Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

We supported right wing dictators in Taiwan, Chile, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia etc. The bottom fifth of the populaiton is better off in these countrys than almost the entire populations of surrounding countrys. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma are by far the poorest countrys in East Asia. South Vietnam since the end of the Vietnam war has almost not grown at all (its per capital income is $390 a year). The same is true of North Korea. Where South Korea, Japan and Germnay all had significant growth rates after they were wiped out by war. If Vietnam had a right wing dictator like South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, after the war, isn't it pretty safe to say that the Vietnamese people would be a lot better off ?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

OK, but you are confusing causation with correlation. The few counterexamples tend to show as much.

There are plenty of counterexamples here. Russia, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, Fiji, Peru, e.g.

If you really think Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are functioning as democracies, then we may be having a problem agreeing upon basic terms.

China has rip-roaring growth and is no democracy. As of now, it disproves your argument.

OK. That doesn't mean that free-market economies will necessarily be stable, politically.

No one thinks Cuba or Burma is an example of how to manage an economy.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Yes. Not even Spanky is disputing Allende's legitimacy. He just seems to think it's OK to overthrow a legitimately elected government to install a junta if that junta is going to manage the economy better.

As I noted yesterday, Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, observed that Chile was a dagger pointed at the heart of Antartica.

Besides, had we supported Allende, then he would have been our guy, right?

I'm not impressed by the way you guys are conflated Allende's socialism with global communism. I understand that anything to the left of Ohio starts to look the same, but Allende was no Castro.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

You got me there -- how did you know I was really trying to defend Stalinist economies?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

So if I say to you that it is generally not in one's personal health interest to shoot bullet into your brain, and someone gives me an example of person that shot a 22 bullet into their brain, survived, and because of the bullet they found a tumour that they would not have discovered otherwise, that would have killed that person in a couple of weeks, and they were saved because of it. Does that example disprove my assertion, does it make my assertion less persuasive? Or should we take all the examples of people who were shot in the head and see what percentage of the people were better off because of the bullet, and then judge my assertion on those statistics?

What do you think?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

How about India? They have been democratic since Independance in 1948. There per capita income today is $450 a year. Pretty much the same as independance, thanks to their highly controlled economy. Do you think the people of Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Chile, Malaysia, or Taiwan (most of these countrys had a lower GNP than India in 1948) would have been better off had they been under a socialist democracy like India, or did they actually benefit by having, often brutal, CIA supported right wing dictators?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I think there's no way to answer that question, because governments do a range of things -- build sewers, start wars, etc. -- that people care about beyond per capita income. This is the reason that left-wing governments get elected in places like Brazil (to take a recent example). A real respect for democracy demands that when the people vote to place some other objective above their future GNP, you let them do that, instead of subverting their government and replacing it with a brutal junta.

If you're not quite getting the principle I have in mind, club can refer to the right passages in the most recent State of the Union speech.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I don't understand. Are you saying that Democracy brings wealth? What counter examples?


Growing economies tend to produce a middle class, and a strong middle class tends to demand democracy. Of course countrys whose growth depends on natural resources don't tend to have the same sort of middle class. Like I said before, the key to a democracy is sustained growth over an extended period of time.

They are definitely more democratic than they used to be, which is because of their growth. But they are not completely democratic.

Their middle class is not that strong yet. But it is getting bigger every day.



Once they produce a strong middle class they will be.


Except for farm subsidy proponents in Europe and America

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

What I am trying to say is that Prosperity is the key to a sustained democracy. An economics professor (whose name escapes me right now) demonstrated that generally countrys whose PCI rises above $4,000 a year become stable democracies. By this point they throw off their dictatorship, and they tend to stay democratic once they do. Countrys that are below that number are not that stable. In addition, Demoracy ain't all that great when your people are starving and uneducated. So the key is get your country to a $4,000 per year PCI. I believe US policy should be to get as many countrys past that threshold as possible. To get a country to the $4000 PCI there are certain policies they should follow. Stable currency, investment in infrastructure, investment in Education (critical), no subsidizing inneficiency, enforcement of contracts, atmosphere respecting foreign investment, no currency controls, respect for property rights, etc. I would assert that anyone that encourages countrys not to adopt these policies is promoting poverty and dictatorships.

if Sidd would just start saying Mr Chinaski the world would be a better place
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158531,00.html

• Bush Praised for Addressing Kim Jong Il as 'Mr.'
  SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea gave rare praise to President Bush on Friday, welcoming his use of the honorific "Mr." when referring to leader Kim Jong I and saying the softened tone could lead to its return to nuclear arms talks.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/165662...kim_jongil.jpg

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

The unnamed economics professor apparently never heard of the Middle East.

But the real point, which you ignore, is Ty's. There are other things that are important to people besides increasing average incomes, including schools, health care, food, and not being tortured. Part of democracy is allowing people to make those choices. Part of your professed neo-conservatism was also, supposedly, allowing people to make those choices. Now, we've learned that, in reality, your view is that the "free market" is far more important than democracy -- I put free market in quotes because the notion of a free market within a dictatorship is patently absurd. But, your view, it seems, is that if you install the dictatorship and everyone waits patiently, those who manage not to be tortured or disappeared will bask in the wealth they gain.

Hallelujah. Pass the Ayn Rand.

PS: I've tried to change the subject but here we are again. Sigh.

One of my best friends, who I met while living in Japan runs a newsletter and website that's sole purpose is to lobby against the war. He is a DJ in Tokyo but I think he has been taken off the air because of his political views. Politically, he is to the left of Ho Chi Minh.

Anyway this was the title of his newsletter today. I found it rather depressing

The Real Deal
Dedicated to the truth in reporting
June 4, 2005 Vol. 3 - # 162 - Tokyo, Japan
USA: 1691 UK: 91 Other: 94
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan 183
For an official count of military deaths in Iraq click here
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
ONLY 3 US SOLDIERS DIED IN IRAQ YESTERDAY!
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=db86c08d7f06c424
Maybe they are beginning to love us!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I'm saying that perhaps the sorts of things that make a country wealthy are also likely to make it a democracy.

All of this is true except when it isn't. You sound like a Marxist.

To say the least. They are holding some fashion of election.

And yet it is no democracy. If you're telling me that democracy in China is inevitable, wonderful, but that's theory, not fact.

OK. I agree that those are worthy goals for a foreign policy. Figuring out how to get it done is quite another thing.

for RT
 

Ezra Klein says Amnesty was smart to use the word "gulag."

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

There are very few country in the Middle east whose PCI is over $4,000. And the ones that do got their because of natural resources and not becaues of their economic policies. I pointed this out before but it seems you have a selective memory.


These are hard to come by if the society doesn't have any money (aka tax base).


Like letting the Germans pick the Nazis. If a country chooses bad economic policies, not only do the screw over their own people but they tend to become the rest of the worlds problem. We should put pressure on them to adopt the right policies.

Why is that absurd? Under the Economist index Singapore has had the freest economy for years and you said yourself they are not really a democracy.

If you think Ayn Rand support right wing dictators you don't understand her very well. In addtion, she is an atheist that thinks Capitalism is a moral end in iteself. I believe Capitalism is the best economic system because it provides the most benefits to most people. And it leads to stable democracy which is the true goal. But again the key word is stable, un unstable democracy ain't all that great.

In order to change the subject you have to willing to not give the last word on the subject.

for RT
 

When I think of the word Gulag, I think of work camp. But I don't think these guys are working. The roads in New York City suck, why not get these bozos to earn their room and board (and the cost of the torture equipment) and get them filling in the potholes.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Lula is about free market as they come. He has made the total goal of his administration economic growth. He may have once been a socialist, and may give socialist principle lip service, but his policies are free market all the way. The IMF and the business community love him.

for RT
 

Klein's point is not that it was the most accurate word to use, but that by causing a kerfuffle over the word, Amnesty has managed to ensure that their report, and the issue, have been the topic of discussion for a few days. Otherwise, the report might just have been ignored.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

It occurs to me that you use the terms "free market", "democracy" and "socialism" in ways that may tend to hinder, not advance, this sort of discussion. But, OK. If Lula is about as free market as they come, how would you describe the people who ran to the right of him?

for RT
 

I don't like that they used an inaccurate* word and don't think the ends justify the means. I don't like it when when those on the other side from me do it, and I don't like it when my side does it. It's just ugly.

Is Gulag Archipelago a good book? I think I must have read it at some point.

*Yeah, the THIRD definition cited by the guy in the comment is not entirely off point, but really gulag involves intense physical labor. I'd think they could have come up with something more on-point that would have highlighted the Soviet-esque condemnation and imprisonment without any real evidence, rather than using some work-camp word.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

They gave a lot of lip to Free Markets but they were not really free marketers. Brazil has a huge government subsidizing program, and the special interest that feed of the subsidizing program have a large influence on the current "conservatives" in Brazil. In other words, the prior government was hindering economic reform. That is why a large swath of the business community supported Lula. Lula is not only not attached to these special interests, but in addition, he truly believe in free markets. The labour unions in his own party have been the biggest hindrance to him passing his legislation. He has many parallels to Tony Blair.

I disagree with 95% of what Ralph Nader says, but one place I do agree with him is that all the corporate welfare in this country is not freemarket and is bad for the economy. The farm subsidies that many Republicans support and the corporate welfare schemes (in the form of subsidies and tax breaks) would warm Karl Marx's heart.

for RT
 

I associate the word more with the sense from the title of Solzhenitsyn's book, referring to a chain of islands. It was the isolation that made the gulags profoundly different from other forced-labor camps, no? And I thought that was what Amnesty was getting at. Places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Diego Garcia are completely isolated (setting apart the occasional mortar attack at Abu Ghraib) and are beyond any normal judicial system.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I find that I agree with most of what you say here -- setting apart the torture stuff, I guess -- and it leaves me wondering how you can be such a committed Republican. I mean, wake up. This GOP is not about free markets -- it's about corporate welfare. You free market/libertarian types are being used. They pay lip service to the market ideals that you like, but if you want a financial responsible government, you'll have to elect Democrats. You'd have better luck joining the Democratic Party and working as a moderate there than you'll have in bringing around the people running your party.

for RT
 

I don't think that the gulag system was necessarily limited to geographically isolated places. The particular gulags in the book may have been, but that's not something I really associate with them. Hmmmm. I will have to look into that. The definitions cited in a comment in the blog you linked to didn't seem to mention isolation, iirc. More working and suffering.

Is Abu Ghraib really in the middle of nowhere? Assuming it is, why does that make a difference -- do you think what happened would not have happened if it'd been in a suburb of Baghdad?

ETA Really, I think the slave labor inherent in the gulag system did a lot to industrialize Russia/the Soviet Union, which was really quite backward (compared with (the rest of) Europe and the US) at WWI/the Revolution. While ultimately, communism (or whatever you call the system they had) may have slowed economic development, it's hard to argue that the more tightly controlled organization did push things forward more quickly than they had been going.

EATA, I googled (actually, yahooed) and there were more than 400 prisons. A lot of the mass labor projects were in more isolated areas -- mining, connecting distant habitable areas by building roads/railroads/canals. Not sure if it wasn't just hard to get non-imprisoned people to work those jobs . . . prison labor was cheaper. Or they felt it was.

for RT
 

Here I go butchering the spellings, but with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, I would just read A Day in the Life of Ivan Donitzavitch. That is really short but enough to depress you for a whole month. Reading the Gulag Archipelago is enough to take out three months.

for RT
 

I've read both in the past. And Cancer Ward -- not sure if that was him or someone else. Also depressing.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

sounds good. Do you have Howard Dean's phone number?

Junk Food Junkie?
 

I just got this email from a moderate Republican woman I raised money for. She got elected to the California Assembly. She is promoting the following bill in the California Assembly. I just now found out about it, and I have no idea who else supports it. Anybody want to guess what percentage of Republicans and Democrats support it? I could see people from both parties going either direction on this one. Any predictions? (I can see the logic in it, but do we really want to force health food on our children when I don't eat it myself).

Supporters of AB 569 (Garcia):

We need your help!!!

AB 569 has recently come under fire from opposition intent on keeping California Public School students SICK and FAT!

California has the second highest rate of overweight and low income children. Since the 1970's childhood obesity has doubled for pre-schoolers, aged 2-5 and adolescents aged 12-19. The rate has tripled for children aged 6-11!

Childhood obesity is resulting in heart disease, diabetes, hyper-tension and reduced life-spans.

This is not surprising considering Public Schools push Junk Foods - bags of chips, cookies and candy - instead of nutritious meals. In fact, some school districts rely on these sales for more than 50% of their budgets!

AB 569 is a common sense solution to the obesity crisis by requiring schools to be Pro-active participants. It would eliminate the sale of junk foods during regular breakfast and lunch periods and allow only for the sale of nutritionally balanced meals.

The opposition claims they need the money JUNK FOOD SALES generate to keep people employed. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE! Many school districts throughout the state have already moved towards healthier foods on their menus resulting in increased participation in the free and reduced lunch programs and increased revenue.

Proper nutrition should be our goal - and we should stop balancing budgets on the bellies of our children.

Please forward this email to your members and call, email or call members of the Assembly that will be voting on this issue tomorrow. A link is attached for your convenience.


www.asm.ca.gov



Our children are counting on you!

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I understand what you are saying, but I dont' think you see the whole picture.

At least the Republicans try and claim to be pro-business and pro-free market even though they don't live up to it. The Democrats often don't even hide the fact that they are anti-business and anti-free market.

The biggest threats to the free market (and prosperity) in this country (in my opinion) are the trial lawyers and the unions. These are two of the Democrats strongest constituents. I think I will stick with the GOP.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Montpelier has a population of about 8,000 -- how many Deans can there be there?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

In his interview with NPR this morning, they mentioned that he's been so busy since he was elected Chair of the DNC that he hasn't had time to move to DC yet.

R(helpful)T

Junk Food Junkie?
 

I don't want to make a prediction, but I think this is a great idea. I'm a parent and I "force health food" on my kids, in the sense that I try to serve them food that's good for them instead of the sort of crap fringey likes to eat. (Hello, Friday!) Kids need responsible adults to give them structure and guidance as a general matter, and to keep them from drinking Coke and eating Ho-Ho's and Twinkies all the time specifically. When I went to public school, the food was for shit.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

They are pro-business, but they are often not pro-free market, particularly when it means being anti-free market. Look at the appointment of Cox to the SEC. Do you really think the "free market" will function better under Cox than Donaldson? Surely not, but regulated businesses had Bush's ear and wanted a friendlier regime. You see this pattern again and again with Bush Republicans.

And your view of Democrats is a caricature.

You cannot be serious. What threat are trial lawyers to the free market? And unions? Off the top of my head, more serious threats to the free market include:

Deficit spending's effects on interest rates
A permissive SEC allowing future Enrons
The effects of rising oil prices
Health care costs
Pension regulation (or the lack thereof)

Junk Food Junkie?
 

The more I think about it, the more I can't believe that a Democrat or Republican would be willing to vote against this bill. It would seem to me that that would be political suicide. Your opinion just seems to reinforce that. She wants me to call and lobby Assmeblymembers for it, but it seesm like a waste of time (or maybe I am just rationalizing my laziness).

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Trade unions have been a significant force for democracy around the world, BTW. It has to do with what you were saying about the importance of the middle class.

Junk Food Junkie?
 

Your campaigns contributions from Coke, Kraft, Little Debbie, etc. go flying out the window if you vote for it. Similar legislation came up in Texas. Didn't make it out of committee. Bad for business, you know.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I think both the deregulation of the phone industry and the airline industry was a good thing. I actually know cox pretty well and trust his judegment.

Yes but an accurate one.



Small business are the back bone of the economy. That is where the new jobs come from and also the future Microsofts. They are also the most attached to free trade. Almost every Chamber of commerce in the Bay Area is a Republican strong hold. Most small business owners I have met, their biggest complaint is liability. Fear of Lawsuits. Any reform in this area is always obstructed by the trial lawyers. The California Chamber of Commerce and the National Chamber of commerce almost always back the Republicans. And that is because Republicans are most pro-business.

As far as unions are concerned almost everything they support I am against. When Davis was Governor they passed laws that did not allow Silicon Valley companys to have a four day work week (with ten hour days). They pushed through a bill that would not allow Costco to sell food (luckily even Davis couldn't stomach that one), and they are always trying to limit the state governments ability to do competitive bidding for contracts. In addition, on a national scale the biggest road blocks to free trade deals (NAFTA, WTO and not the Central American Free Trade act) are the Unions. Unions don't care about creating new jobs, they just care about holding on to the ones that exist - no matter what the cost.

Privatising Social Secuirty is the biggest free market issue of the day. And we know which side the Democrats are on in that.

Deficit spending's effects on interest rates
The effects of rising oil prices
Health care costs
Pension regulation (or the lack thereof)

On the above issues I don't see how the Dems are any better than the Republicans.

Junk Food Junkie?
 

Wow - that is surprizing. Are you saying I have to get off my lazy ass and make these calls. What if the local school kids find out what I am doing? Won't they come over here and egg my car because they can't buy hohos at school anymore? I know I would have been angry if my school had cut off my patoto chip supply.

This just in.............
 

Well I am off the hook. It passed. That prior email was from late last night. I guess Bonnie wanted me to talk to the Assembly members early this morning (clearly she is not familiar with my hours). See if I had not procrastinated I would have wasted my time calling Assembly members, when my lobbying was not needed for passing. And I wouldn't have been able to share all my wisdom with you guys (no snickering).

Children of California Get Much Needed Assistance

AB 569 Passes Assembly Floor

SACRAMENTO—AB 569, authored by Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, to address school nutrition received bipartisan support in the Assembly today. The bill would attack the epidemic of childhood obesity head on by requiring foods sold during breakfast and lunch periods to be sold as full meals. It would also restrict the sale of junk foods such as chips, candies and soft drinks and encourage the sale of fresh fruits and vegetables instead.


"The statistics are frightening and action is needed now to reduce the incidence of childhood obesity, diabetes and heart disease," stated Garcia. "The action taken by the California State Assembly sends a message that we will make children's health a priority over profits gained from fatty, greasy foods."


Health experts claim since the early 1970’s, childhood obesity rates has more than doubled for preschoolers aged 2-5 and tripled for teenagers aged 12 to 19 years. According to the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, 26.5% of children in grades 5, 7 and 9 in California are overweight. The consequences for these children are many, including low self-esteem, poor body image, discrimination and poor health.


The bill will now move to the Senate Education Committee for a hearing before moving to the Senate Floor for a vote.



# # #

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

And that has what to do with how the SEC balances the interests of businesses and investors?

I have much respect for Cox, but he has strong views about the securities regulation that make me, as an investor, concerned. Setting aside what you know about Cox personally, have you not seen any of the coverage about why Bush dumped Donaldson and picked Cox? I'm talking about the business press here.

Of some Democrats, maybe. But not all Republicans are Christian fundamentalists, either, as I'm sure you appreciate.

What you have here is a set of Chamber of Commerce talking points, but telling me that small business owners who are active in the GOP want tort reform is a long, long way from establishing that trial lawyers are a major threat to the free market. Try again.

OK, and likewise businesses support an awful lot of measures that are harmful to competition even as they serve the narrow self-interest of those businesses. Government should strike a balance between the interests of labor and capital. A government that errs too far to either side (e.g., California state government, and the current federal government) will give us less than optimum markets.

Privatizing Social Security has very little to do with whether market participants are able to transact freely with each other. It's about whether consumers are able to obtain a sort of social insurance that the market is unable to provide. People like Social Security. It's a funny sort of free-market doctrine that tries to tell people that they can't have a government program they overwhelmingly support.

You have the current crop of Republicans and their drunken-sailor spending policies to thank for the deficits.

I have a hard time faulting the GOP for rising oil prices, but would not that both prongs of the Admininstration's energy policy vis-a-vis oil -- invading Iraq and drilling in ANWR -- are terrible policy.

On health-care, please go back and compare the GOP drug benefit to the (cheaper, and more effective) alternative the Dems were pushing. The GOP plan was all about subsidizing big pharma -- exactly the sort of corporate giveaway that your party is now all about. Meanwhile, they have no plan to do anything about health care costs.

And the next time we meet, I'll see if you can tell me with a straight face that Republicans are just as interested as Democrats in forcing companies to properly fund pension plans.