlation between government size and growth output in his slides. Is it possible that his data is ... purposely altered or coming from biased sources? I don&#x27;t see any other explanation. It&#x27;d be great if the author of that article (Audacious Epigone) and Molyneux had a good debate, so we can see who&#x27;s right.<p>Quotes from the article:<p></i> There is a modestly positive correlation [of government spending as a percentage of GDP by country] of .25 with per capita wealth. To the extent that is of any importance, it is another reason why those on the left should favor policies that boost average IQ and by extension national wealth. Over time, as the economy grows, the government grows as well, generally at a slightly greater rate, then? But if European countries are removed from the analysis, the relationship loses statistical significance (p=.34).<p>(...)<p>* On its face, there doesn&#x27;t appear to be much to validate the libertarian view that minimizing the size of the federal government, and suffering the consequent economic distortions its continued growth will otherwise cause, should be the primary goal of a society wanting economic prosperity (and a high quality of life). Ceteris paribus perhaps, but there are clearly a host of other demographic and cultural variables that are more important. Who would rather operate a business--or live--in Haiti instead of in Denmark?<p>Conclusion: For me it&#x27;s not looking good for the neo con &#x2F; libertarian ideology. I&#x27;m not sure I can identify even one pertinent spot on thing they say at this point. Could it be that most of that ideology and all its arguments really is 100% flawed and was manufactured by elites in their own short-term, near-sighted interest repeatedly in history? Or is there at least <i>some</i> good stuff in it? Any thoughts welcome.