Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Is it still Chile in here, or is it just me?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

No, we're all just trying to digest the knowledge that Spanky -- Mr. I'm a neo-con, and we should spread democracy -- would gladly see the world's largest democracy turned into a Communist dictatorship. Because, after all, they have had really good economic growth.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

What the hell just happened? Why are we on a new thread? Did I just get kicked off a board.

Tell me what you mean when you say "socialist." Do you mean, say, the countries of Western Europe, who have social programs that would send you into orbit with anger, or do you mean only the hard-core socialist regimes that control most of the means of production?

If it's the latter, might I observe that your straw man is getting a little tattered and old, as it's a 1970s (or so) vintage. Better to toss that one aside.

If it's the former, please explain how the countries of (say) Western Europe are destroying their respective democracies.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Forget it I just figured out.

BTW: I think the average citizen of China's future is looking a lot brighter than the average citizen of India.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

When I was in Chile several years ago, I had the opportunity to attend a dinner party given by the Minister of Trade. It was at a small chateau overlooking the Mapocho River. I was on a balcony, chatting with a beautiful but somewhat faded Peruvian actress whose name I can't recall. Our conversation was interrupted by a tall distinguished gentleman who introduced himself as the Head of the Dept. of Economics at Universidad de Santiago de Chile. I asked him to what he attributed the economic miracle that was Chile. He paused, sipped his Campari, and said, "In public, I always give credit to the Wise Men from the City of Broad Shoulders. But truthfully, it was because Pinochet cleared out the underperformers."

Later that evening, I tried out my Spanish on the actress, but I must have said something wrong because she threw her drink on me and left in a huff, leaving me with not one but two cheap cocktails.

I think what you are referring to is the welfare system of those countrys. I have no problem with safety nets. When I refer to socialism I am referring to government intervention in the economy. The government manipulating markets etc. The only socialist policies they still employ in Europe are some of the countries like France (which ownes Pariba etc) own some industries and they have massive agricultural subsidies. But if you think socialism disappeared with the 70s you are sorely mistaken. Socialism is rampant throughout the third world.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

As I said, the neo-con shows his true colors. It's not about democracy; dictatorship is fine if it claims to be pro-free market.

I guess Bush and Rice are just big ole' commies, what with their desire to see India emerge as a world power and all.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

The only way India will emerge as a world power is if it adopts free market policies. They have about a 6% growth rate and China has over 10%. The new Prime Minister has been trying to push through reforms (like he did in the 90s) but he just can't seem to get past the special interests. You don't have to be a mathmatician to figure out that China, if things don't change, is going to leave India in the dust. Taiwan, Honk Kong, Japan, Malaysia Korea, and Singapore etc, already left India in the dust, now it is simply the PRCs turn.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

That just sucks. I have been there a few times (not on the river but with the drinks in my face) Did you use the word Cabeza in the wrong sentence?

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

BTW: social crippalism is not a personality disorder but a permanent disability. It is really impolite of you to make fun of my being socially challenged.

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

It is the manifestation of my jealousy over all the cool places you've lived that I've never even seen.

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

Have you and mmmmmmmmm been talking?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

How can you possibly know what China's growth rate is. They do not have a free flow of information. All of the information comes from the government. There is not a free press, is there. No. So your "data" is suspect. The data on India may be suspect too, but the chances are greater that it is more accurate than the data for China. So how can you say that. That is all I ask.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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.


eta: My earlier question stands. We agree that China is more affluent than India. Not a toughie, as questions go.

But would you rather see a democracy in China, or a dictatorship in India? From everything you've said today, I really think you would actually say the latter. Which is scary, and sad. (I know, Iknow.... ifyou just wait enough decades every dictatorship turns into a democracy.... right?)

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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)

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I would have to go along with that.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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.

Presidential Timbre
 

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Damn. And I barely got any licks in.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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.

And Now for something completely different
 

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.

Presidential Timbre
 

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

Abu Ghraib Redux?
 

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

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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

Presidential Timbre
 

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

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

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.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

And supple? Oops, wrong board.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Actually, it's the ultimate paradigm for the economic expresssion "ceterus paribus". (hi, Gwinky!) "Do as you are told or we will kill you and rape your wife".

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

You can tell fringey doesn't have kids. Every parent with a kid of at least 3 Years knows this is just the Disney business plan.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

So if you point out a few non free market aspects of these countries that blows my whole theory. Sorry. Doesn't work that way. That is like saying, well the US market isn't totally free so that shows socialism works. These countrys may not have been perfect in free markets, but the more free market the better they did. In Asia, the country with the freest markets did the best - Singapore. Countries with the most closed systesm did the worst.

Where did you get this stuff? A cite would be nice. Are you saying that Chile did not do well in the 70s and 80s. Or that the economy was not free. Because if you are saying both that negates your argument. Chile had the freest economy in Latin America in the past thirty five years and it has had the strongest growth. Are you saying that is wrong?

This is a joke right? Pro American does not necessarily equal pro free market and pro business.

To say that the trend is toward mixed economies is just ludicrous. If you draw a sliding scale from purely socialist to purely capitalist, the trend has been much closer to the capitalist side.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

When you are talking about trends one counterexample is meaningless. You have to look at the overall picture. Of course there are other factors involved in countries stability and progress but economics is the overwhelming factor.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Please turn in your Republican Party card immediately.

ETA: Commie.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Flaws in your examples shouldn't be pointed out. Counterexamples carry no weight. You are a big Bush fan, huh?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

If you're arguing that free markets tend to outperform socialist or communist economies over time, I don't think anyone here -- with the possible exception of chickmagnet -- is going to disagree with you.

The interesting thing to me about one of the responses to you this morning was the suggestion that growth in Chile benefited some more than others -- there were winners, but also many losers (to say nothing of the tortured, etc.). If you're only going to assess the performance of an economy by the net output, you're going to miss a whole bunch of aspects of life that many people care about. In democracies, they get to vote.

Although those votes don't matter if we're going to support the violent overthrow of legitimate government to install juntas which will impose free markets.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Exactly (even though you are being sarcastic).

I don't understand which point you guys are trying to argue against.

Wealthier countrys tend to be stable free market democracies. Ever looked at a scale of affluence, free markets and stable democracies? The richest countrys in the world are almost all democratic and free market (by the way - the way to argue against this point is not to show that one rich country is not democratic - you need to show that the majority of rich countrys are not democratic and not free market).

Growing economies tend to lose their dictators. (Again one or two examples does not disprove the point. You need to show that a significant number of countrys with had growing economies over a signficant period of time did not throw off their dictators). Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore etc.

Free market economies tend to produce the higher growth rates. IN the past fifty years countries with high growth rates. Germany, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Chile, Hong Kong, Taiwan, . Again, in order to argue against this conclusion is not to show that these economies were not totally free or that there is one counter example. You need to show that generally the majority of fast growing economies were government controlled economies.

Highly controlled economies tend to either reduce economic growth or keep a country poor. Examples: Inda, Cuba, Burma, Chile before Pinochet, China before the 1980s, the Entire soviet block, England prior to Margaret Thatcher..............

Which one of these assertions is wrong?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

pre-junta Chile had a legitimately elected government?

And didn't we just pick a side? And subjectively, didn't we have to back then? I mean, I know you and Jimmy Carter and them all realized the USSR was benign, but Nixon couldn't see that and he had the keys.