> This brings us to the point where you disavow 
> Pinochet, Reagan, Bush, and Thatcher as Hayekian 
> politicians. Okay, but then you have another 
> problem: there have been no Hayekian systems, and 
> no real attempts to get one. But if that is the 
> case, then you cannot claim that the system 
> works. You may avoid, by your stratagem, having 
> to admit that it fails, but neither can you say 
> that it works. You must modify your support from 
> the indicative ("it does work") to the 
> subjunctive ("it would work if only..."), 

There have been real attempts to deregulate and privatize, and these effrots have in some cases resulted in movement towards greater freedom of commerce for some period of time. I think it is fairly obvious that the US, UK, Switzerland came closer to a Hayekian position than the USSR, The PRC, or the DDR. Another example would be Sweden from 1850 to 1950 versus Sweden after 1950. In all the cases I mentioned the nations with lower taxes, less regulation, and more secure property rights realized better results. So I will stick with saying that it really does work. One might also look at the PRC before and after 1979. China experienced economic progress only after they adopted some limited free market reforms. One thing to note is that recent research indicates that Chinese GDP has been overestimated, but they still improved in the 1980's and 1990's after taking some steps in the Hayekian direction.


> But I think you are fundamentally wrong in this. 
> Thatcher, Pinochet, Reagan, etc., made honest 
> attempts to follow Hayek's model. They backed off 
> because they had too. 


I know that Reagan cut marginal income tax rates. Reagan also raised social security taxes and ran huge deficits, so that is a mixed bag. The more Hayekian policy at that time would be the efforts of Volcker and Greenspan bring inflation down. I will again refer you to Dawson and Seater, who have examined the level of regulation in the United States. 

Dawson, John W. (2007) "Regulation and the Macroeconomy." Kyklos, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 60(1), pages 15?36, 02.

Dawson, John W. & John J. Seater (2005) "The Macroeconomic Effects of Federal Regulation." Working Papers 05?02, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University

Dawson and Seater find a negative correlation between regulation and growth. there was a drop in the level of regulation in 1985- that one year of the Reagan administration. There was also a drop in regulation for three years following the 1994 congressional election. Otherwise regulation has risen for every year in living memory. That is what the data shows. Depite this, the US remains less regulated than most nations in the world. Consequently the US can be seen as more Hayekian than other nations, but there has hardly been a Hayekian takeover. There is a large literature on the correlation between economic freedom and economic growth. See also Classens and Djonovic, Gwartney, Holcombe... 


> To repeat myself, your 
> defense of Hayek is identical to the communist's 
> defense of Marx: "It wasn't properly implemented." 


Once more, the relative degree of free commerce correlates with actual results, real results, actual improved performance, not in theory, but in empirical observable measureable data. The fact that Reagan was unable to translate his rhetoric into large and lasting results does not change the general correlation  between economic freedom and economic performance. The US has less ecomomic freedom than libertatrians and economic conservatives would like, but more economic freedom that most other nations. The US also happens to be quite prosperous. I have not seen any credible evidence to the contrary. 


> As for my knowledge of Austrian economics, well, 
> what can I say? Only that I have read a fair 
> amount and done my best, such as it is, to 
> understand it fairly. But in the time honored 
> academic tradition of "back at ya, buddy," I can 
> well ask if you are really all that familiar with 
> the critiques of Mises? Because I really don't 
> think anybody really understands an idea unless 
> they really understand the critiques of that idea.

I have come across various critiques of Austrian economics and find them unconvincing. 

> I will delay any comments on the Pinochet-Hayek 
> connection (and we could add the Mises-Dolfuss 
> connection) to another post, but those who want a 
> quick read on the gory details can pick up Naomi
> Klein's "Disaster Capitalism."


People like Klein use examples of crony capitalism to condemn free market capitalism. The absurdity of this practice should be obvious. 


DW MacKenzie