Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I was just trying to point out that there was a rational reason for the US to support authoritarian regimes that promoted economic growth. The liberals always argued that we supported them purely for imperialists reasons. Where instead those regimes ended creating systems were the people became prosperous and lived under democratic systems. What the liberals failed to grasp at there is a strong link between free markets and free governments. Many liberals argued that these countries would have been better of under socialist governments than under the capitalist authoritarian regimes. History has shown us that that position was very misquided.
|
Actually, what liberals objected to was the fact that we supported regimes that oppressed, tortured, and exploited their lower classes, while making the governing elite incredibly rich, often through business connections to US and other developed nations. Witness Citibank and United Fruit in Latin America; BP, Shell and the US majors in Iran; Anglo-American Mining in South Africa, etc.
A market is not really free if only a small portion of the population is allowed to participate as anything other than subsistence level labor. You really should do some catch-up reading. I suggest David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill for the basics, and perhaps a good dose of both Milton Friedman and Heilbronner for both sides of the early modern market theories.
You're largely spouting the neocon pundits' line without showing any appreciation of or understanding of the principles they profess to espouse. A more nuanced view would show that they are spinning like crazy to make the world's current situation fit their politics, rather than arguing real economics.
