Estonia True Paradise?

2011-06-21 03:34:10

#1

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6631|'Murka

From a globalization and economic perspective, it just may be.

Baltic Tiger
Milton Friedmanwould be at home in Estonia. That’s because the small former Soviet republic has put many of the late Nobel Prize-winning
economist’s ideas to the test. The result? Estonia, having shaken itself free from its communist-era shackles, may now qualify as the first Baltic Tiger;
it debuts this year at number 10 in the index. In keeping with Friedman’s free-market philosophy, the country’s government has moved aggressively to open itself up to the outside world. For all practical purposes, Estonia has no corporate income tax, and shareholder dividends are subject to a simple flat tax. Bureaucracy isn’t a problem, either; the government just steps aside to let investors do their thing. The World Bank ranks Estonia 17th among 175 economies in ease of doing business, and sixth in ease of trading across borders. Additionally, the government places no restrictions on foreign ownership of real estate, which has fueled a property investment boom among overseas buyers. Although the index ranks Estonia 21st in
technological connectivity, the country seems poised to pounce higher. The country, dubbed by some as “E-Stonia,” has launched a large online
government initiative and even declared Internet access a fundamental human right. In March, it held the world’s first general election that allowed
e-voting over the Web. Former Prime Minister Mart Laar, who stepped down in 2002, is widely credited with introducing most of the policies that have
helped his country roar ahead of the pack. But among his many awards and accolades, one seems particularly apt: the Cato Institute’s Milton Friedman Prize.

They were hit hard by the recession, but their GDP appears to be recovering at a pretty good clip. Unemployment is a different story, but that generally lags other indicators. I was surprised by their wide-open market set up and how it lit such a fire under their (relatively) small economy. Part of it was fueled by the real estate bubble of the early 2000s, but part of it is trade and e-commerce, which was unaffected by the real estate bubble bursting--hence the fairly rapid recovery in GDP.

I'm no Estonia cheerleader, and I'm not looking for pics of random boxers/MMA dudes (they will be deleted). Just thought the article was interesting and it would make life in Estonia interesting for a businessman/technophile.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-06-21 03:36:18

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6373|what

This great thread brought to you by Feos.

Stay classy, Feos.

2011-06-21 03:38:34

#3

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6326|eXtreme to the maX

Estonia is paradise you dig bunker for armageddon

Fuck Israel

2011-06-21 03:43:39

#4

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7030|Nårvei

And how is that economically sustainable over a longer periode of time, if I dare ask such a bold question?

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2011-06-21 03:44:36

#5

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6326|eXtreme to the maX

Varegg wrote:
And how is that economically sustainable over a longer periode of time, if I dare ask such a bold question?

Hockey-stick graphs always climb to infinity dude.

Fuck Israel

2011-06-21 03:48:00

#6

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6373|what

Varegg wrote:
And how is that economically sustainable over a longer periode of time, if I dare ask such a bold question?

What could possibly go wrong with this?

Additionally, the government places no restrictions on foreign ownership of real estate, which has fueled a property investment boom among overseas buyers.

2011-06-21 03:52:13

#7

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6631|'Murka

Varegg wrote:
And how is that economically sustainable over a longer periode of time, if I dare ask such a bold question?

Exactly why I started the thread.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-06-21 03:53:34

#8

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6952|Cambridge, England

Nobel prize winning economist knows less than internet trolls about economics.

2011-06-21 03:54:06

#9

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6995|Moscow, Russia

kewl thread.

p.s. estonian girls are fekken awesome! finnish too.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-06-21 03:54:48

#10

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7030|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:
Varegg wrote:
And how is that economically sustainable over a longer periode of time, if I dare ask such a bold question?
Exactly why I started the thread.

Hm ... I must have misread the phrase true paradise equals no financial restrictions ... my bad

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2011-06-21 04:00:02

#11

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6631|'Murka

Varegg wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Varegg wrote:
And how is that economically sustainable over a longer periode of time, if I dare ask such a bold question?
Exactly why I started the thread.
Hm ... I must have misread the phrase true paradise equals no financial restrictions ... my bad

Some may view it as a true paradise due to its completely free market approach. Some may view it as completely wrong and unsustainable. The data seem to be on the fence at this point, due to the blip in 08-09. GDP is recovering pretty rapidly, but unemployment is still high.

Interesting experiment to watch, though.

And of course, the thread title is a play on our EE chats friend's constant pseudo-meme.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-06-21 04:03:49

#12

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7030|Nårvei

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Nobel prize winning economist knows less than internet trolls about economics.

Nobel prize winning economists in this scenario have no data saying it will work in the long run because it has never been done before ... unless you count the rise of Nazi Germany in the 30's a success because that is the closest you got as an similar example of a 100% restriction-less economy ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2011-06-21 04:04:59

#13

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7030|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:
Interesting experiment to watch, though.

Without a doubt ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2011-06-21 04:15:04

#14

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6952|Cambridge, England

Varegg wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Nobel prize winning economist knows less than internet trolls about economics.
Nobel prize winning economists in this scenario have no data saying it will work in the long run because it has never been done before ... unless you count the rise of Nazi Germany in the 30's a success because that is the closest you got as an similar example of a 100% restriction-less economy ...

Im guessing you would count the rise of Nazi Germany as an economic failure then?

2011-06-21 04:19:18

#15

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7030|Nårvei

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Nobel prize winning economist knows less than internet trolls about economics.
Nobel prize winning economists in this scenario have no data saying it will work in the long run because it has never been done before ... unless you count the rise of Nazi Germany in the 30's a success because that is the closest you got as an similar example of a 100% restriction-less economy ...
Im guessing you would count the rise of Nazi Germany as an economic failure then?

Quite

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2011-06-21 04:28:24

#16

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6631|'Murka

Varegg wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Varegg wrote:

Nobel prize winning economists in this scenario have no data saying it will work in the long run because it has never been done before ... unless you count the rise of Nazi Germany in the 30's a success because that is the closest you got as an similar example of a 100% restriction-less economy ...
Im guessing you would count the rise of Nazi Germany as an economic failure then?
Quite

How about right up until Sep 1939?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-06-21 04:31:47

#17

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6373|what

FEOS wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Im guessing you would count the rise of Nazi Germany as an economic failure then?
Quite
How about right up until Sep 1939?

I mean, it's not like businesses were taken over by the Government and the Jews enslaved before then, right?

2011-06-21 04:34:43

#18

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6631|'Murka

AussieReaper wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Varegg wrote:

Quite
How about right up until Sep 1939?
I mean, it's not like businesses were taken over by the Government and the Jews enslaved before then, right?

But how was the economy doing?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-06-21 04:39:40

#19

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7030|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Im guessing you would count the rise of Nazi Germany as an economic failure then?
Quite
How about right up until Sep 1939?

Yeah ... you could actually stretch that some time into 1942, amazingly how slave labour can give you a boost ...

But as mentioned earlier you can't isolate the start of a boom without taking the end result into consideration ... and the end result of Nazi Germany is evaluated long ago ... the Estonian end result will be evaluated some time in the future ... and that without the use of slave labour I might add

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2011-06-21 05:29:04

#20

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5578|London, England

Varegg wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Nobel prize winning economist knows less than internet trolls about economics.
Nobel prize winning economists in this scenario have no data saying it will work in the long run because it has never been done before ... unless you count the rise of Nazi Germany in the 30's a success because that is the closest you got as an similar example of a 100% restriction-less economy ...

Why on earth would you pull that as an example? Is that what your teachers in school used as a bogeyman when explaining the evils of capitalism? Lol fucking lol. Hitler wasn't hands off when it came to the economy. Yeah, he allowed private ownership of factories to continue, but he was dictating products and business practices to them from on high. I'm starting to think that you're as brainwashed as Warman.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-06-21 05:36:33

#21

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5578|London, England

Now, a real example would be a corporation itself as a microcosm of the economy as a whole. I think we can all agree that large corporations that rise and fall and dip and veer all over the place wouldn't be a very good place to invest money, yes? People tend to want stability so they can invest with confidence. The same goes for unfettered markets. For some reason you, and people like you, expect unfettered markets to be some wild west gold rush kind of boom with constant highs and lows. Well, has that changed with regulation or do we just get bigger booms and bigger depressions?

Free markets are inherently stable because the people that populate them tend to prefer order to chaos. They're self policing without a bunch of bureaucrats stepping in to 'save people from themselves'.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-06-21 05:42:48

#22

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6219|...

Well due to globalisation corporations have grown to enormous sizes. One falling over could cause a major collapse in their respective markets and leave many, many people without a job or money. That's why the governments felt there was a need to step in.

If they didn't step in, say, the banking crisis - the situation as it is now would've been much worse. Regulation isn't always bad, it's shown itself that these companies are extremely important for nations and thousands if not millions of individuals. Letting them fall over is a problem, so you need to keep an eye on them to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Bailing out corporations was unprecedented until now. I doubt people were counting on a government bailout when their respective corporations started to collapse.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-21 05:46:59)

inane little opines

2011-06-21 05:51:43

#23

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5578|London, England

Shocking wrote:
Well due to globalisation corporations have grown to enormous sizes. One falling over could cause a major collapse in their respective markets and leave many, many people without a job or money. That's why the governments felt there was a need to step in.

If they didn't step in, say, the banking crisis - the situation as it is now would've been much worse. Regulation isn't always bad, it's shown itself that these companies are extremely important for nations and thousands if not millions of individuals. Letting them fall over is a problem, so you need to keep an eye on them to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Bailing out corporations was unprecedented until now. I doubt people were counting on a government bailout when their respective corporations started to collapse.

Yes they were. They thought much the same way you do, that they are too big to fail and would undoubtedly be bailed out by the government. This led to riskier behavior because the repercussions were diminished.

The governments place in business is as prosecutor against theft and fraud (and things like trademark infringement, honoring contracts and property rights fall within this scope). It should not be in the business of bailing out failures or dictating the products they sell.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-06-21 05:56:08

#24

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6219|...

Alright. In the banking crisis there were multiple banks across multiple countries that had to be bailed out, you'd say that letting them fail was worth it if that meant having the other corporations realise that they need to be more careful with their investments.

I'm sure it would have sparked a lot of public outrage though, these companies are so enormous that major projects all throughout the world would come to a standstill. Nevermind people losing all their savings, etc. In today's culture people won't accept something like that, especially not the savings part. What would the effects have been if they did fail?

inane little opines

2011-06-21 05:59:39

#25

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6326|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Now, a real example would be a corporation itself as a microcosm of the economy as a whole. I think we can all agree that large corporations that rise and fall and dip and veer all over the place wouldn't be a very good place to invest money, yes? People tend to want stability so they can invest with confidence. The same goes for unfettered markets. For some reason you, and people like you, expect unfettered markets to be some wild west gold rush kind of boom with constant highs and lows. Well, has that changed with regulation or do we just get bigger booms and bigger depressions?

Free markets are inherently stable because the people that populate them tend to prefer order to chaos. They're self policing without a bunch of bureaucrats stepping in to 'save people from themselves'.

You didn't read 'Liars Poker' or 'The Big Short' then?

The people who populate the 'free market' are fuckwads like everyone else.
The don't want 'order over chaos', they want a fat windfall for themselves and to get out before they're found out.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-21 06:00:24)

Fuck Israel

BF2S Forums Estonia True Paradise?

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Board footer