welsh
Junkmaster
Normally I go moderate, but these days I am pretty center left- in large part because it amazes me how fucked up the right is and how they keep screwing up the country.
As for democracy vs. other systems.
Lets be fair here- generally speaking, democracies correlate with better quality of life issues. A quick glance of HDI scores suggests that the most of the best performing economies are democracies. The worse performing are something else.
For a quick glimpse of the world (darker blue means those people have a better quality of life)
Does these mean that democracy makes countries rich- no. South Korea, Taiwan- two of the Asian dragon economies- were autocratic. Chile under Pinnochet- also autocratic. For awhile this was true for Brazil as well.
Ok, so does economic wealth make democracies? No - see China.
In fact, a good argument might be had that at a certain point raising incomes leads to greater political instability and democratic governance becomes more tricky.
So, you may ask, why are so many countries democracies?
That's rather interesting. You see at a certain income bracket, countries remain stable- Last I checked that figure was about $6,000 US GDP per capita.
Once a country reaches that kind of an income, it becomes very stable. Take Singapore- a rich country but not really a democracy (sure they have elections, but they aren't quite free).
So, why has there been an increase in democracies over the last 100 years?
Democracy allow for institutional patterns of succession. Every 4 or 6 or 8 years, you get an election with a new leader. It is, in a sense, a revolution, mediated by the institutions of governance. Furthermore, democracy works when all major players in the political game agree that democracy is the only game in town. IN otherwords, there is no incentive for major players to try an alternative form- a military coup, for instance.
Thus democracies- once stable and prosperous, tend to be long lasting.
In constrast-When an autocrat dies, well, its a succession crisis. Often autocrats don't choose successors because they don't want a coup. Other times they die and there is a struggle among the notables for power.
That competetion can lead to two outcomes-
(1) A new autocrat comes to power, or
(2) democracy.
Once democracy is agreed too, and the country is prosperous- you are going to have a very stable democracy.
Therefore if Singapore were to become a real democracy, it would probably be quite stable.
So its about income and wealth. Why? Maybe because "the power to tax is the power to destroy?"
Thus its a matter of stability and elimination. Demoractic prosperous states survive. Autocrats eventually die and have to be replaced. Over time, they get replaced with democracies that survive. The number of autocracies goes down, the number of democracies goes up.
The real challenge is prosperity.
Personally, I suspect that democracies major challenge isn't so much other political systems but inequality.
On this I disagree with Kharn. I don't suspect the challenges currently facing democracies are so high that they can't be overcome, although I agree that they are often slow to do so. (also Kharn, people predicted the SU would fall since 1950. George Kennan's containment strategy was based on the weakness of the Soviet economic model).
Governments are institutions, and institutions are consequences of social conflicts over economic distribution and political power.
Those who win such conflicts tend to stabilize their outcomes through creation or transformation of institutions. So why do you see the Supreme Court and singificant law change? Because those in power want to change the Supreme Court to being an institution that serves their interests. One sees the same thing in how the presidency and the Congress operates.
Ideally, there should be a more level playing field. Where such playing fields are more level and your economy is prosperous, your economies generally improve.
Levels of income inequality are measured by the gini coefficient.
Take for instance-
This is a bit old- I think Australia is a lot greener now.
Currently many countries in Europe are enjoying higher qualities of life than in the US. They also have lower levels of income inequality. Not surprisingly, during the rise of the US economy after World War 2, incomes were also fairly level- and thus we had remarkable growth from the 1940s into the late 1960s. Inequality, I suspect, drives down economic performance even while it makes certain individuals rich.
I am not arguing that the US doesn't have a robust economy. ALl I am saying is that its very unequal. I am also suggesting that if it were less unequal (as it was during period of growth in the 1950s) than it would grow faster.
The problem of democracy- Democracy allows for social groups to organize and mobilize to win elections = power.
So consider- money and voting. Each person in the US has one vote. But they make their choices based on perceptions of candidates. Candidates are able to shape perceptions through the money spent on campaigning. Campaign contributions- therefore matter.
SO in America there are two ways of influencing elections- through voting- in which we are all equal, and through contributions- in which some are more equal than others.
Ideally, democracy should be about human beings voting. In practice its also about capital voting.
Which might be the problem. Corporate governance is managed by how much one contributes to a system. The person who spends more can control the board by holding a higher share of the stock portfolio. But is this how we should run a country? Is this democracy?
So yes, the problem of democracy is a matter of wealth distribution.
As for democracy vs. other systems.
Lets be fair here- generally speaking, democracies correlate with better quality of life issues. A quick glance of HDI scores suggests that the most of the best performing economies are democracies. The worse performing are something else.
For a quick glimpse of the world (darker blue means those people have a better quality of life)
Does these mean that democracy makes countries rich- no. South Korea, Taiwan- two of the Asian dragon economies- were autocratic. Chile under Pinnochet- also autocratic. For awhile this was true for Brazil as well.
Ok, so does economic wealth make democracies? No - see China.
In fact, a good argument might be had that at a certain point raising incomes leads to greater political instability and democratic governance becomes more tricky.
So, you may ask, why are so many countries democracies?
That's rather interesting. You see at a certain income bracket, countries remain stable- Last I checked that figure was about $6,000 US GDP per capita.
Once a country reaches that kind of an income, it becomes very stable. Take Singapore- a rich country but not really a democracy (sure they have elections, but they aren't quite free).
So, why has there been an increase in democracies over the last 100 years?
Democracy allow for institutional patterns of succession. Every 4 or 6 or 8 years, you get an election with a new leader. It is, in a sense, a revolution, mediated by the institutions of governance. Furthermore, democracy works when all major players in the political game agree that democracy is the only game in town. IN otherwords, there is no incentive for major players to try an alternative form- a military coup, for instance.
Thus democracies- once stable and prosperous, tend to be long lasting.
In constrast-When an autocrat dies, well, its a succession crisis. Often autocrats don't choose successors because they don't want a coup. Other times they die and there is a struggle among the notables for power.
That competetion can lead to two outcomes-
(1) A new autocrat comes to power, or
(2) democracy.
Once democracy is agreed too, and the country is prosperous- you are going to have a very stable democracy.
Therefore if Singapore were to become a real democracy, it would probably be quite stable.
So its about income and wealth. Why? Maybe because "the power to tax is the power to destroy?"
Thus its a matter of stability and elimination. Demoractic prosperous states survive. Autocrats eventually die and have to be replaced. Over time, they get replaced with democracies that survive. The number of autocracies goes down, the number of democracies goes up.
The real challenge is prosperity.
Personally, I suspect that democracies major challenge isn't so much other political systems but inequality.
On this I disagree with Kharn. I don't suspect the challenges currently facing democracies are so high that they can't be overcome, although I agree that they are often slow to do so. (also Kharn, people predicted the SU would fall since 1950. George Kennan's containment strategy was based on the weakness of the Soviet economic model).
Governments are institutions, and institutions are consequences of social conflicts over economic distribution and political power.
Those who win such conflicts tend to stabilize their outcomes through creation or transformation of institutions. So why do you see the Supreme Court and singificant law change? Because those in power want to change the Supreme Court to being an institution that serves their interests. One sees the same thing in how the presidency and the Congress operates.
Ideally, there should be a more level playing field. Where such playing fields are more level and your economy is prosperous, your economies generally improve.
Levels of income inequality are measured by the gini coefficient.
Take for instance-
This is a bit old- I think Australia is a lot greener now.
Currently many countries in Europe are enjoying higher qualities of life than in the US. They also have lower levels of income inequality. Not surprisingly, during the rise of the US economy after World War 2, incomes were also fairly level- and thus we had remarkable growth from the 1940s into the late 1960s. Inequality, I suspect, drives down economic performance even while it makes certain individuals rich.
I am not arguing that the US doesn't have a robust economy. ALl I am saying is that its very unequal. I am also suggesting that if it were less unequal (as it was during period of growth in the 1950s) than it would grow faster.
The problem of democracy- Democracy allows for social groups to organize and mobilize to win elections = power.
So consider- money and voting. Each person in the US has one vote. But they make their choices based on perceptions of candidates. Candidates are able to shape perceptions through the money spent on campaigning. Campaign contributions- therefore matter.
SO in America there are two ways of influencing elections- through voting- in which we are all equal, and through contributions- in which some are more equal than others.
Ideally, democracy should be about human beings voting. In practice its also about capital voting.
Which might be the problem. Corporate governance is managed by how much one contributes to a system. The person who spends more can control the board by holding a higher share of the stock portfolio. But is this how we should run a country? Is this democracy?
So yes, the problem of democracy is a matter of wealth distribution.
