Countries that followed the Austrian School to Prosperity

[The Script]

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.

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.

[1713975890]

1713975890

[1713975890]

1713975890

[1713975890]

1713975890

[1713975890]

1713975890

[1713975890]

1713975890

[1713975890]

1713975890

[evoorhees]

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!

 

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.

[MatthewLM]

Same with the UK now vs UK 100 years ago.

[niemivh]

Please, stop embarassing yourself.

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.

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).

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.

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

Moving on.

Ok, so there is no practical application of Austrian economics?

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.

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)

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.

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?

Maybe another day and to another person.

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.

[niemivh]

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

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.

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.

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.

[niemivh]

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

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.

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'.  

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.

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'.

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

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.

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.

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.

[niemivh]

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.

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.

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.

 

[myrkul]

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.

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.

[The Script]

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.

[niemivh]

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!

 

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.

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.

[niemivh]

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.

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.

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...

 

[evoorhees]

Whoa (mis)information overload!  Calm down buddy.  

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

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.  

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

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)

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.

 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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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? 

[JohnDoe]

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

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:

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

[niemivh]

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.

I did.

30% unemployment.  Check.

Immiseration of the lower and middle class.  Check.

Sounds like Austrian economics to me.

[niemivh]

Whoa (mis)information overload!  Calm down buddy.  

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

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.  

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

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)

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.

 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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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? 

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.

[niemivh]

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

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:

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

[JohnDoe]

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

[Rassah]

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.

[hugolp]

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.

[billyjoeallen]

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.