4 ms·

His views are all just hand wavey fascism. At no point does he make a tractable argument. As a counterpoint: take all countries today that have functioning (i.

His views are all just hand wavey fascism. At no point does he make a tractable argument. As a counterpoint: take all countries today that have functioning (i.e. non-figurehead) monarchies and compare them with democratic, capitalist countries. You can use prosperity, GDP per capita, average literacy - whatever as a metric and monarchies will fail.

mellosouls 7y ago
Untrue, or at least questionable claim. Monarchies are economically better-performing. Eg. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/monarchies-good-economies/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/monarchies-good-...
- jevgeni 7y ago
  They demonstrably do not. Look at any competitiveness index, or standard of living index, or anything measurable. The article you’ve linked is banal. It talks about how monarchies are good at protecting established property rights. Duuuuuh. That’s their entire purpose. Thinking that stability of property rights is equal to economic performance is moronic. So either you think that I am one or you are one. Here’s a quick test you can do: look around you and count how many items around you are produced in the Kingdom of Lesotho? Or Kuwait? Or Madagascar? Or Bhutan? Such post-industrial powerhouses of economy those must be.
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    I don't need to look around, a quick Google on monarchies and GDP before your initial post would have given you the information you needed to not post it. Eg the first link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/23/shut-up-royal-baby-haters-monarchy-is-awesome/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/23/shut-... Btw your jeering tone and determination to classify either of us as morons is unhelpful.
    - jevgeni 7y ago
      You peddling horsesh*t is unhelpful. Your fluid goal posts don’t help either. Obviously any U.K. style “monarchies” and republics with a figurehead. Your best bet therefore would be Middle East monarchies, which are obviously a product of the extraction industry. So even that is not an argument. Remember how China realized that the communist system isn’t sustainable and introduced elements of monarchy? No? Me neither, because they went with (very light) democratization. If you want to talk facts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... But my favorite part is when I suggest you to look for immediate evidence in the real world and you’re like: “No, here’s a cherry picked article”. This disregard for facts is just plain offensive.
      - mellosouls 7y ago
        How on earth is the first link in a Google search "cherry picked"? At least half of those states in your own link are monarchies! Placing quotes around the archetypal monarchy seems like an act of last resort tbh - as do the repeated insults; so I'll consider this particular micro-debate conceded to me.
        jevgeni 7y ago
        Mate, what good is a monarchy if the monarch doesn't have any power? It's just a monarchy in name. Following your logic, North Korea is a democracy, because it has the word "democratic" in its official name. This is a crap level of discourse and hence you are getting all the smacktalk. Don't think that you are entitled to people letting your stupid arguments slide. This is not the USSR. This is why you are cherry picking. The original comment that you are replying to specified "actual monarchies, not figurehead states": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21674965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21674965 What's so difficult to understand? Does UK fall under that category? No. Material power is with the parliament and PM. You are disproving your own point, when you bring them in as an argument! I even gave you a hint. Saudi Arabia might be a stronger argument. Monarchy has power and they have economical clout. I mean, their GDP is only slightly higher than Walmart's annual revenue, but hey - at least you would've had a fighting chance.
- bjoli 7y ago
  The monarchies the articlementions are all liberal, more or less capitalist democracies.
  - jevgeni 7y ago
    Thank you.

mellosouls 7y ago

Untrue, or at least questionable claim. Monarchies are economically better-performing. Eg. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/monarchies-good-economies/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/monarchies-good-...

jevgeni 7y ago
They demonstrably do not. Look at any competitiveness index, or standard of living index, or anything measurable. The article you’ve linked is banal. It talks about how monarchies are good at protecting established property rights. Duuuuuh. That’s their entire purpose. Thinking that stability of property rights is equal to economic performance is moronic. So either you think that I am one or you are one. Here’s a quick test you can do: look around you and count how many items around you are produced in the Kingdom of Lesotho? Or Kuwait? Or Madagascar? Or Bhutan? Such post-industrial powerhouses of economy those must be.
- mellosouls 7y ago
  I don't need to look around, a quick Google on monarchies and GDP before your initial post would have given you the information you needed to not post it. Eg the first link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/23/shut-up-royal-baby-haters-monarchy-is-awesome/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/23/shut-... Btw your jeering tone and determination to classify either of us as morons is unhelpful.
  - jevgeni 7y ago
    You peddling horsesh*t is unhelpful. Your fluid goal posts don’t help either. Obviously any U.K. style “monarchies” and republics with a figurehead. Your best bet therefore would be Middle East monarchies, which are obviously a product of the extraction industry. So even that is not an argument. Remember how China realized that the communist system isn’t sustainable and introduced elements of monarchy? No? Me neither, because they went with (very light) democratization. If you want to talk facts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... But my favorite part is when I suggest you to look for immediate evidence in the real world and you’re like: “No, here’s a cherry picked article”. This disregard for facts is just plain offensive.
    - mellosouls 7y ago
      How on earth is the first link in a Google search "cherry picked"? At least half of those states in your own link are monarchies! Placing quotes around the archetypal monarchy seems like an act of last resort tbh - as do the repeated insults; so I'll consider this particular micro-debate conceded to me.
      - jevgeni 7y ago
        Mate, what good is a monarchy if the monarch doesn't have any power? It's just a monarchy in name. Following your logic, North Korea is a democracy, because it has the word "democratic" in its official name. This is a crap level of discourse and hence you are getting all the smacktalk. Don't think that you are entitled to people letting your stupid arguments slide. This is not the USSR. This is why you are cherry picking. The original comment that you are replying to specified "actual monarchies, not figurehead states": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21674965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21674965 What's so difficult to understand? Does UK fall under that category? No. Material power is with the parliament and PM. You are disproving your own point, when you bring them in as an argument! I even gave you a hint. Saudi Arabia might be a stronger argument. Monarchy has power and they have economical clout. I mean, their GDP is only slightly higher than Walmart's annual revenue, but hey - at least you would've had a fighting chance.
bjoli 7y ago
The monarchies the articlementions are all liberal, more or less capitalist democracies.
- jevgeni 7y ago
  Thank you.