5 ms·

What's the deal with this whole push for democracy? (nevermind, checked your company, I see your angle now). As if it's the holy grail of form of governments? Y

by toephu2 11y ago

What's the deal with this whole push for democracy? (nevermind, checked your company, I see your angle now). As if it's the holy grail of form of governments? Yeah, democracy really turned India around.. Food for thought: Would you rather be an Indian living in India, or a Chinese living in China?

bhouston 11y ago
There are a lot more differences between India and China than just democracy.
hackuser 11y ago
There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure. All of the most free, most prosperous, safest, healthiest, best educated, etc. nations in the world are democracies. More importantly there is a moral requirement for democracy in some form: People have a right to self-determination. India seems to be doing relatively well, though it's hard to find anything to compare it to (Pakistan?). Democracy isn't sufficient by itself; democracies can be corrupt, poor, etc. Someone said long ago: democracies are the worst form of government - except for all the alternatives.
- meric 11y ago
  You're right democracies by themselves means nothing. I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" when in reality the reason is because democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations. Look at Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, besides the last one I think the first three were more properous before foreign intervention, than after. Even Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. Singapore on the other hand, is faring a lot better than all the countries I've mentioned in this comment.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" I don't know how often it happens to stable governments, but generally I agree that destroying the country (through war) and imposing democracy - the essence of which is self-determination - is short-sighted and generally disasterous. > democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations Other forms of government are more easily controlled, speaking generally. In fact during the Cold War the U.S. replaced many democracies (Chile, Zaire/Congo, Iran, and others) with dictatorships because they were more easily controlled. In those three cases, leaders the U.S. disliked were elected, prompting the coups. > Ukraine I'm a little puzzled by this one. Clearly Ukraine's problems are due to Russia invading, conquering a major part of their country, and creating unending war in another part. > Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. I don't understand what this refers to. Taiwan's democracy is thriving; they are very prosperous. They just had another successful election and power changed hands again. Their main problem is the communist government in mainland China which puts a threatening shadow over everything and denies the Taiwanese normal relations with most of the world.
    - meric 11y ago
      I'm not going to comment on the other points because either we agree or I can see how different perspective can see things in those ways, but with Ukraine, U.S. had spent 5 Billion dollars on civil activism, sponsored by various American oil companies, prior to the "coup" which ousted the elected, legitimate Russian-friendly Ukraine government. Without such surreptitious interference from the U.S., Ukraine would be in a more prosperous and stable situation today. Russia would not be able to say "You ousted a legitimate government that was protective towards the interests of Russians in Ukraine, that is why we're taking over Crimea because that is what the people want.". Here is the video direct from Victoria Nuland's mouth, speaking at a Chevron and ExxonMobil sponsored conference[1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 Ukraine, along with Libya and Iraq are prime examples to demonstrate when the Americans tell you your country should be liberated so it becomes democratic, you should probably plan to move out.
- nl 11y ago
  There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure What relationship is that exactly? I haven't run a regression or anything, but eyeballing lists seem to show a link between a high GDP/capita and quality of life. Singapore and Hong Kong are both pretty rich, have high quality of life but aren't very democratic. They generally rate higher for quality of life than more democratic but poorer countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_D...
  - adventured 11y ago
    US, Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Italy, Japan, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Iceland, South Korea, New Zealand, Spain, Israel In no particular order, that's the vast majority of the richest, most well off, and highest GDP per capita countries on earth. Your list so far has Singapore and Hong Kong, now try to match my group - you can't get even remotely close. What could you add to your list? Qatar?
    - nl 11y ago
      It's not my list. In no particular order, that's the vast majority of the richest, most well off, and highest GDP per capita countries on earth. Your list so far has Singapore and Hong Kong, now try to match my group - you can't get even remotely close. I don't understand what you are trying to say. The countries you have listed include countries like Italy and Spain that rank well below the non-democratic countries I listed (Singapore and Hong Kong). Indeed, they score (0.876, 0.873) closer to Saudi Arabia (0.837) and UAE (0.835) than to countries at the top of the list (Norway: 0.944). The point is that I can find features that correspond to those lists better than "are democratic". For example, there's very good correlation between the Corruption Perceptions Index[1] and the list from the Human Development Index[2]. I think Democracy is great. But I also think facts are great, and the fact is that there do appear to be other ways to good outcomes. [1] http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_D...
addicted 11y ago
Comparing 2 wildly different countries with wildly different cultures and histories and attributing the reason one's better than the other to a singular property is absolutely meaningless. And the answer to your question isn't very obvious. There are many reasons to pick either answer. I'd guess for an individual the answer would depend almost entirely on their personal value system (e.g., someone very religious, or someone who values having 2 or more kids very heavily would almost immediately exclude China from the equation. On the other hand, there are few values which would lead to someone immediately eliminating India as an option).
tootie 11y ago
China today, but I'd bet India in 25-50 years.
jernfrost 11y ago
Democracy might not be efficient but it is the best safeguard we have against severe abuses. Look at China they might have benefited from their autocracy in recent years, but they paid dearly for it during the cultural revolution. India has been spared horrors like that exactly because they have been a democracy. Other than that I think the countries are too different to make any hard conclusions. China has very strong traditions for effective administration going thousands of years back. This has likely been of more profound importance than dictatorship. Japan after the war managed to grow very rapidly under democracy. So did Germany. While economic development in India has always been difficult. Even during the British dictatorship in India they had problems getting any kind of modern business going. I think India suffers from not really being a single country and from being dam hot. It is harder to get stuff done under such heat. Productivity will pick up there when aircondition becomes far more common. Really I think India should be multiple countries. When you put together lots of countries which are too different, you will get too many conflicts which will make progress grind to a halt.
- vkazanov 11y ago
  ...you completely misunderstand the reasons for those countries to grow their economies so fast. What is in common between S.Korea, China, post-war Japan and Germany? Democracy?
- vkazanov 11y ago
  ...you completely misunderstand the reasons for those countries to grow their economies so fast. What is in common between S.Korea, China, post-war Japan and Germany? Democracy?
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  India was about as poor as countries like South Korea immediately post world war 2. The most massive difference was their embrace of a Soviet style planned economy, which means that they grew at about 1-2% annually for the next 40 years and South Korea grew at a much, much higher rate. It's not a coincidence that economic liberalization in India in the early 90s (as with china, 15 years earlier) coincided with a boom in growth rate. I fully agree with your point that India ideally should be many, many countries: democracy suffers greatly when a massive, linguistically, religiously, and culturally diverse subcontinent is forced into a single government. Just look at Europe and their cautious, precarious tiptoeing towards political unity, despite having the relative advantage of being infinitely less diverse, way less religious, and way more developed than the Indian subcontinent.

by toephu2 11y ago

bhouston 11y ago

There are a lot more differences between India and China than just democracy.

hackuser 11y ago

There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure. All of the most free, most prosperous, safest, healthiest, best educated, etc. nations in the world are democracies. More importantly there is a moral requirement for democracy in some form: People have a right to self-determination. India seems to be doing relatively well, though it's hard to find anything to compare it to (Pakistan?). Democracy isn't sufficient by itself; democracies can be corrupt, poor, etc. Someone said long ago: democracies are the worst form of government - except for all the alternatives.

meric 11y ago
You're right democracies by themselves means nothing. I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" when in reality the reason is because democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations. Look at Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, besides the last one I think the first three were more properous before foreign intervention, than after. Even Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. Singapore on the other hand, is faring a lot better than all the countries I've mentioned in this comment.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" I don't know how often it happens to stable governments, but generally I agree that destroying the country (through war) and imposing democracy - the essence of which is self-determination - is short-sighted and generally disasterous. > democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations Other forms of government are more easily controlled, speaking generally. In fact during the Cold War the U.S. replaced many democracies (Chile, Zaire/Congo, Iran, and others) with dictatorships because they were more easily controlled. In those three cases, leaders the U.S. disliked were elected, prompting the coups. > Ukraine I'm a little puzzled by this one. Clearly Ukraine's problems are due to Russia invading, conquering a major part of their country, and creating unending war in another part. > Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. I don't understand what this refers to. Taiwan's democracy is thriving; they are very prosperous. They just had another successful election and power changed hands again. Their main problem is the communist government in mainland China which puts a threatening shadow over everything and denies the Taiwanese normal relations with most of the world.
  - meric 11y ago
    I'm not going to comment on the other points because either we agree or I can see how different perspective can see things in those ways, but with Ukraine, U.S. had spent 5 Billion dollars on civil activism, sponsored by various American oil companies, prior to the "coup" which ousted the elected, legitimate Russian-friendly Ukraine government. Without such surreptitious interference from the U.S., Ukraine would be in a more prosperous and stable situation today. Russia would not be able to say "You ousted a legitimate government that was protective towards the interests of Russians in Ukraine, that is why we're taking over Crimea because that is what the people want.". Here is the video direct from Victoria Nuland's mouth, speaking at a Chevron and ExxonMobil sponsored conference[1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 Ukraine, along with Libya and Iraq are prime examples to demonstrate when the Americans tell you your country should be liberated so it becomes democratic, you should probably plan to move out.
nl 11y ago
There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure What relationship is that exactly? I haven't run a regression or anything, but eyeballing lists seem to show a link between a high GDP/capita and quality of life. Singapore and Hong Kong are both pretty rich, have high quality of life but aren't very democratic. They generally rate higher for quality of life than more democratic but poorer countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_D...
- adventured 11y ago
  US, Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Italy, Japan, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Iceland, South Korea, New Zealand, Spain, Israel In no particular order, that's the vast majority of the richest, most well off, and highest GDP per capita countries on earth. Your list so far has Singapore and Hong Kong, now try to match my group - you can't get even remotely close. What could you add to your list? Qatar?
  - nl 11y ago
    It's not my list. In no particular order, that's the vast majority of the richest, most well off, and highest GDP per capita countries on earth. Your list so far has Singapore and Hong Kong, now try to match my group - you can't get even remotely close. I don't understand what you are trying to say. The countries you have listed include countries like Italy and Spain that rank well below the non-democratic countries I listed (Singapore and Hong Kong). Indeed, they score (0.876, 0.873) closer to Saudi Arabia (0.837) and UAE (0.835) than to countries at the top of the list (Norway: 0.944). The point is that I can find features that correspond to those lists better than "are democratic". For example, there's very good correlation between the Corruption Perceptions Index[1] and the list from the Human Development Index[2]. I think Democracy is great. But I also think facts are great, and the fact is that there do appear to be other ways to good outcomes. [1] http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_D...

addicted 11y ago

Comparing 2 wildly different countries with wildly different cultures and histories and attributing the reason one's better than the other to a singular property is absolutely meaningless. And the answer to your question isn't very obvious. There are many reasons to pick either answer. I'd guess for an individual the answer would depend almost entirely on their personal value system (e.g., someone very religious, or someone who values having 2 or more kids very heavily would almost immediately exclude China from the equation. On the other hand, there are few values which would lead to someone immediately eliminating India as an option).

tootie 11y ago

China today, but I'd bet India in 25-50 years.

jernfrost 11y ago

Democracy might not be efficient but it is the best safeguard we have against severe abuses. Look at China they might have benefited from their autocracy in recent years, but they paid dearly for it during the cultural revolution. India has been spared horrors like that exactly because they have been a democracy. Other than that I think the countries are too different to make any hard conclusions. China has very strong traditions for effective administration going thousands of years back. This has likely been of more profound importance than dictatorship. Japan after the war managed to grow very rapidly under democracy. So did Germany. While economic development in India has always been difficult. Even during the British dictatorship in India they had problems getting any kind of modern business going. I think India suffers from not really being a single country and from being dam hot. It is harder to get stuff done under such heat. Productivity will pick up there when aircondition becomes far more common. Really I think India should be multiple countries. When you put together lots of countries which are too different, you will get too many conflicts which will make progress grind to a halt.

vkazanov 11y ago
...you completely misunderstand the reasons for those countries to grow their economies so fast. What is in common between S.Korea, China, post-war Japan and Germany? Democracy?
vkazanov 11y ago
...you completely misunderstand the reasons for those countries to grow their economies so fast. What is in common between S.Korea, China, post-war Japan and Germany? Democracy?
wutbrodo 11y ago
India was about as poor as countries like South Korea immediately post world war 2. The most massive difference was their embrace of a Soviet style planned economy, which means that they grew at about 1-2% annually for the next 40 years and South Korea grew at a much, much higher rate. It's not a coincidence that economic liberalization in India in the early 90s (as with china, 15 years earlier) coincided with a boom in growth rate. I fully agree with your point that India ideally should be many, many countries: democracy suffers greatly when a massive, linguistically, religiously, and culturally diverse subcontinent is forced into a single government. Just look at Europe and their cautious, precarious tiptoeing towards political unity, despite having the relative advantage of being infinitely less diverse, way less religious, and way more developed than the Indian subcontinent.