A Lesson From Iceland

"Hey, look at Iceland!

Stuck in the economic doldrums just a few years ago, Iceland today is enjoying an explosion of prosperity.

In fact, Iceland is now one of the world's richest nations, according to the World Bank. And it's arguably the wealthiest European country.

The economy is growing rapidly. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) has grown about 50% since 1995. And the benefits are being felt throughout Icelandic society. Unemployment has almost disappeared -- dropping below 2 percent.

As a writer for the UK Spectator bluntly put it: "Today, Icelanders are absolutely rolling in it."

So what happened? Lots of lucky lottery ticket winners? Nope. Beginning around 1990, Icelandic leaders -- inspired by visits from libertarian free-market thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan -- instituted bold, fundamental free-market reforms.

Taxes were slashed, for both individuals and businesses. Personal income tax rates were cut from 33 percent in 1995 to 22.75 percent. The corporate tax rate was cut from 55 percent to 18 percent -- and a further cut to 10 percent is under consideration. A cumbersome income tax was replaced with a flat tax. Wealth and estate taxes were slashed. Major segments of the economy were deregulated. Numerous government services were privatized. Monetary policy was stabilized; inflation, which hit 100% in 1983, is down to 2-3% today. Government debt was hacked away. Private property rights were created for fisheries, a major Icelandic industry. And so forth.

Due to such market-oriented reforms, between 1990 and today Iceland rose from 26th to 9th in the Economic Freedom of the World rankings (a respected annual ranking of countries by the amount of economic freedom they permit).

The result: Iceland is enjoying the same remarkable progress that other countries around the world which have adopted similar policies have also seen.

Lesson, anyone?"

An excerpt from this issue of the liberator online:
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-12-num-6.html#GBU
The liberator online is an e-newsletter provided by the Advocates for Self-Government.  You can sign up for it and have it delivered to your email box for free here: 
http://www.theadvocates.org/publications/liberator-online.html

>>40
Fail for last sentence troll that undermines your valid point.

>>38

dude, iceland isn't laissez-faire, far from, have you even read anything about iceland?

>>41
It didn't undermine the point.

So how does Iceland measure up in terms of rich-poor gap, poverty rates, etc? In the end, what matters is how the general population is benefiting from all of this.

>>21
>>35
gtfo morons

Look at African Race countries and look at White Race. Why can't you all see the connection?

>>45
Whites are evil, though I guess that would entail that asians, arabs and native americans should be in the stone age aswell.

>>25
Are you stupid? I mean, seriously, you specifically ought line the liberty limiting harms principle and then call that tyranny. What the fuck? I am a libertarian, and no I wouldn't like democracy that was not regulated by a constitution. Democracy is nothing but a mob rule, but set up a democratic government that is given an outline of the government's purpose so that the mobs of the majority can not become tyrannical, and then you have a good government. The will of the people is irrelevant if it is their will to infringe on rights that do not present harms to anyone involved, or to infringe on economic freedom. This is why a democratic republican government is the most efficient, because a good government is a simple one, one that simply maximizes freedom. How is that tyranny? If you're a proponent of socialism or of theocracy, then certainly you wouldn't like it, however both of these structures are based on a fundamental disbelief in the idea of liberty based on a disdain for the society that was created by the collective buying power of the general masses. So those are just stupid systems. We can disagree, but to call Libertarianism tyranny is the most outlandish thing you could possibly call it.

>>20
Are you an economist? Do you have the merit to make that kind of claim? Obviously not because your claims are rather reductionist, actually so are all of the claims about the cause of the great depression so far. For some reason people in America have a propensity to blame everything that's happening on the President when the president simply doesn't have that much direct authority or direct effect on the economy. The effects of a president's economic policy not only take a while to come in, but as well are not the supreme authority on the welfare of the market. The market is a constantly vacillating and extremely convoluted thing, and for the government to be able to have as much affect as you people are talking about, it would have to be as efficient, vacillating and convoluted as the market, which is impossible for a government because then it would have to become incredibly large and incredibly corrupt. The economy went through a drop which can be attributed to a number of things, and it started to bounce back naturally too, but then FDR's policies come in with his 'New Deal' bullshit, and a number of them are actually detrimental to certain businesses because of how expansive he made the government. He made it socialist and he usurped the powers of the states. The return of the economy happened by the forces of the market, and were slowed by the forces of government. Laissez faire certainly works, people just have to stop discrediting it with reductionist analysis of economic policy.

>>47
>>25 here, read >>26

>>44
Iceland has the 2nd highest UN human development index in the world next to Norway. It also still has a non-socialist welfare institutions that is vastly more efficient than socialist influenced welfare institutions.

All welfare institutions are socialist in nature.

>>50
No, socialists just claim credit for other people's work.

It also still has a non-socialist welfare institutions that is vastly more efficient than socialist influenced welfare institutions.
Could you elaborate on this? How does it work?

>>52
Voters vote in a government which decides to spends some tax paying contractors to do things, like build bridges.

>>53
I don't understand. What does that have to do with welfare?

And how is that any different from most industrial nations? I'm not aware of any that have their own bridge-building divisions.

>>49

http://ministryofhealth.is/Information/nr/677

let me quote for you:

"The Ministry of Health and Social Security is responsible for the overall administration of health affairs and matters relating to social security insurance other than unemployment insurance.The health sector is regulated according to the Health Service Act of 1990 by which all inhabitants have right of access to the best possible health service at any given time for the protection of their mental, social and physical health."


"The health service in Iceland is primarily financed by central government. Financing is mainly based on taxes or 85% and 15% is fee for service."

if a health care service which is regulated and funded by the government isn't socialist influenced, what is it?
The icelandic health care system is very well set up, very efficient, and very good, but it's not particularly... capitalist?

Like japan, traditional icelandic diet consists largely of fish and alternative dairy products like goats milk and cheese etc. all which are healthy and good for you and have been shown to make you live longer. There are far more factors to living long than "lol nice hospital" although iceland does have those.

>>44
"So how does Iceland measure up in terms of rich-poor gap, poverty rates, etc? In the end, what matters is how the general population is benefiting from all of this."

There isn't anything inherently wrong with some people earning more than others do.

>>55
See >>1.  Iceland is doing well not because of socialized medicine, but because of their otherwise relatively capitalistic economy.  While Iceland may have a few welfare institutions and such, they also have many other fiscally conservative ideas implimented there that we are a far cry from achieving here in the USA.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with some people earning more than others do.
You're right. You're also wrong.

Allowing one person to earn more than another hopefully serves as a motivator. However, beyond a certain point it also causes discontent and social agitation. For example: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gini+coefficient+violence

In any case, I don't see how your statement relates to the one you quoted.

cant have an economy if everyone is broke

>>57
"However, beyond a certain point it also causes discontent and social agitation."

And that's what we have police and guns for.

how ironic is it reading this now...

>>60
Christ, it really is surreal

I hope >>47 died, was killed, or killed himself, what a fucking cocksucking idiot.

>>61
Don't worry. Muslims will chop his head off and hungry niggers will cook it.

>>62
http://2ch.so/po/src/1335115536055.jpg

2008 gfc noob

>>6
We libertarians don't like democracy because it's majority rule, dictatorship for the majority.

>>65
democracy is majority rule, dictatorship for the majority.
Since when? AFAIK, voting is falsified and real rulers are the Jewish bankers, who can buy anything.

>>66
AFAIK, voting is falsified
For example, there are no real nazis among candidates. I.e. You can't vote for a Hitler and a free gas chamber for the Jews behind Federal Reserve.

you've neglected to mention what a thoroughly de-regulated banking sector did to icelands economy in the 2008 crash....