A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
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 may be true, but you continue to assume that elections in Singapore are truly free, without marshalling any evidence that they have changed from the nearly rigged manner that they have been held since the country was founded.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Lets look at Asia following world war II. The strongest growth after world war two was Singapore and Hong Kong. Both the freest economies. Then followed by South Korea and Taiwan - the next freest economies. After that the other Asian Tigers, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. These countries were late in the game until the late sixties and early seventies when they opened up their economies and experience strong growth (after right wing coups I might ad). India had a higher standard of living than South Korea in 1948 but then adopted the Soviet model for its economy. By 1988 South Korea's per capita income was ten times that of India. India per capita income is below all those I mentioned above. In 1991 India started implementing free market reforms and their growth topped two percent for the first time since 1948. The reforms have come in spurts and slowly, but India has slowly been opening up over the past twelve year and now they have around 7% growth per year. They are still way behind the Asian Tigers mentioned bove, but are catching up. However, they had a higher per capita income after the war than all the Tigers. After the communists took over in China, the per capita income went down until 1985 when they started to open up their economy under Deng Xiao Ping. In 1985 their per capita income was around half of Indias. However, since they started opening up their economy earlier China now has a higher per capita income. At the bottom of the list is Vietnam. As I said before they, they were at the top of the bunch in 1975 but after the communist takeover they dropped to the bottom. Since 1995 the government has played with economic reforms but keeps reversing their initiatives leaving the country very poor. Burma has had a socialist dictatorship for many years. They are controlled by the military, but the military has followed the socialist model, putting them in the bottom three. Then of course there is north Korea. After the Korean war the whole peninsula had pretty much the same economy. Now the estimates are that the average South Korean is thirty times as wealthy as their North Korea counterpart. I left out Japan because they were a developed country prior to the war. However, I am sure if Japan has gone communist, they would now be at the bottom.

I'm sorry, how did you get to the point of thinking that someone here was pro-communism/anti-free market? I think to the extent that some here would have preferred that we had not illegally funneled money to certain Latin American groups, it was because those groups were, uh, distasteful on many many levels.

I think the "commie" groups/regimes in Latin America probably identified themselves as commies more to get financial/arms support from the USSR and Cuba than out of ideological conviction. Though, some redistribution of land etc. seems in order, kinda like they are now doing in SA and some other African countries. A lot of the groups picked superpower sides.

How does your using per capita income show that there wasn't a deep, wide rich/poor divide? It's average income, for chrissakes. If Bill Gates walked into an otherwise empty-of-customers McDonalds, the per capita income of that McDonalds would be in the millions . . . .

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If Bill Gates walked into an otherwise empty-of-customers McDonalds, the per capita income of that McDonalds would be in the millions . . . .

Even if the McDonalds were chock-a-block with fringey and buddies that would be true.

Mmmm, Big Mac.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Because India has had a full blown democracy since the end of WWII but had a socialist economy ever since then. It just started opening up in 1992 but still has a long way to go. For the authoritarian governments that instituted free market reforms, they have now all gone democratic and are prospersous. Democracys, that don't have free markets, and therefore, prosperity, also tend to fall back into dictatorships. Look at Venezuela.

OK, but what does that do to the theory that we forced the change to democracy in the USSR by pushing the USSR into poverty by forcing them to attempt to keep up with us in the arms/space races? There, it's the miserable living conditions that led the people to rise up against their dirty red commie leaders.

You have some correlation/causation issues, and some selective example issues. Which basically make you a blowhard.

Are we sure Spankers isn't a troll? Ty? Did you meet this guy?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
...hi quality T-54 tanks...

Aha.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

I knew it. You're a partner.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

I am really getting the feeling that you read somewhere (or decided somehow) that you really really like authoritarian regimes, and are coming up with support for them.

One could also say that authoritarian regimes are kinda more like Nazi Germany/Stalin's USSR -- threat of death/torture/imprisonment/harm to family if you don't do what they want you to do. It's not per se economic stuff they want you to do, but I think there's a lot more, uh, "cooperation" between the government and industry in many of the countries you mention than there is here.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Even if the McDonalds were chock-a-block with fringey and buddies that would be true.

Mmmm, Big Mac.

Yeah, but I already make a bit more than the average McDonald's line worker/cashier/janitor. Their suckass lives make the example better.

But you are "spot on" with that mmmmmm, Big Mac.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Their suckass lives make the example better.

coincidentally, that was my thought in adding you to the example.


mmmmm, meeelyuns of dollars.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
coincidentally, that was my thought in adding you to the example.


mmmmm, meeelyuns of dollars.

I'm congenitally bitter and unhappy. Money won't help much.

And I DO TOO make more than the McDonald's people. Really.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That may be true, but you continue to assume that elections in Singapore are truly free, without marshalling any evidence that they have changed from the nearly rigged manner that they have been held since the country was founded.

There used to be one legal party. All other partys were outlawed. Now there are many legal partys. There used to be only one party on the ballot now there are many. Demonstrations against the state were illegal. I have seen an opposition demonstration in Singapore. At the demonstration I did not have any fear of being arrested, or police intervention, and it did not seem like the demonstrators were in fear. The press used to be censored. Last time I was there you could buy any western magazine - Time, Newsweek. Le Monde or an opposition newspaper. They used to jail political dissedents and were alway on Amnesty Internationals complaint list. I do not think they have any politicial prisoners today - at least I have not heard of any and they don't seem to be at the top of Amnesy's list anymore.

It was interesting you brought up North Korea, because you should compare it to South Korea. South Korea had a dictatorship that instituted free market reforms. After about thirty years when the country became prosperous they turned into a democracy. North Korea is still poor and arguable the most opressive dictatorship in the world.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Workers might have been better incented, but planners allocated resources poorly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are we sure Spankers isn't a troll? Ty? Did you meet this guy?

I was tied up that night, but we are sure that he is not a troll.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm sorry, how did you get to the point of thinking that someone here was pro-communism/anti-free market? I think to the extent that some here would have preferred that we had not illegally funneled money to certain Latin American groups, it was because those groups were, uh, distasteful on many many levels.

I think the "commie" groups/regimes in Latin America probably identified themselves as commies more to get financial/arms support from the USSR and Cuba than out of ideological conviction. Though, some redistribution of land etc. seems in order, kinda like they are now doing in SA and some other African countries. A lot of the groups picked superpower sides.

How does your using per capita income show that there wasn't a deep, wide rich/poor divide? It's average income, for chrissakes. If Bill Gates walked into an otherwise empty-of-customers McDonalds, the per capita income of that McDonalds would be in the millions . . . .

It would be nice if you were paying attention. My response was in answer when somone asked me to support the idea that:

"The correlation is almost absolute. The poorest regimes anywhere in the world are the ones that adopted socialist systems. The wealthier ones are the capitalist. You take any regime at any time in world history, and the more socialist, the poorer they became, and when they adopted free market principles the richer the became. "

The person that was asking for the cite was questioning the validity of the above statement. My response was a direct response to that query.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am really getting the feeling that you read somewhere (or decided somehow) that you really really like authoritarian regimes, and are coming up with support for them.

One could also say that authoritarian regimes are kinda more like Nazi Germany/Stalin's USSR -- threat of death/torture/imprisonment/harm to family if you don't do what they want you to do. It's not per se economic stuff they want you to do, but I think there's a lot more, uh, "cooperation" between the government and industry in many of the countries you mention than there is here.

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.