[RandomLensman]

German ordoliberalism and the social market economy are certainly not full free market, i.e., Germany never went full free market after WW2 and there also would have been no political support for such a move (from the left or right). The boom then ended in the 2nd half of the 1960s.

[WalterBright]

A country does not have to be "full" free market to enjoy the benefits of the free market. The more free market it is, the better the results. It's one of the beauties of the free market.

[RandomLensman]

German industry was very interconnected with limited domestic competition in those days - a free market it was not by a long shot.

Edit: It's fine to make broad claims about free market and growth, but please provide some citations to back up sweeping statements (and also to allow to go deeper into definitions).

[WalterBright]

Do I really need citations for free market growth? Every country that tries it gets good results - the more free market, the better.

Communist economies always wind up facing famine.

Communist China, for example, switched from a communist economy to a free market one. Look at the results. Korea split in two, one communist, one free market. Which one prospered? East vs West Germany, same story.

The US tried central economic planning for gasoline in the 1970's (repealed by Reagan as his first EO). Disaster. The US tried central economic planning for airline routes, fares, and schedules up until Reagan ended that. The result was a huge increase in efficiency and low fares.

[RandomLensman]

Of course you do! Statements like "The more free market it is, the better the results" are not just about things at the ends of the spectrum, so that needs proper backing not handwaving about communist vs. capitalist economies. For example, is Norway more free market than Iceland? What are the criteria?