itch.io

Probably could've been more clear, but I was specifically asking for proof of free markets have a specific correlation to prosperity above all other kinds. Even more specifically, concrete proof that said prosperity couldn't be matched or outdone by a market with at least SOME degree of regulation to ensure that wealth-hoarding doesn't happen.

However, the sources you provided actually kinda preclude that notion entirely: Singapore, top-ranked on the Economic Freedom Index (EFI from here on 'cuz I don't feel like typing it every time) only places 16th on the Prosperity Index (assuming no weighted values are changed, which they haven't been since your point speaks to general prosperity rather than a specific type). Conversely, Denmark is 1st on the PI but 7th on the EFI. Even more starkly, Norway's second-place PI ranking contrasts heavily with being 28th on the EFI. Granted, those are but two examples, but one would expect that the first and second in prosperity would be very nearly the first and second in economic freedom if your statement were to hold true.

On another note, of the top 10 on the prosperity list, only half of them are described as totally free markets. Denmark, Norway,  Sweden, and the Netherlands are all listed by Wikipedia as "mixed economies", which- to save you a google- is "variously defined as an economic system blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economies, free markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise." Germany, in 8th place, is a social market- your dreaded Socialism boogeyman. 

With all of that said, of course it bears remembering that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation: we could both be blowing smoke out our asses speaking purely on where statistics do and don't line up. There's many factors at play, especially with systems of this scale, so trying to attribute any given trait to one policy is kind of a fool's errand in the first place.

Also, I mentioned it earlier but I'm acting under the assumption that you're talking general, across-the-board prosperity here. If you're speaking to economic prosperity, then maybe it's a different story, but that's where you lose me anyway- as far as I'm concerned, economic prosperity is secondary to actual quality of living for the average person. What good is money if it doesn't serve to make everyone's lives better, after all? Through that lens, Socialism is a far more sensible choice, because by design it's meant to keep money where it belongs: circulating through the populace's hands, rather than gathering dust and interest in equal measure in some billionaire's bank account.