BTW: US policy did screw up in one country in Asia. Most of the Authoritarian regimes we supported did bring growth and prosperity to their countrys - South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Vietnam etc. Most of the regimes we worked against turned out to be the worst - North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Laos, Burma. We even tried to get India to support and embrace the free market and they refused and ended up being totally screwed. However, we did support one anti-communist dictator who totally screwed his own country - Marcos in the Phillipines. Before Marcos, the Phillipines were pretty prosperous, and his regime turned it into a basket case. He created a kleptocracy (not a free market system) but we continued to back him because he was anti-communist. Supporting Marcos after he had Aquino assisinated was a huge mistake.

Apparently, I just give you my poker chips

Central America
 

What if the statement is "democracy is a necessary (but not sufficient) basis for a free, and robust economy"?

I heard you saying that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be sent to Jordan. I don't know why they'd want to go to Jordan, if that's not where they're from. They've been living in Lebanon for a long time, and it's too bad that the Christian government has kept them in camps instead of permitting them to assimilate, like Christian immigrants have.

You didn't say anything about the Lebanese franchise. I did. I keep pointing out that all you conservative small-d democrats don't seem to have a problem with the fact that Lebanon's political structure gives the Christians and Druze factions disproportionately more clout, and the Shiites disproportionately less clout. The "pro-democracy" protestors are the beneficiaries of this imbalance. So you can understand why Hezbollah might like having Syria present as a counterweight.

Central America
 

How about, "the sort of conditions in which democracies are likely to thrive are also conducive to economic progress"?

Central America
 

That does not work because the Singaporean miracle occurred mainly while it was a dictatorship (under Lee Kuan Yew). Many countries achieved unprecedented growth under dictators. However, the dictators implemented free market reforms to get such growth and such growth turned out to be their own demise (the demise of the regime).

Central America
 

Yet your example disproves your hypothesis, because I see no real difference between the democracy of Singapore 30 years ago and today. Like North Korea, the the son of the leader then is now the leader.

There is one system that works even better than the free market system when it comes to economic growth. That is what I call the fear of death system. The highest growth rates ever experienced were in Nazi Germany and in Stalinist Russia. These were both socialist systems but in these systems the producers were under the threat of death. Under Stalin, if you were ordered to build, fifty hi quality T-54 tanks, you either built them (and built them well) or died. Same thing in Nazi Germany. Companys were given production quotas and if they did not reach them the managers were thrown in concentration camps. The capitalist system is incentivized through greed which works pretty well, but greed doesn't seem to hold a candle against the fear of death.

Central America
 

His father was a dictator he is not. He was democratically elected. During his father's period the press was completely censored, all opposition partys were outlawed, and people who voiced dissent were jailed. The system is much more democratic now.

North Korea, as time has gone on, has become more and more repressive.

Central America
 

Sort of the opposite of what happened here.

Central America
 

Watch it, buddy.

Central America
 

I think you overestimate the degree of actual change, and underestimate the continued involvement of Lee Kuan Yew.

We've already had a discussion of what it means to be "democratically" elected, and clearly disagree as to what elements are required (such as free ballot access, freedom from repercussions, and freedom of the press), to ensure a genuinely free election.

Central America
 

That works. But I like better:

In order for a democracy to be stable it needs to increase the standard of living of its citizens, and in order to do that it needs to have an open and free economy.

Democracys that try and control the economy and restrict its freedom, stagnate and become unstable.

Authoritarian dictatorships that institute free market reforms, increase the wealth of the citizenery and the wealthier the citizenry becomes the harder they are to control (the more they will want a say in how the government is run).

Authoritarian dictatorships that institute socialism, thereby keeping the citizenry poor, have a much easier time keeping their regime in charge. It usually takes external pressure for them to be overthrown.

Central America
 

Um, I meant the US, although we should have a "freedom of speech" discussion. Do you IM?

Central America
 

I think what you are missing, is that in many one party authoritarian states, where the party in control delivers prosperity, the people will keep that party in power even when the country becomes democratic. That happened in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore (among others). When an opposition party wins in such circumstances, it is usually because they have agreed to not mess with the policies that created the prosperity (Chile for example).