Those countries have the opposite of that austrianism prescribes:
high taxes
a lot of regulations and burocracy
then how come they performed good?
here is a whole thread related to your concern
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Consumariat: ... the USA and UK in particular are digging themselves deeper into a socialist trap Sorry what? The UK has spent the last 30 years moving more and more over to the right. We are as far away from what you call 'socialism' than we have ever been.
... the USA and UK in particular are digging themselves deeper into a socialist trap
Sorry what? The UK has spent the last 30 years moving more and more over to the right. We are as far away from what you call 'socialism' than we have ever been.
That is just incorrect, Government debt in the UK has continued to rise since the second world war and it has been exponential. I would say there are more regulations and taxes and laws than there has ever been. Business is more restricted now that it has ever been. Even today they want to continue by regulating the internet, turning it in to a socialist internet. They even suggested a 50p tax on internet that would "fund next gen internet projects". Many industries have a high amount of government subsidies.
I speak to a lot of people on the internet from Norway, Finland and Sweden and there are people in those countries that say the exact same thing that I say about the UK. They tell me that the socialized education, medicine and industry regulation is causing problems. Just the same there are people singing the praises of socialism in the UK as there are in those countries. There was swedes complaining about the state of the economy on this other forum i visit last week. They were saying it costs 4x as much for a bottle of coke than it does in the UK and they pay 40% tax.
They are not socialist. They are social market economies.
There is a difference.
"Good" for whom?
North sea oil boom.
And they are among the most free market capitalist countries in the world. Looking for an example of socialism? Try Haiti.
Good is relative to who, where and when, I doubt the Swedes felt things were good when their benevolent country made the highest marginal tax rate 100% and almost destroyed the economy.
But to your point. The reason why the "More Free Market" countries like USA, Canada, Australia, etc are about the same as the Baltic countries is because the Baltic are not that much more socialist in nature than the ones that are supposedly freer.
And if you want proof, the Baltic countries are trying to work their way out of the socialist trap while the USA and UK in particular are digging themselves deeper into a socialist trap.
Government debt in the UK has continued to rise since the second world war and it has been exponential
Firstly and most importantly, Socialism is not defined as high government debt. Secondly, debt has not increased since WW2 - it has substantially decreased.
I would say there are more regulations and taxes and laws than there has ever been
And you base this on what?
Even today they want to continue by regulating the internet, turning it in to a socialist internet. They even suggested a 50p tax on internet that would "fund next gen internet projects".
Who is doing this exactly?
Many industries have a high amount of government subsidies.
Privatisation has been going on since the early 80's. There are less subsidised industries nowadays as a result of this process. If you can prove otherwise I would be grateful.
So other people have expressed opinions. Did they provide evidence for these supposedly widespread problems?
I'm not sure what your coke example is supposed to prove.
If the therapeutic-managerial nanny state of Blair, Brown and the rest of the New Labour bunch is a move to the right from Margaret Thatcher, I don't even want to know what her predecessors must have been like. Not to mention the utterly spineless attitude of David Cameron towards the globalist warming hoax, and the equally pathetic kowtowing to Islamic interests on behalf of the BBC (I still get a kick out of these clowns describing every Islamic terror attack as done by "Asians". I know it means folks from the Subcontinent there, but aside from it not being racially but religiously motivated, it gives me the mental image of angry Koreans blowing themselves up in public places over their poor BattleNet rankings).
I do not believe that a move from Democratic Socialism to Semi-Democratic Police State-Militaristic Fascism constitutes becoming freer. So the UK moved several industries out of full government ownership to semi-private government regulated ownership (Which is positive but not that big of a deal) while cranking up the police state and the military interventions around the world all the while keeping the money creation and debt increasing mess going. Hell the UK won't even let Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland govern themselves.
I'm a Swede and can provide some information/opinions about Sweden.
First off, the foundation of our wealth was laid in the 19'th century, when Sweden was one of the most laissez-faire countries in the world (the most?). We started walking away from capitalism in the beginning of the twentieth century, just like the United States, but it didn't get really bad until the 70s. Soon after that we were forced to change direction, and since the 90s we've taken many steps in the right direction, although I would of course prefer a much higher pace. Anyway, our socialistic period is an aberration when looking at the last 200 years. For most of the time we've been a very open and free-market-oriented country.
Second, although several important sectors such as education, health care and the labour market are very heavily regulated, most other sectors are not that bad, to the best of my knowledge. Watching Stossel on YouTube I am in fact often chocked by how heavy the regulation is in the United States. Florists don't need to be certified here AFAIK and fish pedicure is legal =)
Third, I believe our government tends to tax consumption rather than production, and individuals rather than companies. According to a friend of mine who works with procurement for a multinational candy producer, energy is very cheap here for businesses relative to other European countries (due to how our tax system works).
Fourth, the small size of the country and the population makes lobbying less effective and interesting. A small country makes the potential advantages for special interests smaller and the resulting disadvantages to each individual citizen greater. It's easier to keep politicians in check in a small country.
Fifth, Sweden has lots of natural resources (I'm thinking about iron ore and lumber, not blonde women, although we have that too of course) and is a very export-dependent country, which makes us sensitive to competitive disadvantages (which helps to keep the unions rational).
Last, I think the climate helps too. Clearly demarcated seasons make people more future-oriented as saving for the future makes obvious sense when winter is coming.
Meezus,
Great informative post!
That's a neat chart. It really diguises the increase in debt by displaying it as a percent of GDP, which has also been growing -- faster than the debt, in fact. Here's the same data in millions. Seems like a pretty large increase. I fail to see why an increase in GDP somehow makes the debt smaller.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Yes, a chart that ignores inflation is much more usefull. Cheers for that.