Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You got me there -- how did you know I was really trying to defend Stalinist economies?

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?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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?

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, but you are confusing causation with correlation. The few counterexamples tend to show as much.

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

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

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.

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

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop China has rip-roaring growth and is no democracy. As of now, it disproves your argument.

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop OK. That doesn't mean that free-market economies will necessarily be stable, politically.

Once they produce a strong middle class they will be.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No one thinks Cuba or Burma is an example of how to manage an economy.

Except for farm subsidy proponents in Europe and America

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
An economics professor (whose name escapes me right now) demonstrated that generally countrys whose PCI rises above $4,000 a year become stable democracies.

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.

[Spanky]

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!

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The unnamed economics professor apparently never heard of the Middle East.

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.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch 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, .

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

Originally posted by Sidd Finch and not being tortured. Part of democracy is allowing people to make those choices. .

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.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch 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..

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.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch 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..

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.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch PS: I've tried to change the subject but here we are again. Sigh.

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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ezra Klein says Amnesty was smart to use the word "gulag."

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is the reason that left-wing governments get elected in places like Brazil (to take a recent example).

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.