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

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Perhaps if I keep saying it, you will understand that "torture is bad" is not a pro-socialist, anti-free-market position.

I would think that torture -- changing people's behavior through sheer force and the threat of force -- would be a significant market distortion.

[Spanky]

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)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I would think that torture -- changing people's behavior through sheer force and the threat of force -- would be a significant market distortion.

I would have to go along with that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
\
Poor + Free market dictator = always get rich and turn into democracy - Korea, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand etc.

Always get rich? Always turn into a Democracy?

First, I'm not sure you've got "free market" dictators, in these countries. Yeh, Singapore's pretty close, but Indonesia? Ever heard of Pertamina? Korea has had a significant nationalized industrial sector as well. We'll leave aside Fringey's point that torture defines your country, and market, as unfree, something your Chicago boys never got.

And, in terms of wealth, the number of Chilean's below the povery line doubled, from 20% to 40%, as a percentage of the population during the 70s and 80s. Chile also features an enormous bail out of private industry, with the government assuming $16 billion in debt (leaving it with one of the worst debt burdens of any country in the world) and subsidizing private industry by selling it nationalized businesses at fire-sale prices. And don't forget about the repression of labor unions -- but, wait, you're going to argue that the freedom to organize is not part of a market economy, right? So is all this what you mean by free market? Yeh, free-market Chrysler style. So are you sure you want Chile to be the post-child for free markets?

And, what about other so-called "free-market" dictatorships that have not become democratic? Iran would be one. The fact is that there is a general trend in the world toward Democracy throughout the last couple of centuries, and it's not stopping, but I see almost all of the resulting economies also trending toward the practical, with some mix of free markets, regulated markets, and nationalized markets. There just ain't no pure model out there anywhere.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Rich + Democracy = stable democracy

Lebanon is a good example here, right?

And we're not going to deal with examples more than fifty years old, because the Great Depression really screws things up.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Oh, Those Republican Governors with Presidential Aspirations!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Always get rich? Always turn into a Democracy?

First, I'm not sure you've got "free market" dictators, in these countries. Yeh, Singapore's pretty close, but Indonesia? Ever heard of Pertamina? Korea has had a significant nationalized industrial sector as well. We'll leave aside Fringey's point that torture defines your country, and market, as unfree, something your Chicago boys never got.

And, in terms of wealth, the number of Chilean's below the povery line doubled, from 20% to 40%, as a percentage of the population during the 70s and 80s. Chile also features an enormous bail out of private industry, with the government assuming $16 billion in debt (leaving it with one of the worst debt burdens of any country in the world) and subsidizing private industry by selling it nationalized businesses at fire-sale prices. And don't forget about the repression of labor unions -- but, wait, you're going to argue that the freedom to organize is not part of a market economy, right? So is all this what you mean by free market? Yeh, free-market Chrysler style. So are you sure you want Chile to be the post-child for free markets?

And, what about other so-called "free-market" dictatorships that have not become democratic? Iran would be one. The fact is that there is a general trend in the world toward Democracy throughout the last couple of centuries, and it's not stopping, but I see almost all of the resulting economies also trending toward the practical, with some mix of free markets, regulated markets, and nationalized markets. There just ain't no pure model out there anywhere.

Give it up. Spanky is not interested in hearing counter-examples. He's busy reading Ayn Rand and convincing himself that the overthrow of a racist dictatorship in South Africa was actually the natural result of free-market policies.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Give it up. Spanky is not interested in hearing counter-examples. He's busy reading Ayn Rand and convincing himself that the overthrow of a racist dictatorship in South Africa was actually the natural result of free-market policies.

Damn. And I barely got any licks in.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Give it up. Spanky is not interested in hearing counter-examples. He's busy reading Ayn Rand and convincing himself that the overthrow of a racist dictatorship in South Africa was actually the natural result of free-market policies.

I agree with not engaging (which is not to say I won't) but hey, whatever gets him off and isn't hurting anyone . . . . the more sex the better, even if it's imaginarily with Ayn.

[Sidd Finch]

Cox heading the SEC -- good or bad?

Spanky, lemme guess your feelings (why do we need an SEC at all? The free market will ensure full disclosure and prevent securities fraud!) ;-)

My own feelings -- the SEC is in near-stalemate lately, which is not a good thing. Cox is too radical a choice, however. The PSLRA, while in many ways necessary and a good thing, really pushed a trend away from accountability (and liability) that contributed to the rash of scandals that we saw in the ensuing years. Cox will vastly accelerate that trend -- it's like a car that's taken a turn to the correct course, but overshot it a little.... and he's going to lock the steering wheel and slam on the gas.

OTOH, I haven't practiced in the securities area for awhile (too goddamn boring, sitting in roomsful of lawyers who couldn't distinguish between a relevant fact and an important fact to save their lives). I'd be interested to hear from the people more currently involved in the area.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Oh, Those Republican Governors with Presidential Aspirations!

Always loved the Globe's general editorial approach to headlines. If it were Kerry, the headline would read "Kerry Maintains Nuanced Views on Abortion."

[Sidd Finch]

Judge orders release of photos and videos to the ACLU. Personally, I'm going to cancel my travel plans to the Middle East.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Give it up. Spanky is not interested in hearing counter-examples. He's busy reading Ayn Rand and convincing himself that the overthrow of a racist dictatorship in South Africa was actually the natural result of free-market policies.

When he's done with that, he can explain Saudi Arabia.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Always loved the Globe's general editorial approach to headlines. If it were Kerry, the headline would read "Kerry Maintains Nuanced Views on Abortion."

I liked the National Review's "Matinee Mitt" myself.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When he's done with that, he can explain Saudi Arabia.

See China. "They'll be a democracy one of these days. And it will be the result of their free market policies."

That's the nice thing about a tautology. It's so, well, taut.