Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.
|
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?
