3 ms·
> japan, korea, singapore All of which are democracies, and were dominant and stable with strong institutions. India would also do fine if it was happy to bui
by intended 6y ago
> japan, korea, singapore
All of which are democracies, and were dominant and stable with strong institutions.
India would also do fine if it was happy to build its institutions, which it was doing piecemeal.
I mean people forget that the main reasons any of those countries work is because the rule of law to support contracts works.
In this case, if there was any rule of law, a firm reneging on their salary promises would have to deal with a speedy trial all the way to resolution.
- disown 6y ago> All of which are democracies, and were dominant and stable with strong institutions. They were authoritarian when they developed their economy though. You could still argue that singapore is still somewhat authoritarian. Democracy had nothing to do with japan, korea, singapore, taiwan, etc getting wealthy. Actually, in regards to korea and taiwan, they curtailed democracy to develop their economies. Democracy was an impediment to their economic development.
- intended 6y agoTheres a recent video on the print where the speaker recounts the ambassador of Japan directly speaking up during an event and pointing out that Japan got to where it did because of its democratic behavior. Democracy has everything to do with those countries getting better, since a democracy works by building institutions and business models for the non authoritarian world depend on working institutions.