Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not sure about that. From your posts today, it seems that you really believe that what India needs to do first is bring a good solid dictatorship on line, and then let the dictatorship impose free market policies (after killing a few thousand people -- or a few million, depending on whether you want to follow the Chilean or Chinese model).
On any other day I would certainly agree with you, and I would argue that if India does this the simple fact that it is a democracy will make those policies more successful, and hopefully avoid some of the structural problems that China will likely face as its economy overheats.
And yet, most of those countries managed to do so without the dictatorship and torture thing. I am not disagreeing with your economic view. I'm disagreeing with your view that this trumps everything else. I.e., that a little torture, murder, and dictatorship is just the kinda stuff ya' have to go thru.
Perhaps if I keep saying it, you will understand that "torture is bad" is not a pro-socialist, anti-free-market position.
|
I am not saying it is. But sometimes the US by supporting right wing dictators over socialist benfited the "victim country" in the long run. Besides Hong Kong and Japan they all used the Dictatorship thing. And Hong Kong wasn't really a democracy and Japan was really a one party state for many of its early years. Korea, Thaliand, Indonesia and Malaysia also did the torture and kill thing.
Poor + Democracy = sometimes stay poor (example India)
Poor + Free market dictator = always get rich and turn into democracy - Korea, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand etc.
Rich + Democracy = stable democracy
poor + socialist = permanent poverty (Burma, Cuba)
rich + socialism = poverty and sometimes loss of democracy (Argentine and Brazil in the 1930s - Eastern block after WWII)
