Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand which point you guys are trying to argue against.
Wealthier countrys tend to be stable free market democracies.
|
OK, but you are confusing causation with correlation. The few counterexamples tend to show as much.
Quote:
|
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.
|
There are plenty of counterexamples here. Russia, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, Fiji, Peru, e.g.
If you really think Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are functioning as democracies, then we may be having a problem agreeing upon basic terms.
China has rip-roaring growth and is no democracy. As of now, it disproves your argument.
Quote:
|
Free market economies tend to produce the higher growth rates.
|
OK. That doesn't mean that free-market economies will necessarily be stable, politically.
Quote:
|
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..............
|
No one thinks Cuba or Burma is an example of how to manage an economy.
