Bitcoin Forum

Since there are so many fans of Austrian economics here I'd like to ask for examples of success stories where a country used Austrian economic polices to become prosperous.

Please post what you find below, thanks!

 :)

Maybe Monaco? Though they still have some social security type stuff...

*crickets chirping*

Chile turned from a communist shithole into one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America because of laissez-faire policies. Technically they followed the Chicago School, not the Austrian, but they basically followed the same principles: cutting taxes and tariffs, de-regulation, privatization, less welfare, low inflation etc.

Before I start on this I have to ask, because I don't want to waste my time:

Are you trolling?

No. You may start writing your failed rebuttal.

Before I start educating you on things you should have learned in High School do you care to add more to your thesis?

"Chile turned from a communist shithole into one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America because of laissez-faire policies. Technically they followed the Chicago School, not the Austrian, but they basically followed the same principles: cutting taxes and tariffs, de-regulation, privatization, less welfare, low inflation etc."

Is this the entirety of what you think you know about Chile or do you want to add more to prove your point prior to me posting what I have to say on Chile?

No, I don't want to add more. Please don't stall and continue.

I predict this will just be a tl;dr post whining about Pinochet and higher than average income inequality.

I agree with John Doe's example of Chile.  The government of Chile actually had economists from the Chicago school, including Milton Friedman, come and give advice on how to institute market reforms.  Note that it took time for the reforms to take affect, and things got worse--at first.  This saga in Chilean economic history is covered in the PBS documentary, Commanding Heights. 


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4492150/commanding_heights_the_agony_of_reform_chile/

First a clarification to the op, because he got some basic ideas wrong:

Austrian economic theory is just that, theories that describe reality and have some prediction capacity. Austrian theory does NOT have a set of policies to apply. Austrian theory, as opposed to other economic schools, is a social science. Austrian theory is not political theory, the political theory you are refering to is libertarianism.

Honestly, for all the arrogance and high school showing off (uhhh, you went to high school....) the op is howing I though he would know the basic stuff.

Now, if you meant that any country that got prosperous under the usual policies that a lot of austrian economists have recommended you have several examples. For example, Hong Kong or Switzerland, although they have changed right now. But you have historic examples all over the place, for example Canada during most of the XIX century or the USA during specific parts of that same century. In fact you will be hard pressed to find examples of countries that became long term prosperous (that means benefiting the people, not the elites) with policies too far away from what austrian economists recommend. In fact the USA today is a very good example of why following keynesianism creates problems. The USA could quite easily solve its problems if it adopted the right policies, but right now it seems politically imposible.

I feel that this question cannot be answered in today's world. We simply don't have valid comparison points. Imagine a 2-d cartesian coordinate graph with 0,0 representing the purest libertarian views and 10,10 representing the most totalitarian regime. The two axes would be cultural/ethnic laws and laws regulating economic behaviour. While most countries are around the range in the centre, the best that today's libertarians would be able to point you towards would be countries near (2,1) or (3,1).

If you're asking for the examples of states in (0,0), you may not find any, but the libertarians here are not wrong about giving examples that are nearer to the libertarian ideal than today's median state.

How about Sealand? It's fairly prosperous, with all it's residents being fairly wealthy.

For you I think anything beyond a few sentences is TLDR.  Even though you are supposed to be bringing the evidence and story of a country that used Austrian economics to become prosperous you say "Chile" and then put it on me to disprove it to you; even though you follow it up with a 'write your failed rebuttal now' proving you don't care about anything other than your own fiction you've created in your mind.  Well, if you are unwilling to learn anything then you are 'safe' from me, don't worry about that; nobody can break your invincible ignorance if you choose so.  Just keep in mind, reality doesn't care about your petty little opinion and if you act in way contrary to reality then do so at your own peril.  By supporting Chile has a 'success' you either: know nothing about Chile, and/or have such a latent aggression and hatred from your ineptitude in life that you think it 'cute' or 'fun' for a totalitarian police state to exist in order to enact a 'free market'.  Maybe you consider a 'free market' so great that those who died, were tortured, were jailed, or otherwise oppressed under Pinochet were just 'a few broken eggs'.  Or 'they deserved it, because they were socialists'.

Maybe we better start here: you define what 'success' means to you.  Because your 'success' looks like a totalitarian hellscape.  Seems like that would be a short enough thing for you to summarize; that is if you've read down this far of this post.

Save me the lesson on semantics.  However you want to organize and divide things in your mind (this box is for social policy, this box is for...) is irrelevant to me and shows that you think that these things are separate or can be divided on neat convenient lines.  They're not.  All economics is a study into social, political and economic human relations among others.  But trying to remove economics from the realm of other social studies into its own cloudy region is effectively what Austrian economists do; getting people to view it as it's own avenue of social studies and unrelated to other affairs.

Moving on.

Ok, so there is no practical application of Austrian economics?  Now I'm confused.  Another poster on this thread said that much of the "Chicago School" (which is the twin brother of the Austrian school) was used in implementation in Chile.  So which is it?  Is there polices to implement or not?  Clearly, there is from the books I've read, it is filled with critique of various polices and in support of others.  To say it has no polices is completely bogus; what books are you referring to?  Yet again having 'policy' clearly is a legal framework to which your notion of Austrian economics being a in the 'social science' box must be paradoxical.

Next name a time frame between which Canada, Hong Kong, or Switzerland was implementing 'what Austrian economists recommend' (polices)?

Can you recommend what polices that countries must stick to (that are Austrian) if they want to remain long term prosperous?

That example actually has the most merit out of the countries posed so far.

So if you live on a island, effectively a 1 person city-state Austrian economics is the school for you.

From the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school) on the Austrian School:


Which, regardless of my opinion of the Austrian School, I agree with. There is no such thing as a good scientific test of macroeconomic theory as national economies have an infinite number of influencing factors that cannot be controlled for. If you try to test the effects of a lower income tax rate, a nation can vary that, but any changes you see after varying the tax rate can also be possibly attributed to

*Changes in other countries' tax rates
*Changes in other countries' tariffs
*Changes in worldwide supply of oil
*Natural disasters
*Changes in worldwide consumer confidence
*changes in climate that affect food production
. . . ad infinitum

Please, stop embarassing yourself.


Well, if you study economics you look at economics. Saying that its useless, is like saying that biology is useless because it does not look into physics...

But you did not even understood what I told you. Austrian economics does not have a set of policies. Austrian theory is just dedicated to understand and explain how the economy works with some predictive capability (as far as a social science can go).

Then some austrian economists, based on this knowledge, have some policy recommendations, but they can and do change from one economist to other. Also, their policies are influenced by their political theory, which is usually around libertarian political theory (but not always).


This has nothing to do with austrian economics or with what I said.


There are a lot of practical applications of Austrain economics.  Basically understanding how the economy works. This can be very useful, for example, a lot of traders and hedge fund managers know and apply austrian economics and do very well.


Actually not. While the Chicago school advocates have similar advice than a lot of austrian economists in a lot of areas (while widly different in others), at the core of the theories, monetarism (chicago school) is similar to keynesianism. Basically the methodology of monetarism is the same as keynesianism. Austrian economics is the most different fo the three.


Maybe another day and to another person.

Since you're not offering up any data, and therefore this thread has gone to hell, I feel it appropriate to point out that your sig is pretty stupid. Economics cannot be kept out of politics, as the entire point of politics is to manage a group of people under finite resources.

You offered to enlighten me yourself lol. I've yet to hear your rebuttal. Looks like you need some more time to consult with your friends from the democratic underground though.


As predicted, a socialist playing the evil Pinochet card at the first sign of trouble. For some reason I thought you were going to do better but I ended up disappointed, as usual.


Yeah, it was totally worth it. Are you even aware of the crisis Chile was going through with Allende?


Ok, let's use a standard of success that you'll find most appealing. Chile is a free market success story because it has proportionally the least people in poverty of any latin american country as a consequence of free market policies.

I think we have gone down this road before, when I tried to explain how Austrians view economics as "amoral".  Austrian economics says this: because reality is a certain way, and because mankind has a specific nature there are better ways to achieve ends and there are worse ways to do so.  Essentially there are more and less appropriate means for the attainment of specific ends.  This is not controversial and I am fairly certain you will not deny it.  Austrian economics attempts to discover what means are best suited to attain different ends that men aim at.  It does not try to tell men what they should aim at.    You can be an Austrian economist and a sadist.  You can know what policies will make men better off and choose the opposite.  The confusion stems from the fact that we tend to take the betterment of mankind as a given.  So given that mankind wants to improve his situation and the situation of other men, Austrian economics will suggest which means are more appropriate.

However, not every action that benefits a certain group of men will benefit everyone.  Austrian economics doesn't mandate getting rid of minimum wage policy, but only that if your goal is to provide maximum employment then you should get rid of minimum wage.  If you want to benefit some people at the expense of others, you might be better off keeping the minimum wage.  And I know you have some critiques of the Austrian perspective on minimum wage which I plan to look at and comment on soon.  :)

This may seem to be a silly distinction, as we can safely assume most people have the same general ends of benefiting mankind in mind, but it is important to realize the scope and limits of economics as viewed by the Austrians when talking about specific examples of how the theory is applied.

Here are a few good examples of "free market" vs. "socialist" economic structures and you can understand the results pretty easily. Certainly, they're not "Austrian economics" countries, but the examples exemplify the principles of markets vs. coercion which is at the core of Austrian ideology.

- North Korea vs South Korea
- East Germany vs West Germany post WWII
- East Germany under USSR vs. East Germany after unification
- Haiti vs. Dominican Republic
- Cuba vs. Costa Rica
- Any Chinese City vs. Hong Kong
- China vs. Taiwan
- China under communism vs. China today
- India pre-market reformations vs. India post-market reformations
- Any Malaysian City vs. Singapore
- Vietnam vs. Singapore
- UK vs. Ireland over the past 20 years
- Chile pre-Pinochet vs post-Pinochet (not that Pinochet wasn't also a violent douchebag)
- Venezuela vs Chile
- Zimbabwe vs South Africa
- Burma vs. Thailand
- Syria vs. United Arab Emirates
- Communist Estonia vs. Post-USSR Estonia
- Soviet Russia vs. Russia post 1989

And surely I needn't mention US history from 1776 up through about 1920, when it was actually a generally capitalist, free-market nation and grew from mere peasantry to the world super power in 150 years.

Every single example above compares a territory that is/was more centrally planned vs a territory that is/was more free. This list doesn't prove anything, but you might want to take note OP.

Same with the UK now vs UK 100 years ago.

Embarrassing myself?  Hardly.  You just continue to prove my overall point: that specific success stories regarding Austrian economics are not forthcoming.  And that means not just posting the name of a country as 'proof' but doing a little research and illustrating some educational acumen or at least a slight degree of diligence in being able write something with some 'meat' on it.

Secondly, there is a difference between having to study biology being aware that physics simultaneously exists and thinking that biology is separate and removed from the realm of physics; this is my point in relation to Austrian and Chicago school economics and other social sciences.

In addition, if you could please explain how monetarism is more similar to Keynesianism than the Austrian school I'm sure that would be enlightening.  Not a little blurb or a brief paragraph, I'm genuinely interested regarding whatever reason why you think that.  But please make it a complete thought fully fleshed out, not a little blurb.

Also apparently we are reading totally different people we consider the Austrian economists; but that's not even the topic of this thread.  It is if there is any examples of countries that have used Austrian economics, the study of, the practice of, the belief of, the policy of, etc to become prosperous.  If they are an unworkable framework for understanding economics but don't have any 'success stories' then I think we'll see their overall merit.

First of all Logic 101 informs us that the burden of proof lies on those trying to prove something.  Otherwise trolls would (and maybe already are) simply throwing out a name of a country and then putting it on me to disprove them.  Sorry, that's not how it works.  Not that I don't have a problem rebutting something that they claim that I disagree with, but they aren't claiming anything as of yet.

But did you read my entire sig or just the first half?

"I'll keep my politics out of your economics if you keep your economics out of my politics."

I put this as my sig because the Austrian, Chicago and Market Fundamentalists believe one or more of the following:  that you can have a Market without a State, that the State is only capable of meddling and interfering in the Market and not doing any net good and that economics and politics are separate.  As I got tired of pointing out these fallacies in nearly every thread I viewed, I just decided to put it as my sig so those fanatics would see that as a constant reminder.

It's cute that you think I'm a 'Democrat'.  Shows how much you know about me, which is nothing other than what I've specifically said on this forum.

I know you can do better, just write a brief 'paper', if you will, regarding why and how Chile used 'free market polices' to become wealthy.  The burden of proof is on you; as I was looking for 'success stories' not just a name "Chile" and then:

"Chile is a free market success story because it has proportionally the least people in poverty of any latin american [sic] country as a consequence of free market policies."

Sorry if I don't accept that as all I need to know regarding the story of Chile's success.  It doesn't show how, it doesn't show the link of causality, it doesn't really show anything.

If you're unwilling, then I'll eventually get around to writing a 'failed rebuttal' (as you say) but I hope you can see my lack of vigor in pursuing such a task: convincing someone of the opposite to which they're tasked of convincing me by posting on this thread, when they are boldly admitting that they have no care with regard to what I may have to say to them.  The parallels in this circumstance echo that of trying to convince a Mormon that they're incorrect regarding their faith on a religious forum: they falsely put the burden of disproving them on you and also have no interest whatever you have to say.  Such a 'debate' is not a debate at all.  In addition, if you follow my threads on the Tobin Tax or "Worst Book Ever: Economics in One Lesson" you'll see that I tend to 'err' on the side of being verbose rather than brief; as in, I'm capable of actually having a thought process that involves thinking critically and coming closer to deriving the truth.  I'd like you to try and 'err' on this side rather than simply post some snide comments that match the attitude of your icon then a brief one sentence 'proof' and then run away.

If you TLDR syndrome applies in the region of TLDW (Too Long Didn't Write) then please at least send me some links or perhaps a book you've read regarding Chile and why it was specifically free market polices that promoted their success and I promise you I'll throw them on my stack of books and get to reading them.

I appreciate your argumentative style, while I don't agree with many of those tenants you present it in a genuine manner.

I'd say more but I'd like to not derail this thread.  Perhaps you should start a thread in this vein, and I'll come over and pay it a visit.

 :D

MY economics are as far removed from politics as the politicians will let me. With enough counter-economic support structure, they can be completely separated from the state. Pity that I do not have that support structure where I am now.

Mises defined the Market as the sum total of voluntary human actions. By definition it exists outside of, and in spite of, the State.

niemivh, did you take a look at that documentary I posted regarding Chile?  It's quite interesting, and if not as thorough a proof as you are looking for, it's a good start.

Whoa (mis)information overload!  Calm down buddy.  Apparently the 'carpet bombing' technique was more popular on this forum than I originally thought.  Nice list, but let's try to focus more on a single success story, not a laundry list of things deemed successes.  I don't want to even start with the list because: the burden of proof isn't on me to disprove a claim (or else I'd spend the rest of my life writing a rebuttal to this post as you've listed so many countries) and we want "a success story" a single story, not a list.  If we want to say that the 'opposite' of a 'free market' is the obvious failure of the system of true communism then we are in agreement; but that isn't the dichotomy here.  It's not a choice between total laissez faire 'free markets' and total state controlled top-down Soviet style communism.  I'm talking specifically about Austrian economic policy, views, beliefs or suggestions and how that was used as a framework for building a nation out of the primitive state of man: poverty.  Observing a system that has an element of market dynamics isn't a Austrian phenomenon, the market doesn't belong to the Austrian school.

Maybe you should do US history, specifically how Austrian style "Free Market" views were critical in creating prosperity, just flesh out 1776 to 1920 and why you think that "when it was actually a generally capitalist, free-market nation and grew from mere peasantry to the world super power in 150 years".  Why 1776?  The US economic situation was in horrible disarray during and shortly thereafter the Revolutionary War; in addition there were multiple other economic and social calamities in this time frame.  You don't even mention the Civil War.

I see you are living up to your name in trying to derail this thread. 

*types a bunch of stuff and then deletes it*

Please don't tempt me...

 :D

You're the only one using exclamation marks and words like "woah."


You can call it "carpet bombing" if you want. I call it "presenting lots of examples of market success stories."


I don't think anything will be "proven" one way or another. I just wanted to showcase a considerable number of reasonable examples of market-based territories compared to territories which pursued policies which can be deemed more statist. My apologies if I have "carpet bombed" you with too many.


I never said anything about "total laissez faire vs total state control." In all my examples, they were merely "more market based" vs. "less market based." I think they offer compelling evidence that markets tend towards prosperity, while statist regimes tend toward poverty. Do you disagree?


Austrian economic policy consists of the following tenant: "there should not be an economic policy." The Austrian school, more than any other, advocates freedom, which means laissez faire markets. Ironically, you say that "the market doesn't belong to the Austrian school"... and this is very humorous because the Austrian school is the only one which suggests that the market ought not belong to anyone at all.


What does war have to do with free markets? Are you suggesting that the misery, death, and destruction wrought by the Civil War is a result of free people trading goods and services with each other?  ::)

I said socialist, not democrat. And if you are not of the Austrian School then you can only be some degree of socialist.


Write a paper lol, nice try. You gave the burden of proof to yourself with "Before I start educating you on things you should have learned in High School do you care to add more to your thesis?" Looks to me that you are just trying to get away from the Chile example and looking for easier prey.


Oh, but you made it abundantly clear before me that you weren't going to hear anything I had to say.

"Before I start on this I have to ask, because I don't want to waste my time:

Are you trolling?"

It is quite obvious that you didn't come here to listen, you are just here to appease your insecurity about your own worldview by pretending to win arguments.

Also I didn't come here to convince you of anything. I was just giving a well accepted example but it turned out that the OP was in denial of Allende and the economic history of Chile.


Typical retarded and pompous logic of academics. Being verbose only means that you are unable to articulate your thoughts in a concise and efficient way, or that you just like the sound of your voice too much.

I did.

30% unemployment.  Check.

Immiseration of the lower and middle class.  Check.

Sounds like Austrian economics to me.

And in the end you still haven't presented a narrative or story regarding 1 specific country to which followed these policies to climb out of poverty.

I consider it a 'carpet bombing' technique when one dumps dozens of brief blurbs to which each represents an entire argument.  Rather than getting into specifics where the realm of the Free Marketeer crumbles into a pile of useless jargon and contradictions the tactic is always to try and prove many (or in your case, dozens) of points with a single, short, nondescript post.  Problem is that this only alludes to information to which you assume we all agree on or already all know.  I'm not asking you to preach to your choir, I'm asking for a specific historical example with at least a modicum of detail.  You provided none. 

Am I being unreasonable in requesting such a thing?  Seems like at least one person here would be familiar enough with something to provide at least a paragraph on the topic.

Things I've learned:

When you type "democratic underground" you actually mean Socialist.

I should have known that because you also educated me to the fact that: The world is a simple binary choice between Socialism and the Austrian School.

"Those able to understand nuance and detail are unable to articulate their thoughts in a concise in a efficient way." 

I learned this because you are so concise that you can summarize the nuanced histories of countries into single sentences.

Also, and I'm blushing that I was so ignorant as to not be aware of this, typing apparently makes use of your vocal cords.

I'm learning a lot, but can you turn your genius mind in the direction of Chile or am I the one (like usual) that has to do all leg work?

Yeah man it's time for you to start working for once. You promised to school me on Chile but you keep stalling.

niemivh, is your whole point that "Austian" is a utopian ideas, like Objectivist or pure communist, which, although all compelling theories with a lot of solid ideas behind them, were never truly allowed to exist in this world? If that's your point, that Austian is just a theory at this point, then trolling f*cking accomplished.

The problem is that he is looking for libertarian countries, not "austrian" countries. Libertarianism is a moral and political theory. Austrain economics is not a set of policies, but a social science.

Im trying to make him understand this but he keeps using his "angry mummies kid" rethoric and saying that I want to have economics separated from everything and stupid stuff like that.

The political expression of Austrian economics is anarcho-capitalism. No State would implement such policies, because the government would find itself out of a job. 

What do you understand as "prosperous country"? Because as a Chilean I don't know how to read this.

Some Chilean people are rich from Pinochet dictatorship to the present but public services are poorer, inadequate and the inequality is worst every year, incomparable with any other OECD member. Seems to me ok that people opine about Chile but, please, read before talking.

That's what I can say as an average chilean.

I noticed that nobody has said "my country, I love it here." If someone did say that, would any of you fans of Austrian or Chicago economic theory like to live there better than where you live now?

Guess you weren't there on '71-'73 when it was extremely hard not to be poor, you know because of 700% inflation, extreme protectionism and the fact that if you were anywhere above the poverty line you got your shit expropriated. Public services poorer? That's rich. I guess waiting in line 2 hours to buy some bread and eggs from the government was a really fine public service. Yeah, if it wasn't for Pinochet there would be more equality, because there wouldn't be a single rich person in the country.

Chile wouldn't be anywhere close to being an OECD member if it wasn't for the Chicago Boys.

If there was an example of a libertarian free-market country out there, sure, I'd probably move there. Once I save up enough to live off of investments, anyway (working hard on that). Though in a way, culture is important to me just as much as economics, so I may end up moving to a rather socialist country, just because I like their culture and geography (like Italy)

Don't worry, I'll be sure to write something, but it might be a few days because unlike others I do it in the following order:

Research -->  Ask Questions  -->  More Research  -->  Repeat -->  Come to reasonable conclusion -->  Test conclusion

Rather than the usual:

Knee-Jerk Reaction  -->    Only collect evidence to support the foregone conclusion  -->  Turn that into a chum bucket of quips and talking points -->  "Debate"

I will be occasionally sarcastic against individuals who seem a little dense or unwilling to challenge their own views through ideological stagnation or intellectual laziness.

However it is not meant to 'troll' anyone.  This is to show that the success stories of the Austrian school don't exist or either are very few and far between.  What countries use to become industrial or modern economies is so far from the "Free Market" that it might surprise most here.  Transitioning from a 3rd world status to a 1st world status is nearly impossible if you open your doors to total free market polices.  Throwing your infant industries on the world market before they are able to compete only benefits the largest global interests in said market as they will easily be able to crush you via dumping their products at lower prices until those companies goes under. 

However a small minority of folks in said country will always do well in this Globalized system and be the regional vanguard of the neocolonialism that Globalization truly is. 

Gotta get back to researching Chile.

Once again I disagree that anyone who has an idea to what one thing is favorable to another could not, has not or is not put forth in the form of a policy.  Point being: the Austrian school has beliefs regarding what works and what doesn't work in an economic system; therefore those ideals could be molded into legal language and put forth into a legal framework or just social practice.  My question is: where has this happened - AND, led to prosperity?

But to prevent this digression, to where we now are arguing over the meaning of the word "policy" I believe perhaps I should asked for "Free Market polices" in lieu of "Austrian Polices"; BUT there is a reason I did not do that.  Because that term "Free Market" is an undefinable 'smoke man' (brother of the straw man) to which everyone has a different opinion of what that means with no level of detail beyond the most rudimentary basics.  This is why I asked for things that are "Austrian School" related.  If I asked for Neo-Liberal school would that have avoided your ire?

I'd also like to know where you are getting these very limited definitions.  Is Libertarianism NOT a social science in your book?  Yet Austrian Economics is not in the realm of political theory?  How do you separate those when the Austrian School is largely a critique of government involvement?

Well put.  But that assumes that a society can even exist without a form of law and therefore a body to enforce it.  It is an impossible construct only meant for the naive to chase while those rich, powerful and unscrupulous get more power and wealth.

Can you please post more?  It's interesting to get someone's perspective who actually lives there.

I met a bunch of guys from Austria, and they seemed to really like it there.

By the way, the whole "1st world country" thing is a rather recent phenomenon. Debatable as to whether it only happened within the last 300 years, or since the renaissance. Before that we had feudalism, monarchy/theocracy, and general tribalism. Before that? History is somewhat sketchy, and human communities (tribes/countries) were rather small and isolated. The history of our civilization over the last 10,000+ years is actually rather scant, with only a few large empires prominently available for study, and things like accounting, economics, and things having to do with any trade that could be thought of as modern, being very new inventions in the scheme of things (countries/politics move and evolve VERY slowly).

So, in a way, asking "Where are the great examples of Austrian economics" is somewhat like asking "where are our Martian colonies?" We just aren't there yet, the ideas are still very new with a lot of things to work out, and we never really had a chance to establish anything that was outside of influence of the previously established powerful governments.

This. Also, Where's my fucking jetpack already?!?

Right here: http://martinjetpack.com/ (http://martinjetpack.com/)
Only costs 5,394 Bitcoin

Not bad. Only a few decades late.

Just look at all the former soviet bloc nations that turned capitalist

West Germany vs. East Germany

United States vs. Soviet Union

Hong Kong vs. China

Modern China vs. Older China

Japan vs. China

South Korea vs. South Korea

Romania now vs. Romania during Ceaușescu


These are just the basic examples, there are plenty more. It seems to be the rule too.

Austria, duh! 

10th richest country in the world per capita.  Whether that's a result of the former finance minister's Karl Heinz Grasser's policies is debatable though.

Grasser is a self-proclaimed Austrian (one of the few Austrians who actually come from Austria!)

I'm not a commie defending Allende's gov. but do you realize that you are supporting a dictatorship?

Most Chilean people think that all of that shit (or a part of it) you're talking was caused by rich business people boycotting gov.

I don't know if it was true or not, but all libertarian reforms couldn't be done in democracy.

I live in a municipality around 400.000 inhabitants but has no hospital, "our" hospital is in another that has 700000 inh. But if it is for you a prosperous country.

One more fact: Chile has no industry, Chile lives yet of its commodities, and no body talk too much of this but it is sad.

One of my business cases I had to read was on Chile's extremely advanced and profitable wood products industry (paper, pulp, etc.) Chile has the best technologies for growing trees fast, and keeping their logging very sustainable.

But is still a primary economy example. CODELCO has much money and invest in investigation but they still exporting 99% of copper without value added.  I mean industry, not raw resource extraction.

"A fundamental rejection of mathematical methods in economics, seeing the function of economics as investigating the essences rather than the specific quantities of economic phenomena. This was seen as an evolutionary, or "genetic-causal", approach against the alleged "unreality" and internal stresses inherent in the "static" approach of equilibrium and perfect competition, which are the foundations of mainstream Neoclassical economics (see also praxeology). This methodology is also driven by the belief that econometrics is inherently misleading in that it creates a fallacious "precision" in economics where there is none."

How is this not good?

Pretty much anytime any country makes a decision that is based of a logical and certain occurrence (like the need to eat or sleep or transportation, etc.), they are applying Austrian theory.
If they analyze data that they chose to construct, and make a decision based of the data (thus assuming the original construct was perfect enough to analyze) then they are applying mainstream economic theory.
I could go back and forward with examples, but long story short is governments go back and forward with how they handle everything.
"Oh we need money for whatever it is right now, make a set of data and request it." Then. "Oh shit its getting real because we did so many <------ requests based on BS data. We better apply some logic to get it back under control, hopefully."

That's the way I see it, I may be wrong. It just seems like they go back and forward to basically come up on profits, and still keep things going. Spinning plates balancing act.

Also Does it count as prosperous if you are 10,000,000,000,000 in debt? Im not sure where you live but where I am, Orange County, CA we get a lot of people that "look" prosperous but really only have a bunch of debt and will eventually be living in a one bedroom apt. The wiser of us know better than to give them any credit at all.
Same can be said for any entity or governemnt in debt.
So if there are no Solely Austrian Successes than there arent any solely mainstream successes either, IMO.

I do not support the dictatorship, I support the reforms that took place during it. If I had been 18 at the time of the plebiscite I would have voted "yes" not to maintain Pinochet in power, but to maintain Buchi in charge of the economy.


Rich people boycotting government prompted the adoption of stupid policies? Huh, first time I hear that excuse. I'm pretty sure the crisis happened because as good socialists, the administration wanted immediate gratification and was incapable of seeing 2 feet in front of them, so they did what they do best and just spent like madmen trying to magically convert the lower class into middle class, completely oblivious that it was unsustainable. Thus, hyperinflation, and then a series of stupid measures which made things worse, like price controls, high protectionism and taking over distribution of goods. 

Read some more Allende horror stories here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_chile#Popular_Unity_Government


That's your measure? That scenario can be found in any country in the world except maybe for Singapore and other small rich countries.

Btw, I live in Chile too and have 3 high quality hospitals near me plus a couple other regular ones, so I guess that averages things out for the country

Do you want saying "clínica"?

Clínica = Private hospital only for rich.

Yeah, I was referring to clinicas, Alemana, Las Condes, UC.

I don't think number of cheap hospitals is a good standard for prosperity.  As long as the medical industry is regulated and controlled by the government and government sanctioned monopolies like the AMA the cost of health care will be prohibitively high.  I don't know what the situation is like in Chile, but I can't afford to go to the hospital without going into debt either and I live in the US. 

You completely fail on so many levels Niemivh, I really don't know where to begin.  Oh heck screw it, I got better things to do than deal your delusions.

hoooly shit. i can't believe JohnDoe is seriously pointing to Chile as a free market success story. Are all libertarians creeping authoritarian fascists or just this one? (yes yes, I know you're not all secret authoritarians, but really there need to be more AnCaps in this thread denouncing Chile wholeheartedly as it is about as far from a voluntary society as you can get) For god's sake I realize that a dictatorship is a "smaller government" than a democracy, but each step towards smallness is not the same folks. You are as bad as Communists that defend Stalin or Mao.

At least in a dictatorship there's only one person to shoot. ;)

It's only a free market "success story" in as much as they adopted some free market policies which improved things and actually led to Chile being less authoritarian.  Whether or not Chile has maintained this progress, I don't know (this was back in the 70s for heaven's sake).  But the market reforms did make the people of Chile better off, at least as long as they were followed.

I realize sometimes ancaps in this forum stretch to make examples fit, but on the other hand we get straw manned to hell:

"The situation in Somalia improved without a government."
"You think Somalia is a paradise!?  Hahahaha! Fool!  Why don't you fucking move to Somalia?"

"When free market reforms were adopted in Chile the economy improved greatly, and the political situation got a little better as well."
"Chile is a prosperous, first-world, free market haven?  Why don't you fucking move to Chile?"

Seriously.   This happens to me all the time, even in "real life" debates with friends.

First, we are talking purely economic policies here. How those economic policies came to be is not relevant to the discussion. And second, you probably don't get the context. Chile was in very deep shit before the coup so I believe the means justify the end on this one.

Tell me honestly, would you rather live in countries like Zimbabwe and North Korea, or in Nazi Germany pre WWII? I'm as anarchist as one can get but I'd choose the latter any day. At least there you are still permitted to have property and wealth and you won't die of hunger.

you're comparing Chile under Allende to North Korea? hyperbole much? A democratically elected government to a megalomaniacal dictator?

Christ compare Allende - a democratically elected leader to Pinochet's reign of terror, torture, disappearances, and imprisonment of dissenters. Seriously, you do know that Chile is like something out of a capitalist horror show right? Military takes over greatly helped by the CIA, installs dictator, who rules by terror/murder and installs US technocrats and economists as consultants....

You do realize that the "pure" phase of reforms (arguably the most Austrian phase) was by and large a failure, not only because the only way it could be sustained was through massive authoritarian structures of terror but because there was little GDP growth (late 70s and early 80s) and a full scale collapse that pushed 50% of the population back under the poverty line in like 83 or 84.

Anyway, end thread derail, if someone wants to debate Chile let's do it elsewhere.

So you are arguing that protectionism is not only beneficial but necessary to build up an economy?

You can't "dump" products onto a market, you can sell products you are more efficient at making for products that the other country is more efficient at making. This makes both groups better off*.  When you "dump", you have to "dump" for something in trade. NO! the more restrictions you put up to "protect" your producers the more you hurt your consumers and there are far more of them to hurt. 

* not EVERYONE in the group is better off in the very short term. If you make the Trabant and you let Toyota's and Volkswagen's in, your Trabant employees will have to go find something else to do. They will also be better off in the long term.

I'd rather live in Sweden... or Holland... or Belgium... or Norway... or Canada... oh, hang on, I do live in Canada, goodie :-)

Hyperbole goes both ways I guess if you think the Pinochet era was A REIGN OF TERROR!!1. Sure, he rounded up and killed, tortured and imprisoned his enemies but that's no different than what happens now in the world. Do you consider the United States a reign of terror because the administration likes to kill a lot of muslims and torture them in Guantanamo?


You should research more thoroughly to avoid looking like an idiot. Late 70's GDP growth was pretty high (10% on '77 and over 7% until the crash, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_chile) and '82 was a region wide crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_debt_crisis) which struck Chile pretty hard because some idiots decided it was a good idea to peg the peso to the dollar, which appreciated real interest rates on loans to over 40% yearly (http://ideas.repec.org/p/chb/bcchwp/57.html page 18 of .pdf) while there was a huge amount of foreign capital flowing in. I don't need to tell you how anti Austrian is the pegging of currencies.

Debt is only one half of a Net Worth equation. Someone with $1,000,000 in debt that is used to cover a $1mil apartment complex that is paying out $100,000 a year is way better off than someone who has no debt and is making $50,000 a year. for our country, we have a lot of debt, but we also have a pretty large revenue stream (tax income), and a whole lot of advanced military hardware and troops that we can sell or rent to other countries (which we do).

Somalia is a beautiful country for those that practice strict individualism like Austrian Economics. There, you can have anything you want if you have enough creativity and wealth. There are no large government bureaucrats to interfere with Libertarian friendly businesses like sexual slavery, pirating, and other laissez faire pursuits.
This commercial message brought to you by the Somalia Department of non-existent tourism. =p

Of course I do! (think that the USG is guilty of mass murder and torture) - The US is a police state at home and a nightmare abroad if you happen to live in one of the countries they are currently targeting. The USG is quite literally the Evil Empire at the moment, with the highest rate of incarceration at home and more military spending than most of the rest of the world combined

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. (Tom Friedman, NYT persistent defender of US capitalism/globalization)

Of course the Pinochet regime was a reign of terror -- What else do you call it when a dictator assumes power in a military coup and systematically kills, imprisons, or destroys his political enemies, embezzles millions from the government, etc. Really, you have absolutely zero moral ground to stand on here if you are trying to make the case that Pinochet's regime was somehow "freer" or "more democratic" than Allende's

The irony, of course, is that the US armed forces are, in effect, socialist... i.e. state-funded and run.

As for the notion that Pinochet may not have been that bad after all... it takes a spectacular disconnect from history to even suggest something of the sort. I guess our friend thinks that Austrian economics is Austrian because that was the birthplace of Hitler... also not such a bad chap, after all.

Somalia may suck now, but it was even worse when it had a central government.

Oh Somalia, what a paradise!

 ::)

Yes, the US army is socialist. Please, find a better attack, since you won't find much resistance there.

Yes, Pinochet was a murdering bastard. However, what differentiates him from socialistic murdering bastards is that he was creative enough to not nationalize everything in a fit of communistic self-aggrandizement and instead had people who had at least a bit of an idea as to what they were doing take over. Thus, while both Pinochet and, say, Castro were murdering people, people under Pinochet generally didn't face mass starvation, collectivization of their livelihoods, dependence on foreign tourism (later on, mind), terrible hospital conditions, and a rapidly declining standard of living.

With Pinochet, the Chilean economy gradually began to grow despite Allende utterly screwing it up, the standard of living and most other measures of life rose considerably, and Chilean currency didn't turn into toilet paper. Because of these reforms, Chile became the most prosperous country in South America and weathered out disasters that caused economic problems for other nations. Mind, Chile had problems in the early eighties, but that was because of the Achilles Heel of Monetarism, which is monetary policy, and issue that they continually screw up and often ruins the appearance of many of their better policies.

Also, while Pinochet was, again, a murdering bastard, don't make wild claims that Allende was better. Yes, Allende was elected democratically, but as I recall he then proceeded to flagrantly violate the Chilean constitution, ignore the legislature, collectivize everything, steal everything in sight that wasn't already "State Property", and spent a large portion of that money on a large "Socialist Computer" for calculating the economy's growth. The legislature actually ordered the army (and, by extension, Pinochet) to throw Allende out for his blatant misuse of power. Had Allende not been overthrown, he had already demonstrated that he didn't give a damn for the democratic process and would have doubtless became a dictator himself, with the exception that he wouldn't have improved the economy and instead would have made it into something resembling Cuba or Zimbabwe. Furthermore, his lack of success would result in there never being a peaceful end to his (or his successor's) reign as their was with Pinochet.

I think most people are missing his point.  The people can be economically freer while not being politically free.  If you did not get on the governments bad side and were a free market business, you would do better under Pinochet.  This does not make that business man bad.  I guess people say the same thing about China today. They are not politically free but economically freer and standards of living depend more on economic freedom than political freedom.

His point is more subtle.  If you wrote angry things in news papers about the government, things would suck for you a little more under Pinochet, but if you were a free market, very productive person that stayed away from the government sector, things would suck for you under Allende.  The government was more likely to come and take your life's work.

The simple "Pinochet bad... so Allende good" is a bit too simple.

Here is a quote that might fit your request.

"Medieval Iceland was almost a purely free market society, even the law arose from private courts and from law making bodies which could literally be bought at a price. They still had a "state" but it was disconnected from geographical location and was in a sense voluntary since the people could freely choose which "goddard" (spelling?) to protect him. The poor, if they were aggressed against, could even sell their claim to a more powerful person who would then pursue the compensation for his own benefit. So it provided an extremely effective check on power and protection of human rights. They lasted 300 years before their first civil war (eventually the various set regions were monopolized), but they lasted an impressively long time and had a body of law that was extremely rich and complex. David Friedman compares Medieval Iceland to Athens in terms of cultural development.

However, because they still had in some sense delegated authority (although technically it was voluntary until it was monopolized) they eventually had internal conflict. It is an amazing testament to how stable a free market society could be, even considering that the Vikings were pretty much brutes! Just think what America could be like if it were purely voluntary! It would be incredible.

Down with the state (and sorry, but that includes the Constitution)!
—

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Ron Paul"

http://dailypaul.com/73539/is-there-a-nation-or-country-that-has-an-economy-based-on-austrian-school

Athens was merely an early version of a modern society and certainly no place you would want to live today. Iceland would have been no better. Romanticizing about early civilizations and how they would work even better today is magical thinking. Ignoring facts about ancient times like slavery and the continuous threat of war only proves that there still is no case to show any country that followed the Austrian School to Prosperity (unless you want to be a slave or foot soldier).

This is true.  The Austrian school has only been around for just over a hundred years, so it is not really logical to claim that Medieval Iceland followed the "Austrian school".  What you can say is that despite the instability of the times, and the harsh standard of living, is that they developed and successfully used private law.  This is something many proponents of the Austrian school have written and theorized about.  Well, there actually is a historical example of it working.  Of course I wouldn't want to live in Medieval Iceland or Somalia, even.  I want my current society to adapt to the ideas of liberty, not to be transported back in time to days when men still believed it was lawful to own other men.

Allende was completely nuts. Had he not been overthrown, he probably would have been about as bad as Pinochet in terms of political freedoms.

Certainly, Austrian economics is about 100 years old.  Fabian Socialism is about 100 years old. Keynesian Economics is the same.  Communism is slightly younger, so are New Deal and Great Society models.  I think that what a lot of "free-thinkers" fail to notice is that the successful "powers that be" members follow the oldest rules of success.  Subtle or overt slavery, marketing hero-worship, theft through warfare, constant surveillance, and monetary fraud.  None of these new theories have much in the way of a predictable future compared to the last 20,000 years of known history.  All of them have their adherents.  Anarchistic models, on the other hand, have been with us as far back as we can measure.  The Apache "Nation" beat the hell out of Spanish invaders for an extraordinarily long time because every single one of them was a warrior.  I haven't the slightest idea what they had in the way of an economy, but I do know that they very nearly won against seemingly overwhelming forces.  What tripped them up was technological differences, not tactics.

This link got hijacked long ago, for an answer go here;

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34593.0

You can take a look at this map: http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/map/index.php

It shows economic freedom by country. As you can see no country has a perfect score though here.

I met some people from Chicago, they really seem to like it there too.

What is capitalism?  I'd really like to know.  Does Sweden qualify as a capitalist country?  How about China?  How about Somalia?  If it has any portion of it that uses a market, does that qualify?  Because by that definition all countries are capitalist.

I think you mean non-communist but I'm not sure and don't want to impose that on you if you don't mean that.  Please define your terms.  These terms are not as polarizing and black-and-white as Milton Freidman would lead you to believe.

Is it upon me (or anyone else) to procure the details and fact-finding of others' statements yet again? 

Can you make a brief case for this argument?

We used to define (when we had some sanity in our economic schools of thought) that a nation that exported value added goods was a good indicator of wealth over nations that export raw materials. 

I think the population of the US will learn this again the hard way once we fully fritter away our world reserve currency status and we actually have to produce things the world will want to buy in order to buy things from the world.  It's going to be a rough transition.

According to you logic is a function of Austrian theory....

umm, ok.

Regarding debt, do we want to go over the history of how we went from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation?

See, things are well for JohnDoe.  He was lucky enough to do well in this system therefore there is no problem with it and it can't be improved.

Problem?  What problem?  Your poverty is not his concern.  He's doing well.

Yep.  Please don't bother explaining how and where I "fail" for that might expose your ignorance.  After all the more you write the more opportunity you have to stick your foot in your mouth.  Maybe that's maybe why I'm not afraid to post more than a few sentences at a time.

Get back to 'doing better things' like playing World of Warcraft.

You missed the part where JohnDoe admitted he's one of the few people doing well in that system.  Since that system is supporting JohnDoe there is no problem with it. 

It's like asking someone to kill their Golden Goose.  It's like asking Bill Gates' children to support the Estate Tax.

I still have a knee-jerk response to anything that stinks of communism...if only because I have a vivid imagination, and can imagine starving to death in the Ukraine because my farm was collectivised, if only because I can imagine being a violin player that specialized in Bach during Mao's cultural revolution, I can remember how Puritans escaping religious intolerance in Europe came to America and promptly murdered Jews, burned Quakers, and shot Indians....there is an underlying model here that is not economic or political or religious or racial.  Its the Death Cult at war with the rest of us.  And they are capitalists and socialists, bankers and blacksmiths, politicians and "lone-wolf" cranks...the language we all use to try to figure out who the bad guys are keeps getting twisted off target.  Ah, well.  Lets holler about The Federal Reserve instead, so the future, de-centralized Bank of All Worlds sounds like a welcome replacement.   Let's think that Standard and Poor ratings are unbiased and non-political.  By the way, the CIA is ferociously interested in Bitcoin.  They like money, they like cryptology, I'm not even remotely surprised.  Seeing as how I have always heard that drugs are a good investment, as long as the war on drugs continues, and precious metals have always been a solid investment, except for the brief periods when the banks convince the masses to use paper, AND seeing as how I could apparently buy both silver and dope with bitcoins....I think I'll stay in the pool.  I have a dayjob after all.  If its good enough for the CIA, its....well, actually, it isn't, but I have always thought it wise to keep your enemies closer.

Some people would argee that farms were in fact were privately owned by communist party and collectivised only in name, and were used as a political tool.
Famine was artificially created bu it looks like you have no clue whatsoever you just repeat propaganda.


Just like most of the farm lands and seeds will soon belong to monsanto and the like, your ass will be owned just like in ukraine. Communist or "free market" it is all the same shit used to control just different method.

Propaganda?  Are you implying that the Holodomor and Povolzhye famine were not directly caused by collectivisation?  Whose propaganda do you think I've been cozened by, exactly?

Incidentally, MY farmland and seeds belong to me exclusively.