A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Saddam Husseins government was even worse than Marcos's in the Phillipines. It was a complete Kleptocracy. When you have an economy like that no amount of aid is going to change anything. I should ad that the Baathists were Arab nationalists and socialists. So when the took over Syria and Iraq they instituted socialism.

OK, I'm trying to follow. Right-wing dictatorships show good economic growth and eventually turn into democracies, except when they are kleptocracies and don't, except that some kleptocracies (like the Phillipines) do evolve into democracies. Communist regimes do not show good economic growth and do not turn into democracies, except that some liberalize their economic policy and do experience rapid growth (like China and Vietnam). These countries are going to turn into democracies soon, notwithstanding whatever their leaders might try to do about it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Okay - but how to know in advance that the authoritarian regime will promote economic growth? Your answer was, "Authoritarian regimes that are not communist will generally promote economic growth, which will lead to democracy" and you point to some examples out of southeast Asia. You completely ignore the examples of authoritarian regimes that do not promote economic growth, such as those in Africa and the Middle East, and tried to transmogrify the southeast Asian governments' poor human rights records into examples of some sort of twisted form of democracy.

Actually, I think you can tell when these regimes are instituting the right policies. So you can't really tell in advance but you can tell pretty quickly. In general the US supported the good ones but we also supported some bad lemons we shouldn't have. We supported some, like Marcos, who we had no business supporting. However, I would posit that liberals did not like us supporting any non-democratic free market regime. They did support some regimes that were hostile to free markets. I understand why. Many of these socialist regimes when they got in instituted universal medical care and education like Castro and the Sandinistas - but these positive actions were completed negated by the fact that destroyed the economy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Pity about the 20m + dead in WWII and 20m (or whatever) more dead in the purges by the totalitarian Stalin.

Yeah, actually I'm more concerned about that Italian journalist who got shot. Anyone know if she's going to be OK? Will she have any scarring or disability? That would be awful.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually, I think you can tell when these regimes are instituting the right policies. So you can't really tell in advance but you can tell pretty quickly.

Did Reagan keep handwritten notes explaining which of the right-wing dictatorships we were supporting would transmogrify into democracies?

Many of these socialist regimes when they got in instituted universal medical care and education like Castro and the Sandinistas - but these positive actions were completed negated by the fact that destroyed the economy.

Negated unless, for example, you're a poor Cuban kid who needs health care. In which case the trade-off maybe works some advantages.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yeah, actually I'm more concerned about that Italian journalist who got shot. Anyone know if she's going to be OK? Will she have any scarring or disability? That would be awful.

I think Italy is pretty socialist, plus she's famous now, so if she is disabled she probably won't end up begging on the streets.

Though, the private security force in my neighborhood keeps the beggars off our streets (it's private property, you know!!) so I don't really care about that.

[megaloman]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did Reagan keep handwritten notes explaining which of the right-wing dictatorships we were supporting would transmogrify into democracies?



Negated unless, for example, you're a poor Cuban kid who needs health care. In which case the trade-off maybe works some advantages.

Ah that explains it, ShakeNBake Reno and Billybob were just trying to get him the superior healthcare that Cuban socialism offers.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, I'm trying to follow. Right-wing dictatorships show good economic growth and eventually turn into democracies, except when they are kleptocracies and don't, except that some kleptocracies (like the Phillipines) do evolve into democracies. Communist regimes do not show good economic growth and do not turn into democracies, except that some liberalize their economic policy and do experience rapid growth (like China and Vietnam). These countries are going to turn into democracies soon, notwithstanding whatever their leaders might try to do about it.

First of all you are using the logic that one exception disproves the rule. This is not Geometry, it is politics. You can't say - the theory that democracy is good is wrong because democratic Germany produced Nazi Germany.

Second - it is not right wing dictatorships - whatever the hell that means - it is pro-growth dictatorships. A kleptocracy is very different from a pro-growth dictatorship. Yes - sometimes a kleptocracy can turn into a democracy - but in the Philippines it came with US intervention and the resulting democracy is very unstable.

Third - Before Russia buckled no communist dictatorships turned into democracies. After Russia buckled some did. But many held on by keeping their countries poor - Cuba, North Korea, Burma and Vietnam.

After the end of the cold war it became obvious that socialism does not work. Cuba, North Korea and Burma all ignored the message. However, China decided, hey, lets switch to Capitalism. For once a Communist dictatorship decided to do the right thing. So China is now a pro-growth dictatorship. Vietnam following China's example, experimented with free markets, but changed its mind after it saw the political instability free markets caused.

And yes - China will become more Democratic the larger its middle class gets.

Because almost all of the other progrowth dictatorships go democratic - Spain, Portugal, Chile, Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, Indoneisa, Malaysia etc.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
First of all you are using the logic that one exception disproves the rule. This is not Geometry, it is politics. You can't say - the theory that democracy is good is wrong because democratic Germany produced Nazi Germany.

Second - it is not right wing dictatorships - whatever the hell that means - it is pro-growth dictatorships. A kleptocracy is very different from a pro-growth dictatorship. Yes - sometimes a kleptocracy can turn into a democracy - but in the Philippines it came with US intervention and the resulting democracy is very unstable.

Third - Before Russia buckled no communist dictatorships turned into democracies. After Russia buckled some did. But many held on by keeping their countries poor - Cuba, North Korea, Burma and Vietnam.

After the end of the cold war it became obvious that socialism does not work. Cuba, North Korea and Burma all ignored the message. However, China decided, hey, lets switch to Capitalism. For once a Communist dictatorship decided to do the right thing. So China is now a pro-growth dictatorship. Vietnam following China's example, experimented with free markets, but changed its mind after it saw the political instability free markets caused.

And yes - China will become more Democratic the larger its middle class gets.

Because almost all of the other progrowth dictatorships go democratic - Spain, Portugal, Chile, Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, Indoneisa, Malaysia etc.

Why are you so concentrated in Asia?

Was plated always in SF, or is it a new move for him?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did Reagan keep handwritten notes explaining which of the right-wing dictatorships we were supporting would transmogrify into democracies?

Probably not - but the CIA, Weinberger and Schultz and almost every conservative think tank knew which dictatorships were instituting good economic policies and which ones were not. The liberals did not care. If it was not a left leaning dictatorship it was bad to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry regardless of its economic policies. If it was a left leaning dictatorship, like the Sandinistas, they were willing to give it some slack.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Negated unless, for example, you're a poor Cuban kid who needs health care. In which case the trade-off maybe works some advantages.

Of course. But universal healthcare does not justify condemning an entire nation to poverty, oppression and bad medical care (because the government can not afford decent medical care)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by megaloman
Ah that explains it, ShakeNBake Reno and Billybob were just trying to get him the superior healthcare that Cuban socialism offers.

It's nice to know that your dedication to anti-communism is so strong that you think children should be taken from their parents. As a parent, I have a problem with that, but that's just me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Probably not - but the CIA, Weinberger and Schultz and almost every conservative think tank knew which dictatorships were instituting good economic policies and which ones were not.

I thought you said Hussein was one of the bad ones.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Probably not - but the CIA, Weinberger and Schultz and almost every conservative think tank knew which dictatorships were instituting good economic policies and which ones were not. The liberals did not care. If it was not a left leaning dictatorship it was bad to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry regardless of its economic policies. If it was a left leaning dictatorship, like the Sandinistas, they were willing to give it some slack.





Of course. But universal healthcare does not justify condemning an entire nation to poverty, oppression and bad medical care (because the government can not afford decent medical care)

They also get rice steamers.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why are you so concentrated in Asia?

Was plated always in SF, or is it a new move for him?

I lived in Asia for many years and travelled to most of the Asian countries multiple times for work. Stick with what you know.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I lived in Asia for many years and travelled to most of the Asian countries multiple times for work. Stick with what you know.

It's dangerous to generalize outside of what you know into areas that you don't know. You made a worldwide rule based on your experiences in Asia. If you'd limited your scope, you (a) would have sounded smarter and less blowhard-y and (b) might have been, like, you know, correctish.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by megaloman
Ah that explains it, ShakeNBake Reno and Billybob were just trying to get him the superior healthcare that Cuban socialism offers.

What is it with you conservatives and your revisions of history?