Topic: Countries that followed the Austrian School to Prosperity - page 4. (Read 21899 times)

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

I did.

30% unemployment.  Check.

Immiseration of the lower and middle class.  Check.

Sounds like Austrian economics to me.

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.

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 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...

 

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, 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.

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 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.

 

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.

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.

Same with the UK now vs UK 100 years ago.

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.