Governments and Economies
- Thread starter ablarc
- Start date
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Filene's
Most of you will not agree with this, probably because of what you all have heard from the media, but China's government is run by some of the smartest people in the world, who have brought stunning results for 30 years, and any change to the current system would therefore probably be for the worse. China's government is based on merit, trying to recruit the smartest people for the essential positions. A democracy, by definition, is not. Therefore the fastest rises in human development level are recorded in dictatorships run by smart people, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. On the other hand, developing countries with democracy such as India have taken and will take a long time to economically grow, and will forever have their growth potential be stifled by stupid people being elected democratically.
Most of you will not agree with this, probably because of what you all have heard from the media, but China's government is run by some of the smartest people in the world, who have brought stunning results for 30 years, and any change to the current system would therefore probably be for the worse. China's government is based on merit, trying to recruit the smartest people for the essential positions. A democracy, by definition, is not. Therefore the fastest rises in human development level are recorded in dictatorships run by smart people, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. On the other hand, developing countries with democracy such as India have taken and will take a long time to economically grow, and will forever have their growth potential be stifled by stupid people being elected democratically.
Re: Filene's
^ I certainly agree with much of what you say, (though both Japan and South Korea have been run, almost exclusively, with a democratic system of governance over the past sixty years)
That said, benevolent dictatorships can institute positive reforms and changes in a way that is next to impossible for a democracy.
^ I certainly agree with much of what you say, (though both Japan and South Korea have been run, almost exclusively, with a democratic system of governance over the past sixty years)
That said, benevolent dictatorships can institute positive reforms and changes in a way that is next to impossible for a democracy.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 12
Re: Filene's
Japan has been democratic ever since its sovereignty was restored after World War II. South Korean democracy dates back only to the late 1980s.
Japan has been democratic ever since its sovereignty was restored after World War II. South Korean democracy dates back only to the late 1980s.
pelhamhall
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Filene's
I will try to tread lightly here and not offend anybody. But having been to China recently, I am assuming that the "stunning results" that you speak of include unspeakable, unimaginable pollution, and a population literally enslaved by its leaders.
Imagine a world where posting the kinds of things we all post here regularly about Mayor Menino gets you thrown in jail. It's not an exaggeration at all.
So wax poetic all you want, there has never, ever, in the history of the modern world been a successful, sustainable communist government model. Every one fails because there is no accountability of the leaders.
I will try to tread lightly here and not offend anybody. But having been to China recently, I am assuming that the "stunning results" that you speak of include unspeakable, unimaginable pollution, and a population literally enslaved by its leaders.
Imagine a world where posting the kinds of things we all post here regularly about Mayor Menino gets you thrown in jail. It's not an exaggeration at all.
So wax poetic all you want, there has never, ever, in the history of the modern world been a successful, sustainable communist government model. Every one fails because there is no accountability of the leaders.
pelhamhall
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Filene's
Ron's got a good point on Japan - not only is ultra-capitalist Japan more successful than communist China, but in Japan if you spend all night writing angry anti-government diatribes, you are more likely to end up on the editorial pages of the newspapers than a gulag cell.
Ron's got a good point on Japan - not only is ultra-capitalist Japan more successful than communist China, but in Japan if you spend all night writing angry anti-government diatribes, you are more likely to end up on the editorial pages of the newspapers than a gulag cell.
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
Re: Filene's
How long does it take a benevolent dictator to become a power-hungry dictator?
A democracy cannot possibly be as efficient, in terms of achieving set goals, as a monarchic/dictatorial regime. What might be different, though, is what those set goals are. In theory, a democracy has goals that are determined by the people. The ability to choose one's destiny, and influence their government to do so, is the root of our idea of freedom. In my opinion, though, people are unfortunately uninformed and don't know what is best for them, or the collective population.
I also believe that the vast majority of people are inherently greedy (not necessarily evil, Mr. Hobbes). Thus, the goals they set for a government in a democracy are those which will benefit themselves, and do not see the collective needs. Those people who do recognize the importance of collective progress over individual progress are usually those who are educated (whether or not the education is flawed is another argument) and have observed and researched "the big picture."
Dictators are not exempt from human selfishness, so if they succumb to their inner greed, the government is essentially running around the desires of one. This is the flaw of dictatorships, which democracies attempt to solve. In solving it, a democracy succumbs to the desires of the masses, it's own fatal flaw. I'd guess the perfect government lies somewhere in the middle - a republic is close (if only people would realize that America is not, in fact, a democracy).
Take it for what you will, but that's how I interpret the differences in the two systems. I don't think one can definitely be said to be superior, but I'm pretty happy with the American system. I know I wouldn't want to sacrifice my vote to someone who went to college for a few more years than I.
How long does it take a benevolent dictator to become a power-hungry dictator?
A democracy cannot possibly be as efficient, in terms of achieving set goals, as a monarchic/dictatorial regime. What might be different, though, is what those set goals are. In theory, a democracy has goals that are determined by the people. The ability to choose one's destiny, and influence their government to do so, is the root of our idea of freedom. In my opinion, though, people are unfortunately uninformed and don't know what is best for them, or the collective population.
I also believe that the vast majority of people are inherently greedy (not necessarily evil, Mr. Hobbes). Thus, the goals they set for a government in a democracy are those which will benefit themselves, and do not see the collective needs. Those people who do recognize the importance of collective progress over individual progress are usually those who are educated (whether or not the education is flawed is another argument) and have observed and researched "the big picture."
Dictators are not exempt from human selfishness, so if they succumb to their inner greed, the government is essentially running around the desires of one. This is the flaw of dictatorships, which democracies attempt to solve. In solving it, a democracy succumbs to the desires of the masses, it's own fatal flaw. I'd guess the perfect government lies somewhere in the middle - a republic is close (if only people would realize that America is not, in fact, a democracy).
Take it for what you will, but that's how I interpret the differences in the two systems. I don't think one can definitely be said to be superior, but I'm pretty happy with the American system. I know I wouldn't want to sacrifice my vote to someone who went to college for a few more years than I.
Re: Filene's
America Is Not Yet Lost
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 7, 2010
The New York Times
We?ve always known that America?s reign as the world?s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic.
What we?re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we?re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we?re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.
A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting ?I do not allow!? This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.
Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.
Last week, after nine months, the Senate finally approved Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, which runs government buildings and purchases supplies. It?s an essentially nonpolitical position, and nobody questioned Ms. Johnson?s qualifications: she was approved by a vote of 94 to 2. But Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, had put a ?hold? on her appointment to pressure the government into approving a building project in Kansas City.
This dubious achievement may have inspired Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama. In any case, Mr. Shelby has now placed a hold on all outstanding Obama administration nominations ? about 70 high-level government positions ? until his state gets a tanker contract and a counterterrorism center.
What gives individual senators this kind of power? Much of the Senate?s business relies on unanimous consent: it?s difficult to get anything done unless everyone agrees on procedure. And a tradition has grown up under which senators, in return for not gumming up everything, get the right to block nominees they don?t like.
In the past, holds were used sparingly. That?s because, as a Congressional Research Service report on the practice says, the Senate used to be ruled by ?traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation.? But that was then. Rules that used to be workable have become crippling now that one of the nation?s major political parties has descended into nihilism, seeing no harm ? in fact, political dividends ? in making the nation ungovernable.
How bad is it? It?s so bad that I miss Newt Gingrich.
Readers may recall that in 1995 Mr. Gingrich, then speaker of the House, cut off the federal government?s funding and forced a temporary government shutdown. It was ugly and extreme, but at least Mr. Gingrich had specific demands: he wanted Bill Clinton to agree to sharp cuts in Medicare.
Today, by contrast, the Republican leaders refuse to offer any specific proposals. They inveigh against the deficit ? and last month their senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn?t had 60 votes. But they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely.
And with the national G.O.P. having abdicated any responsibility for making things work, it?s only natural that individual senators should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.
The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.
Don?t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don?t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents? obstructionism.
It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. Sure enough, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of ?silliness.? Yep, that will really resonate with voters.
After the dissolution of Poland, a Polish officer serving under Napoleon penned a song that eventually ? after the country?s post-World War I resurrection ? became the country?s national anthem. It begins, ?Poland is not yet lost.?
Well, America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it.
.
America Is Not Yet Lost
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 7, 2010
The New York Times
We?ve always known that America?s reign as the world?s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic.
What we?re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we?re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we?re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.
A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting ?I do not allow!? This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.
Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.
Last week, after nine months, the Senate finally approved Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, which runs government buildings and purchases supplies. It?s an essentially nonpolitical position, and nobody questioned Ms. Johnson?s qualifications: she was approved by a vote of 94 to 2. But Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, had put a ?hold? on her appointment to pressure the government into approving a building project in Kansas City.
This dubious achievement may have inspired Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama. In any case, Mr. Shelby has now placed a hold on all outstanding Obama administration nominations ? about 70 high-level government positions ? until his state gets a tanker contract and a counterterrorism center.
What gives individual senators this kind of power? Much of the Senate?s business relies on unanimous consent: it?s difficult to get anything done unless everyone agrees on procedure. And a tradition has grown up under which senators, in return for not gumming up everything, get the right to block nominees they don?t like.
In the past, holds were used sparingly. That?s because, as a Congressional Research Service report on the practice says, the Senate used to be ruled by ?traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation.? But that was then. Rules that used to be workable have become crippling now that one of the nation?s major political parties has descended into nihilism, seeing no harm ? in fact, political dividends ? in making the nation ungovernable.
How bad is it? It?s so bad that I miss Newt Gingrich.
Readers may recall that in 1995 Mr. Gingrich, then speaker of the House, cut off the federal government?s funding and forced a temporary government shutdown. It was ugly and extreme, but at least Mr. Gingrich had specific demands: he wanted Bill Clinton to agree to sharp cuts in Medicare.
Today, by contrast, the Republican leaders refuse to offer any specific proposals. They inveigh against the deficit ? and last month their senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn?t had 60 votes. But they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely.
And with the national G.O.P. having abdicated any responsibility for making things work, it?s only natural that individual senators should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.
The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.
Don?t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don?t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents? obstructionism.
It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. Sure enough, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of ?silliness.? Yep, that will really resonate with voters.
After the dissolution of Poland, a Polish officer serving under Napoleon penned a song that eventually ? after the country?s post-World War I resurrection ? became the country?s national anthem. It begins, ?Poland is not yet lost.?
Well, America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it.
.
Last edited:
bostonbred
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2009
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Filene's
AT LAST!!! YOU PEEPLES SEEING MY POINTS BHERE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtL4oxDRbTg
ASAIAN TIGERS showing way. Tojo. Dicktators in Taiwan, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQhGvt_4ms
Sigingpoor diktator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP_fas_XueU skorea dictat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbA_Qfwj0vw hongkong part ok UK
BUT. IT WILL WORK IN BURMA AND NORT KOREA!!! THEY SHOW YOU HOW TO DEAL WITH BADBAD TIBET PEEPLE!!! WHY? BECAUSE THEY SMART PEEPLE RUNNING THINGS!!!! Not like lazzy peeples here who cant add witout takini off shoe and counting ten tows.
Most of you will not agree with this, probably because of what you all have heard from the media, but China's government is run by some of the smartest people in the world, who have brought stunning results for 30 years, and any change to the current system would therefore probably be for the worse. China's government is based on merit, trying to recruit the smartest people for the essential positions. A democracy, by definition, is not. Therefore the fastest rises in human development level are recorded in dictatorships run by smart people, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. On the other hand, developing countries with democracy such as India have taken and will take a long time to economically grow, and will forever have their growth potential be stifled by stupid people being elected democratically.
AT LAST!!! YOU PEEPLES SEEING MY POINTS BHERE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtL4oxDRbTg
ASAIAN TIGERS showing way. Tojo. Dicktators in Taiwan, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQhGvt_4ms
Sigingpoor diktator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP_fas_XueU skorea dictat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbA_Qfwj0vw hongkong part ok UK
BUT. IT WILL WORK IN BURMA AND NORT KOREA!!! THEY SHOW YOU HOW TO DEAL WITH BADBAD TIBET PEEPLE!!! WHY? BECAUSE THEY SMART PEEPLE RUNNING THINGS!!!! Not like lazzy peeples here who cant add witout takini off shoe and counting ten tows.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 336
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 758
Re: Filene's
Well it depends. It's hard to say because the Chinese have a different way of thinking, almost alien to the way we think. While questioning the government will definitely get you thrown into jail, the Chinese people have a tendency of avoiding trouble and only a small minority actually voice out against the policy. While we often speak about China's enormous pollution problem, it is no different than the industrial age in the UK and US way back then and it's not surprising either. China's gdp is nearly at the same level as the US 100 years ago, at the back end of the industrial age. You simply can't jump technology. Before you get to high-tech, you need to use low-tech.
The last part is debatable. China is definitely successful, there is no doubt about it. The mindset for them is that everyone works for the common good which China is doing fairly well.
And enslaving is a harsh word. People in China are most definitely not enslaved, nor oppressed. They just have less freedom than what we are used to.
Well it depends. It's hard to say because the Chinese have a different way of thinking, almost alien to the way we think. While questioning the government will definitely get you thrown into jail, the Chinese people have a tendency of avoiding trouble and only a small minority actually voice out against the policy. While we often speak about China's enormous pollution problem, it is no different than the industrial age in the UK and US way back then and it's not surprising either. China's gdp is nearly at the same level as the US 100 years ago, at the back end of the industrial age. You simply can't jump technology. Before you get to high-tech, you need to use low-tech.
The last part is debatable. China is definitely successful, there is no doubt about it. The mindset for them is that everyone works for the common good which China is doing fairly well.
And enslaving is a harsh word. People in China are most definitely not enslaved, nor oppressed. They just have less freedom than what we are used to.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Filene's
Run by only one party for the vast majority of its time as a democracy.
Run by only one party for the vast majority of its time as a democracy.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Filene's
The pollution is admittedly pretty bad, but it is improving rather quickly. The government is taking the environment seriously as the standard of living increases and now China is the world's largest producer of solar panels, solar water heaters, and has the most windmills. For your second point, I suppose you haven't went on any Chinese forums, forumers generally support some officials that are perceived as good but aren't afraid to complain about others (for example, Xiao Huaiyuan). It's not too different from here, just people have a higher starting level of trust with government in general (meaning the average official won't be viewed as negatively as here) On your final point, China is essentially a capitalist dictatorship, so no, it is not really Communist in the sense that you think it is (USSR style). Yes, not all problems are resolved, but the government is generally responsive to the complaints of citizens (witness the cancellation of the Shanghai maglev extension to Hangzhou due to concerns about magnetic radiation, aka NIMBYism) A far cry from "enslavement"
The pollution is admittedly pretty bad, but it is improving rather quickly. The government is taking the environment seriously as the standard of living increases and now China is the world's largest producer of solar panels, solar water heaters, and has the most windmills. For your second point, I suppose you haven't went on any Chinese forums, forumers generally support some officials that are perceived as good but aren't afraid to complain about others (for example, Xiao Huaiyuan). It's not too different from here, just people have a higher starting level of trust with government in general (meaning the average official won't be viewed as negatively as here) On your final point, China is essentially a capitalist dictatorship, so no, it is not really Communist in the sense that you think it is (USSR style). Yes, not all problems are resolved, but the government is generally responsive to the complaints of citizens (witness the cancellation of the Shanghai maglev extension to Hangzhou due to concerns about magnetic radiation, aka NIMBYism) A far cry from "enslavement"
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 336
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Filene's
no, that's why in my opinion, I consider the most effective forms of government in order to be technocratic dictatorship and technocratic one-party democracy, while the other forms only end up causing problems, conflicts and eventual failure
no, that's why in my opinion, I consider the most effective forms of government in order to be technocratic dictatorship and technocratic one-party democracy, while the other forms only end up causing problems, conflicts and eventual failure