DEHAI NEWS MAILING LIST ARCHIVE: [dehai-news] Guest Post: The Faulty Economic Development Model Behind America�s Support for Dictators (Instead of Democracies)

[dehai-news] Guest Post: The Faulty Economic Development Model Behind America�s Support for Dictators (Instead of Democracies)

New Message	Reply	About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Wed Feb 16 2011 - 02:19:00 EST

Sunday, February 13, 2011
Guest Post: The Faulty Economic Development Model Behind America’s Support
for Dictators (Instead of
Democracies)<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html>
Guest Post: The Faulty Economic Development Model Behind America’s Support
for Dictators (Instead of
Democracies)<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html>

→* **Washington’s Blog <http://www.washingtonsblog.com/>*

America has a long-standing pattern of supporting dictators, instead of
democracies<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/01/israeli-saudi-and-american-leaders-say.html>,
in developing countries.

Why?

Is it simply – as Noam Chomsky asserts – that America supports strong men
who will ensure that their country acts as a “client state” to the
U.S.<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22noam+chomsky%22+%22client+state%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a>,
and moves to crush countries which refuse to act as satellites to the U.S.?

Perhaps.

But – as usual<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/01/economists-fall-back-into-neoclassical.html>–
faulty economic models are part of the problem.

Specifically, Morton Halperin, Joe Siegel and Michael Weinstein co-wrote a
book called The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and
Peace<http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Advantage-Democracies-Promote-Prosperity/dp/041595052X>,
published by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2005, which provides
insight into the economic model used to justify America’s historic support
for dictators.

Halperin is no outsider <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Halperin>,
being a high-level adviser in the Clinton, Nixon and Johnson administrations
and to the Council on Foreign Relations. In the Johnson Administration, he
worked in the Department of Defense where he served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs), responsible for
political-military planning and arms control. During the first nine months
of the Nixon administration, Halperin was a Senior Staff member of the
National Security Council staff with responsibility for National Security
Planning. In the Clinton administration, he served Director of the Policy
Planning Staff at the Department of State, the Special Assistant to the
President and Senior Director for Democracy at the National Security
Council, and consultant to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy. He was nominated by the President for the position of
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping.

Halperin, Siegel and Weinstein gave a speech at the Carnegie Foundation in
2005 explaining their research findings.

Halperin noted<http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/5129.html>
:

Successive American presidents have said, particularly since the end of the
Cold War, that a major goal of American foreign policy was to spread or
enlarge or enhance democracy, and that our foreign policy was geared to
supporting those who were struggling to establish and maintain democratic
regimes.

Yet if you look at development assistance from the United States, from the
international financial institutions, and even from the Europeans and the
European Community, you find that there is no democracy advantage. That is,
democratic countries, in fact, receive less development assistance than do
non-democratic countries. You also find in the rhetoric, and even the
charters, of development agencies a belief that democracy is not their
business. They increasingly talk about good governance as one aspect of
development, but not about democracy. The people who run USAID believe that
their job is to promote development, and not democracy. That permits them to
consider good-governance issues, but not to ask the fundamental question: Is
this a democratic society that we want to support?

Indeed, the international financial institutions have, with one exception,
charters which require them not to take account of whether a country is a
democracy, or as it is referred to in the charters, its political criteria.

Underlying this policy of governments and international financial
institutions is a belief about how democracy relates to development. There
is a widely held view that poor countries need to delay democracy until they
develop. Back when I was in college, this was the Scandinavian view of
democracy, that only Scandinavian countries were capable of being
democratic, and that you needed to have a solid middle class before you
could contemplate democracy. The argument went—as presented in the writings
of Samuel Huntington and Seymour Martin Lipset —that if a poor country
became democratic, because of the pressures in a democracy to respond to the
interests of the people, they would borrow too much, they would spend the
money in ways that did not advance development—arguments that the current
president of Mexico is making about his possible successor. These poor
decisions would mean that development would not occur; and because people
would then be disappointed, they would return to a dictatorship.

Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator—it was never
quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent the
money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank
account—wait until that produces development, which produces a middle class,
and then, inevitably, the middle class will demand freedom, and you will
have a democratic government.

That proposition was wrong.

Siegel picked up from there. Siegel is a Senior Research Scholar at the
University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, and an expert on the
political economy of democratic transitions* ***, who has contributed
articles to leading policy journals and newspapers including *Foreign
Affairs *, *Harvard International Review *, *Georgetown Journal for
International Affairs, Los Angeles Times, Financial Times, Newsweek
International, Wall Street Journal, *and *The International Herald Tribune*.
Siegel was also a high-level researcher for the CFR.

Siegel told the Carnegie Foundation:

In the last forty-five years of actual performance, there is no evidence
that poor authoritarian countries have grown any more rapidly than poor
democracies. If you leave out East Asia, you see that poor democracies have
grown 50 percent more rapidly, on average, during this period. The Baltic
countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly
than the Angolas, the Syrias, the Uzbekistans, and the Zimbabwes of the
world.

***

Social dimensions of development … are even more starkly divergent. For
example, in terms of life expectancy, poor democracies typically enjoy life
expectancies that are nine years longer than poor autocracies. Opportunities
of finishing secondary school are 40 percent higher. Infant mortality rates
are 25 percent lower. Agricultural yields are about 25 percent higher, on
average, in poor democracies than in poor autocracies—an important fact,
given that 70 percent of the population in poor countries is often
rural-based.

There are many reasons for this …. One characteristic that seems
particularly prominent is that democracies do a far better job at avoiding
catastrophes of all types. If we look at financial catastrophes for each of
the last four decades and look at the twenty worst performers over each of
those decades, we find that of eighty cases, only five are democracies.
Similarly, if you look at a 10 percent contraction in GDP per capita on an
annual basis, you find that poor democracies are half as likely to
experience this sort of acute recession as are autocracies.

We see similar patterns with regard to humanitarian issues. Refugee crises
are almost invariably a result of the politics in authoritarian systems.

***

Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist, famously noted that no democracy
with a free press has experienced a major famine.

One of the immediate assumptions made is that this is because of the
populist pressures that democracies face; therefore, they are investing much
more in their health and education sectors, leading to other macroeconomic
problems. In fact, that is not true. To our surprise, poor democracies don’t
spend any more on their health and education sectors as a percentage of GDP
than do poor autocracies, nor do they get higher levels of foreign
assistance. They don’t run up higher levels of budget deficits. They simply
manage the resources that they have more effectively.

***

Let me move on to the second assumption, the notion that once autocratic
countries reach a middle-income range, they will make the transition to
democracy. Given the limited growth that we have seen under authoritarian
systems, relatively few authoritarian countries actually reach this
middle-income range. In fact, since 1960, only sixteen autocratic countries
have reached a per capita base above $2,000 a year.

Fareed Zakaria’s book argues, in a repostulation of the Lipset and
Huntington theses, that we shouldn’t be pushing democracy until these
countries reach per capita incomes of $6,000 a year. If we were to do that,
of today’s eighty-seven democratizers, only four would qualify as being
ready. That would exclude the Baltics, Costa Rica, Poland, South Africa, and
many others.

***

However, even among those poor autocracies that have grown, they are no more
likely to make the transition to democracy once they have grown or once they
have reached a middle-income status than they were when they were poorer.

***

The third and final assumption is the notion that premature democratization
is a recipe for instability. We find empirically no strong basis for this
reasonable hypothesis. What we do see, borne out in much of the conflict
literature of the last fifteen years, is that the prevailing factor that
influences conflict—and today most conflict is civil conflict—is poverty….

When you control for that and you look at countries that are going through
political transition, you find that democratizers are no more likely to be
vulnerable to conflict than are other poor countries.

***

In sum, the three core assumptions that have underpinned the authoritarian
advantage thesis over the years aren’t borne out through our empirical
analysis. What we find is that the form of government that is in place in
the developing world has a huge difference on the development performance
realized, and that by holding onto these notions that we should defer
democracy until some later point, we are, in effect, perpetuating
underdevelopment and higher levels of political and sectarian conflict, as
well as deferring the point at which people can govern themselves.

Michael Weinstein – former chairman of the Department of Economics at
Haverford College and a former economist columnist and editorial board
member for *The New York Times* – then provided some recommendations:

Whether aid is bilateral, multilateral, quadrilateral, let’s give it to the
democracies and democratizers, and not to poor autocracies.

***

Development policies have been anti-democratic. They have trampled on the
incipient groups, such as civil groups inside poor countries, anmd run
roughshod over them to force countries to follow policies drawn up by
Washington D.C., and not by the countries involved. Democracy can be a
victim in lots of silent ways.

***

Democracy … is so clearly connected to growth and prosperity that we say,
highlight it, so that whenever a government like the United States, an
agency like USAID, a bilateral or multilateral organization begins to
contemplate aid policy, it would issue a democracy impact statement. Give us
a good prediction of how the policy as proposed and implemented will trample
on democratic forces within the poor countries to receive the aid.

In a question and answer following their speech, Halperin, Siegel and
Weinstein gave some additional insights.

Halperin noted that the foregoing discussion applies to Muslim as well as
Western countries:

I see nothing to suggest that Muslim culture or religion stands in the way
of democracy.

The current debate is over whether the people in the streets of Lebanon are
the same as those in the streets of Ukraine. We know, from many anecdotes,
that the people in Lebanon watched the people in Ukraine on their
television. Free Arab television was much more important in exposing them to
Ukraine than it was to events in the Middle East. The Lebanese believe that
they are doing what the people of Ukraine did, and out of the same passions
and convictions

Siegel pointed out several reasons why democratic countries are more
prosperous than autocratic regimes:

When there is more symmetry on all sides of a market, buyers and sellers,
you usually get more efficiency, more willingness for people to participate.
That doesn’t happen if people are unsure if they have all of the facts on
the table.

Openness also contributes to higher levels of transparency and lower levels
of corruption. Data show that corruption cuts heavily into GDP growth on an
annual basis.

The third point is adaptability. Democracies not only have a self-correcting
mechanism, but also mechanisms for a systematic means of changing
ineffective leadership. This allows for a stable transition to a new policy
framework that might allow for a more effective process of addressing the
problems that a country is facing, one that is appropriate for its
particular circumstances. Because of this process of succession, you don’t
have the same instability in democracies that heavily cuts into growth in
other systems, either because of the political uncertainty or the civil
conflict that results.

***

One of the problems and barriers to growth is when you have both the
political and economic monopolization of power in a single set of hands.
This is often one of the characteristic traits of authoritarian systems. To
the extent that you can separate economic opportunity from political
authority, you will be in a better position to develop. By channeling all of
our assistance through central governments, we tend to perpetuate the
consolidation. That undercuts the opportunities for development.

And Weinstein gave another reason:

Democracies don’t fall off the edge of the cliff and hit bottom in the way
autocracies do.

Afterword: It’s not just America. As Chapter 1 of The Democracy Advantage:
How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace notes:

Today, it is politically incorrect to extol publicly the virtues of
autocracies—
countries where leaders are not popularly elected nor subject to
meaningful checks and balances. Nonetheless, the view that these governments
do a better job of promoting economic growth and stability among
poor countries remains firmly entrenched in the minds of many world leaders,
economists, national security advisors, business executives, political
scientists, and international civil servants. According to this perspective,
promoting democracy in poor countries is naïve and potentially dangerous.

More on this topic (What's
this?)<http://www.wikinvest.com/blogger/wikinvest_wire>
The Faulty Economic Model Behind America's Support for Dictators (Instead
of Democracies)<http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/02/economics-behind-americas-support-for.html>
(George
Washington's Blog, 2/13/11)
These Amazing Egyptian Men and Women Have My Deep Respect and
Support<http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/02/these-amazing-egyptians-have-my-deep.html>
(EX-SKF,
2/8/11)
Updated Auction Market Analysis and Market Profile Trading Levels for the
Week<http://wallstcheatsheet.com/trading-markets/updated-auction-market-analysis-and-market-profile-trading-levels-for-the-week.html>
(Wall
St. Cheat Sheet, 1/11/11)
Read more on Support Level <http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Support_Level> at
Wikinvest <http://www.wikinvest.com/>

Topics: Banana
republic<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/banana-republic>,
Economic fundamentals<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/economic-fundamentals>,
Globalization <http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/globalization>, Guest
Post <http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/guest-post>,
Politics<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/politics>,
The dismal science<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/the-dismal-science>

[image: Email This
Post]<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html/email/>
Email This Post<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html/email/>
Posted
by George Washington at 2:58
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html>

34 Comments »<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comments>
Links
to this post<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comments>
[image: AddThis]<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=120&winname=addthis&pub=sidlee&source=men-120&lng=en&s=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2011%2F02%2Fguest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html&title=Guest%20Post%3A%20The%20Faulty%20Economic%20Development%20Model%20Behind%20America%26%238217%3Bs%20Support%20for%20Dictators%20%28Instead%20of%20Democracies%29&logo=&logobg=&logocolor=&ate=AT-sidlee/-/fs-0/4d5b7808d0c4e0f2/1&CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC&pre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2011%2F02%2Fguest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html&tt=0>
34 Comments:
attempter <http://attempter.wordpress.com/> says:
February 13, 2011 at 3:24
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324480>

*Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator—it was
never quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent
the money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank
account—wait until that produces development, which produces a middle class,
and then, inevitably, the middle class will demand freedom, and you will
have a democratic government.*

*That proposition was wrong.*

That’s nothing but another version of trickle-down, and just as much of a
fraud.

It’s also plagiarized from the 1930s, when it was all the rage to favorably
compare and contrast the decadent and sclerotic Western systems with the
sleek, efficient new fascist model.

The modern Big Lie, and evidently the misconception among these
commentators, is that the US government ever cared about democracy at all,
or that in these contexts “democracy” was ever anything but a code word for
economic license and domination for big corporate actors.

>From the point of view of globalization, the only democracy is to be
democracy for corporations and the rich. It’s the same as the way the trend
in the US itself is to increase corporate “rights”, wipe out corporate
responsibilities, add new burdens and obligations for non-rich actual human
beings, while stripping them of rights. It’s the concept of sovereignty and
citizenship turned exactly upside down. Thanks in large part to the
long-term systematic subversion of the Constitution by the SCOTUS, we now
have a ruling system which is illegitimate and anti-sovereign in every
sense.

So we can see what the term and concept *democracy* means to such cadres.
Coming from them, it’s nothing but corporatist tyranny, embellished by phony
elections.

It’s the same as the way “libertarians” use the word “freedom”, or the term
“free trade”. These are all Orwellian terms used to obscure the real nature
of today’s allegedly more efficient model of economic fascism and political
anti-democracy, *neoliberalism*.

The studies cited in the piece demonstrate that even where it comes to
pseudo-democracy, the better the integrity of the forms, the better the
results are for the people.

Imagine the difference once we end globalization and purge the earth of
corporations.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324480#respond>

- DownSouth says:
February 13, 2011 at 5:50
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324523>

attempter said:

   *It’s the same as the way “libertarians” use the word “freedom”, or the
   term “free trade”. These are all Orwellian terms used to obscure the real
   nature of today’s allegedly more efficient model of economic fascism and
   political anti-democracy, neoliberalism.*

Ah yes, the perversion of language. It’s an old trick.

   ▬ *None of the various “language rules,” carefully contrived to deceive
   and to camouflage, had a more decisive effect on the mentality of the
   killers than this first war decree of Hitler, in which the word for “murder”
   was replaced by the phrase “to grant a mercy death.” Eichmann, asked by the
   police examiner if the directive to avoid “unnecessary hardships” was not a
   bit ironic, in view of the fact that the destination of these people was
   certain death anyhow, did not even understand the question, so firmly it
   still anchored in his mind that the unforgivable sin was not to kill people
   but to cause unnecessary pain.. [A]nd it was not the accusation of having
   sent millions of people to their death that ever caused him real agitation
   but only the accusation (dismissed by the court) of one witness that he had
   once beaten a Jewish boy to death. To be sure he had also sent people into
   the area of the Einsatzgruppen, who did not “grant a mercy death” but killed
   by shooting, but he was probably relieved when, in the later stages of the
   operation, this became unnecessary because of the ever-growing capacity of
   the gas chambers. He must also have thought that the new method indicated a
   decisive improvement in the Nazi government’s attitude toward the Jews,
   since at the beginning of the gassing program it had been expressly stated
   that the benefits of euthanasia were to be reserved for true Germans. As the
   war progressed, with violent and horrible death raging all around—-on the
   front in Russia, in the deserts of Africa, in Italy, on the beaches of
   France, in the ruins of the German cities—-the gassing centers in Auschwitz
   and Chelmno, in Majdanek and Belzek, in Treblinka and Sobibor, must actually
   have appeared the “Charitable Foundations for Institutional Care” that the
   experts in mercy death called them. Moreover, from January, 1942, on, there
   were euthanasia teams operating in the East to “help the wounded in ice and
   snow,” and though this killing of wounded soldiers was also “top secret,” it
   was known to many, certainly to the executors of the Final Solution.*
   –Hannah Arendt, *Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil*
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324523#respond>
    - attempter <http://attempter.wordpress.com/> says:
      February 13, 2011 at 6:53
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324542>

That reminds me of this post

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/11/12496

about the contrast of the brutal, gory illegal violence of the US
elites’ system, vs. how finicky they are about the legalistic
death penalty.

      Eichmann must have considered the euthanasia of wounded soldiers to be
      a big improvement over the way their comrades would often have to grant
      their agonized, screaming pleas to be shot and put out of their misery
      (according to a war memoir I read, written by a German who had been a
      private on the Russian Front).

      Would it be an improvement over the way today’s Republicans and
      Democrats want to let veterans die of wasting away in sickness
and hunger,
      rather than fund the VA? Would it be an improvement over leaving
them at the
      mercy of the likes of JPMorgan’s foreclosure squad?

      The final logic of all these is enslavement and death.
       Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324542#respond>
       - DownSouth says:
   February 13, 2011 at 10:52
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324635>

attempter,

Along these same lines is
this<http://www.literaturfestival.com/intern/reden/arundhati_roy_engl>from
today’s “Links”:

   *Today, words like ‘Progress’ and ‘Development’ have become
   interchangeable with economic ‘Reforms’, Deregulation and Privatization.
   ‘Freedom’ has come to mean ‘choice’. It has less to do with the human spirit
   than it does with different brands of deodorant. ‘Market’
   no longer means a place where you go to buy provisions. The ‘Market’ is a
   de-territorialized space where faceless corporations do business, including
   buying and selling ‘futures’. ‘Justice’ has come to mean ‘human rights’ (and
   of those, as they say, ‘a few will do’). This theft of language, this
   technique of usurping words and deploying them like weapons, of using them
   to mask intent and to mean exactly the opposite of what they have
   traditionally meant, has been one of the most brilliant strategic victories
   of the new dispensation. It has allowed them to marginalize their
   detractors, deprive them of a language in which to voice their critique and
   dismiss them as being ‘anti-progress’, ‘anti-development’, ‘anti-reform’ and
   of course ‘antinational’— negativists of the worst sort. Talk about saving a
   river or protecting a forest and
   they say, ‘Don’t you believe in Progress?’ To people whose land is being
   submerged by dam reservoirs and whose homes are being bulldozed they say,
   ‘Do you have an alternative
   development model?’ To those who believe that a government is duty bound
   to provide people with basic education, healthcare and social security, they
   say, ‘You’re against the Market.’ And who except a cretin could be against a
   Market?*

   *As writers we spend our lives trying to minimize the distance between
   thought and expression, trying to give form to our intimate, most inchoate
   thoughts. This new
   Development language does the opposite. It is designed to deceive, to
   mask intent.*

   *This language heist may prove to be the keystone of our undoing.*
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324635#respond>
    - Paul Repstock says:
   February 13, 2011 at 1:58
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324692>

   It is all in the motivations Rus;
   One of Siegel’s after comments is telling:
   “Openness also contributes to higher levels of transparency and lower
   levels of corruption. Data show that corruption cuts heavily into GDP growth
   on an annual basis.”

   My view is that a democracy would inhibit the payolla schemes of the US
   ‘Military Industrial Complex’. It is so difficult to convince a democratic
   government that they need fighter aircraft and APC’s more than irrigation
   pumps.
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324692#respond>
    - attempter <http://attempter.wordpress.com/> says:
      February 13, 2011 at 4:50
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324779>

      You bet. To whatever extent democratic preferences could be measured,
      the people have always, everywhere, rejected neoliberalism and
corporatism.
      That’s why capitalism has always had to be so corrupt and
savagely violent,
      and that’s why the Shock Doctrine had to be invented as a premeditated
      strategy.

      Criminal advocates who tell the Big Lie about capitalism representing
      “freedom” have never been able to explain why this alleged
freedom requires
      so much tyranny in practice.
       Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324779#respond>

Psychoanalystus says:
February 13, 2011 at 5:12
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324511>

There is so much misrepresentation in the sources provided in this post, I
would not know where to begin to debunk them. To begin with, the entire
premise that the US promotes democracy, or that the US is a democracy are so
far off the base, it is useless to even talk about them.

As such, I will just make a brief description of what this “exporter of
democracy” really is all about:

By “good governance” I assume is meant “stability”. And by stability it
simply means a state willing and able to, over a long period of time, either
allow US military bases on its territory under dismal terms to the host
country, or, if the former is not possible, to at least purchase large
volumes of useless US-made weapons even if these are financed with so-called
American “aid” money (another way to defraud the American taxpaying chumps
for the benefit of the death-industrial-complex). If the country in question
had any desirable resources (oil, minerals, etc), then the Exxons, Bechtels,
and Halliburtons type criminal corporations are expected to be given free
reign. This is where a dictator provides “stability”, thus from America’s
perspective, a dictator is desirable over a democratic leader.

As far as the “international financial institutions” are concerned, I would
like to see one – just one – country where the IMF or the World Bank were
involved with less than disastrous consequences for the country in question.
There was never any true development under those institutions. Just
corruption of the worst kind, enslavement of the governments of those
nations, and impoverishment of their populations. Fortunately, with Asia
amassing such huge financial reserves, the IMF and the World Band (and the
US Treasury along with them) are soon to become irrelevant, very much like
the US has become.

One must understand that the United States is little more than a banana
republic with nukes and other expensive useless weaponry. That is all that
this nation has, and that is all that it can and wants to sell to others.
However, this weaponry junk, because that is what it is, commands a high
price from various dictators interested in arming themselves to the teeth in
order to be able to defend their illegitimate regimes from revolutionary
masses. So the idea is to sell these weapons to these dictators so they can
prevent their own overthrow. And, if they cannot pay, no problem, we’ll just
send them a few billions dollars in “aid”.

That is the economic model of the United States today. That is what this
laughable country amounts to today. For how much longer does anybody guess
this will continue? Six months? A year? Two years? I don’t see how it can go
on for much longer.

Psychoanalystus
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324511#respond>
Richard Kline says:
February 13, 2011 at 7:56
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324555>

Regarding who the US choses to support,’it’s the policies, stupid.’ US
policies. Rhetoric is just that and no more, for US foreign policy is
resolutely pragmatic (another American characteristic): the American power
elite and the government they constitute for themselves support who furthers
our (i.e. their) percieved interests. I say ‘perceived’ interests because
whatever is the current flavor of interest may in fact be positively
inimical to the actual interests of American power to say nothing of the
interests of the citizenry. —And this is why the US tends to support
dictators and autocrats since American power interests typically are
contrary to the interests of people in other places. Thus those people would
not voluntarily support said interests. Thus it takes a dictator to force
their polities to comply with those interests. This isn’t simply about
military bases, or terms of trade, or ’support our friends,’ all though it
is often any or all of those things. It’s about getting our way, and the the
bloody hell with the interests, aspirations, of physical persons of others
in other places.

The US government is quite willing to deal with democracies who give us our
way, and in my observation generall prefers dealing with such quasi-or
actual democracies. Why? Dictators are expensive, we have to buy them. Their
regimes tend to end explosively. We get blowback from backing them. And they
are often so (necessarily) concerned with their own survival that they don’t
execute American policy interests all that well (see Gen. Pervasive
Myselfishness in Pakistan). But those are minor flaws. What matters is
whether or not the American whim, fantasy, program, or strategy is supported
or not. Since we can’t get that from most democracies, we are perfectly
willing to back any bloody thug from Saddam on down if he gives us a policy
handjob on a regular basis.

American governmental ‘aid’: that’s a misnomer the size of Gozilla’s arse.
Most of our ‘aid’ is either armaments (a US gov kickback to our arms
industry) or vendor financing for US products. The US shouldn’t be in the
‘aid’ business at all because our government granted aid is corrupt on every
level imaginable. So we shouldn’t be giving ‘aid’ to democracies either.
Supporting them politically, yes; giving them our financial and military
heroin-equivalents, no. —But of course this is a central tenet of American
policy, that we give bribes that corrupt factions rake off and want to stay
close to the US policy so as to continue to receive. Any genuine investment
in another country is out because that might benefit individuals and
factions not tied to US policy, or worse opposed to it. And we wouldn’t want
that, would we? (Who’s ‘we’?)

And then there is the expanded argument of Seigal, that democracies in poor
states actually have fewer econo-financial crashes, and as Sen says _no_
famines. That is a function of accountability, on two levels. A princpal
drival of economic instability is a lack of accountability. Behaviors which
are questionable meet little or no resistance, and can accelerate into the
rephrehensible. Behaviors which are criminal meet slight resistance, and go
viral because they pay so well (and are so much fun for those who benefit).
Democratic states are somewht more accountable; not perfect, not one to one,
but more accountable. There are ‘opposition factions’ if nothing else who
would like to get power, and will call attention to failings as the route to
the top, even if entirely selfishly. So point one, economic instability and
accountability are inversely proportional (though context varries so the
relationship is not absolute). Dictatorships by definition are based upon
the absence of accountability. If government is in any way answerable to its
populace, it’s less than a dictatorship. Most peoples don’t like autocrats
(except in instances of extreme insecurity, but typically not even then). So
autocrats have to physically prevent the possibility of any accountability
to their citizenry. Once that principle is laid down, it’s not even a baby
step to a lack of accountability in other matters. Rig this deal; demand
this bribe or that set of slaves; enforce this worship; stigmatize that
group: whatever. Autocratic systems are shot through _at the top_ with a
lack of accountability, while concentrating most power and money in the same
location. Is it any surprise that econo-financial crashes and
non-development as opposed to thieving off rents occurs?

Huntington and Lipset’s kinds of arguments didn’t originate with them: they
are the position of aristocracies for millennia. Seriously; dust off your
texts of the classics, and one will find this argument made anywhere some
are rich and privileged and most are not. The rich will always tell you that
the poor are not only undeserving but are further more incapable. That is
all that Huntington and Lipset, and any other handmaiden of an aristocracy
has to say; just variations on a theme. And the ’stability’ meme is purest
propaganda. The kind of ‘development’ intended by those talking about
’stability’ is penetration of financial and commercial foreign interests
with the penetrated in a permanent and structurally affixed subordination.
No ‘development’ that might be distinct from First World moneypower is
envisioned, or voluntarily tolerated where it occurs naturally. This is
again why Anglo-American moneypower aligns naturally with dicatators; not
because it loves them necessarily but because the majority elsewhere have no
love for said moneypower so dictators are backed by default. —But because
UK-US power elites back dicators by default, we prove (seemingly)
surprisingly fickle toward them. Just as in the present interest we didn’t
work up one bead of sweat to save Mubarak and his mukhabarat regime. We
don’t like him and his ilk, they’re just (perceived to be) necessary tools,
to be discarded when they go blunt or start shocking the hand that holds
them once their structural insulation is shot. America discards its tools so
frequently I’m amazed that any of the idjits still grovel to us. All of
these arguments about ’stability’ or ‘better development’ are simply post
facto self-deception for obviously odious practices. Every so often someone
in power has a snootful and says the truth: they’re our sonsabitches, and
that is the only reason we back them, because nobody else would debase
themselves to be ‘ours.’
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324555#respond>
bill wilson says:
February 13, 2011 at 8:24
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324563>

“If you leave out East Asia, you see that poor democracies have grown 50
percent more rapidly, on average, during this period.”

Yikes – if you leave out the evidence that does not support your point then
all the evidence supports you!

C’mon this is a load of crap.

The key point is missed. There is economic freedom and there is political
freedom. For development, economic freedom is far more important (the poster
child being China). Benevolent dictators that promote economic progress,
with not too much corruption, are the superior option at early levels of
development.

Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines and the list goes on of
countries that got democratic political reforms (over economic ones), and
have not turned out so well.

Look at Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore as countries that eventually got
political freedoms, long after they got economic freedoms.

I would submit that even in Egypt that it was the lack of economic freedom
that drove the protests, not the lack of political freedom. It was the
corruption they faced in daily life, as they tried to make a living, that
was the real driver.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324563#respond>
Sufferin' Succotash <http://laughinghistorian.blogspot.com/> says:
February 13, 2011 at 9:33
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324587>

So I suppose all those people in Tahrir Square were just kidding us with
those demands for political reform.
Economic and political freedoms don’t exist on different planets. People who
constantly have to pay off public officials in order to make a living are
the victims of both political and economic oppression. That’s particularly
the case when any complaining about corruption could easily land them in the
slammer. It seems that the primitive child-like Egyptians were capable of
connecting the dots between the lack of civil liberties and the abridgment
of economic opportunities.
I wonder if the people who advocate economic development first-democracy
later ever bother to look at, well, American history. The US wasn’t exactly
an economic powerhouse when the Constitution was enacted–far from it.
But somehow this country managed to become a leading industrial nation
despite putting the cart before the horse by widening the suffrage and
democratizing the political system in the early 19th century. That’s what
happens when you don’t read your Huntington & Lipset.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324587#respond>
Dan Duncan says:
February 13, 2011 at 9:58
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324603>

The underlying premise of this piece of garbage is GW’s opening line:
“America has a long-standing pattern of supporting dictators, instead of
democracies, in developing countries.”

And what does our esteemed blogger offer as support for this assertion?

A link back to his own freaking blog.

And what lurks in GW’s own blog to actually underpin his assertion? A
headline–written by GW– that Israel, Saudi and US leaders say Arabs aren’t
ready for democracy.

That’s it.

This guy is such a joke.

Hey George do you have anything–any support beyond a reference back to
something else you wrote–to advance this incredibly broad, ill-defined
statement that the US supports dictators INSTEAD of democracies? [Not "in
addition" to democracies, but "instead of"]

Can you reconcile your position that the “US should only support
democracies” with US involvement in the UN? By your rationale, the US should
withdraw support to the UN because the majority of UN members are neither
politically nor economically “free”. [
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=505]

Should the UN boot non-democracies from its membership? Or is your position
that only the US that should not be supporting non-democracies…but it’s
perfectly OK for Germany, France, Canada, etc., etc…?

While were on the subject: Did you know that since 2000 about 95 percent of
U.N. member states that receive U.S. assistance have voted AGAINST the
United States most of the time in the U.N. General Assembly on non-consensus
votes? That seems inconsistent with your overall position that the US is
primarily in the business of supporting dictators that will only advance US
interests. What gives? And why do you invoke the UN as a valid source of
international law, when the UN Security Council is comprised of such
Democratic luminaries like China, Russia and Nigeria?
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324603#respond>

- Birch says:
February 13, 2011 at 10:52
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324636>

   I’m no expert, but I know there’s a lot of evidence out there if you’re
   interested in looking. Chile and Nicaragua pop into my head as simple
   examples where the U.S. was key in deposing a democratically elected local
   government and replacing it with a military dictatorship.
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324636#respond>
    - Psychoanalystus says:
      February 13, 2011 at 4:32
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324765>

Let us not forget Haiti also.

      Psychoanalystus
       Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324765#respond>
       - Funny-Uncle Sam says:
   February 13, 2011 at 11:37
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324647>

   The world trusts Russia more than the US because it’s Russia standing up
   for the UN Charter, supreme law of the land in America, when the US breaks
   it and commits an act of aggression in Iraq. It’s Iran fighting executive
   impunity while the US is trying to destroy the ICC. God Bless America is a
   pariah state, buying friends as their money runs out, killing all the wogs
   they can’t buy, pissing away the last of their influence. The civilized
   world outnumbers you. It’s democracy, get over it.
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324647#respond>
    - Paul Repstock says:
   February 13, 2011 at 1:24
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324681>

   Actually Dan, you bring up a good point. Perhaps the UN should be
   examined, as should the US position within it. Since the formation of the
   UN, the United States has held a disproportionate influence over that body,
   and has in recent times refused to fund it’s share of the UN budget???

   The US has set the policies of this body by bribing or threatening member
   states, (remember the Coalition of the Willing)and “You are either with ‘us’
   or against ‘us’. And the “Axis of Evil”, and economic sanctions.

   If as you clain 95% of the UN members voted against the US positions, how
   did the American policies always get implemented. It sounds like the UN is
   not itself a “Democratic organization”.
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324681#respond>

Birch says:
February 13, 2011 at 10:46
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324632>

The idea that democracy is only plausible when people start getting wealthy
is pretty twisted. I guess it goes along with the concept of democracy as
(mis)representative democracy that we know too well. Democracy, particularly
direct demorcracy, works better according to how equally wealth is
distributed. If everybody is poor, this is arguably where democracy has the
most potential. By allowing (perhaps even encouraging) a system of direct
democracy in an impoverished state, instead of creating and funding a
central elite to guarantee inequality, you would see a general improvement
in global social and economic structure.

But elites like other elites to fraternize with. What is the intent of
‘western’ foreign policy? Do they actually have any desire to improve the
economic or social well-being of their ‘third world’ economic colonies? Do
they even want to improve the ‘third world’ within their own nations? The
real story is in their action, not their rhetoric. Their existance depends
upon inequality.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324632#respond>
rd says:
February 13, 2011 at 10:51
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324634>

In general, I believe GW’s assertion, although there is a lot of scatter as
there would be in any large data set.

Dominican Republic and Costa Rica are two key anecdotes in the Western
Hemisphere. They have both been reasonable democracies for 15 years or more
and can be benchmarked against immediately adjacent countries that have not
been true democracies (most totalitarian regimes always have elections). The
differences are striking, nothing more so that Dominican Republic and Haiti
on the same island subject to the same natural events.

Unfortunately, I think that the big geo-political games that the US tries to
play often backfire after several decades. Initially it was against
communist regimes after WWII and then switched over to Islamic regimes over
the past 30 years. The US has been locking in authroitarian regimes but over
time those become unstable. Historically, when they blow the “enemy” is
often the only really organized group with external funding who can step in
an fill the breach like Iran in 1979.

Somehow, we need to figure out how to have our purported “values” enshrined
in the Constitution exported to these other countries. Mere words don’t do
it while we are arming the forces supporting the totalitarian states.

I hope that Egypt can come out of this with something like a democratic,
generally secular system. Hopefully, the US trained militiary will allow and
help guide this process instead of simply positioning another strongman who
can them battel against radical Islamicists instead of having an overall
society innoculated against extremism.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324634#respond>
nonclassical says:
February 13, 2011 at 11:03
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324638>

..reading Perkins’ book, “Confessions of An Economic Hit Man” provides most
answers…also, Naomi Klein’s book, “The Shock Doctrine-The Rise of Disaster
Capitalism”, and the TRUE historical CIA documentation by William Blum,
“Killing
Hope”..

those of us who poly-sci’d our way through 70’s and 80’s learned the lesson
from Central and South America exploitation..original “Sept. 11th”,
1973=Anaconda Copper.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324638#respond>
Sufferin' Succotash <http://laughinghistorian.blogspot.com/> says:
February 13, 2011 at 11:20
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324646>

Is there any need really to export democratic “values”, however defined?
It’s not as if countries like Egypt or Iran are totally innocent of what
goes to make up a democracy. Egyptians and Iranians can read, after all, and
both countries have had free elections and periods of political liberty on
previous occasions. The development of democracy around the world over the
past two centuries isn’t just about us.
Maybe it’s more of a question of refraining from exporting the means of
repression, eh? No more SAVAKs, no more tear-gas canisters stamped Made In
USA, etc..
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324646#respond>
Deus-DJ says:
February 13, 2011 at 11:50
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324654>

Dear LORD that’s another book I need to get….this thesis actually falls
straight in line with the concept of regulation(it is a FUNCTION! of
democracy) and thus INHERENTLY describes issues of equity. Thus development
and democracy ARE! inherently linked.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324654#respond>
Paul Repstock says:
February 13, 2011 at 1:33
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324683>

Is the name of Cuba so taboo, it cannot even be mentioned here? On the
surface Cuba would seem to be counter supporting evidence for some of the
‘anti dictator’ argument. However, this evidence needs to be examined in
context. Cuba without Fidel Castro would have immediatly reverted to an
American colony. The somewhat limited sucesses of Cuba are remarkable
considering the virtual blockade the have enjoyed since the revolution.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324683#respond>

- attempter <http://attempter.wordpress.com/> says:
February 13, 2011 at 4:57
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324785>

Here’s the most incredible thing one can read about Cuba, and about
agriculture.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/090119koont.php

   That blockade, by partially protecting them from neoliberalism, is the
   best thing they have going for them.
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324785#respond>

Jimbo says:
February 13, 2011 at 1:35
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324684>

Halperin says, “arguments that the current president of Mexico is making
about his possible successor. These poor decisions would mean that
development would not occur”

Well, that president was Fox, and he was referring to AMLO, who the Mexican
oligarchy fraudulently deprived of the presidency in 2006.

And what is this development they speak of? Since 1982, when Mexico embraced
an economic agenda that would make the GOP blush, GDP/Capita has grown at an
annual clip of 0.5%.

0.5% a year is what Halperin is defending.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324684#respond>

- Paul Repstock says:
February 13, 2011 at 1:47
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324688>

   Yep! And if you remove; corn turned into ethanol instead of tortillas,
   Foreign mineral exploitation, and drug wars, GDP would probably have shrunk
   by 10%??
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324688#respond>

Brian says:
February 13, 2011 at 2:02
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324693>

To be the less academic, USA supports American capitalist enterprise in
countries at the point of military intervention whether or not democracies.
USA awaits to prepare the bogus situation in Canada to invade western Canada
for its rich oil and gas resources.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324693#respond>

- Psychoanalystus says:
February 13, 2011 at 4:45
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324775>

   The US tried numerous times in the past to invade Canada, and got its ass
   kicked every time. This country is not only completely bankrupt financially
   and morally, but it is also little more than a paper tiger militarily. Our
   military is so weak, our “heroes” so high on drugs and narcissism, our state
   of the art weapons so useless and malfunctioning, we would not be able to
   conquer Easter Island if called upon. Canada would kick our ass so bad, we
   would not know what happened to us… but I am sure the corporate media would
   spin it as to appear like a glorious victory.

   Psychoanalystus
    Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324775#respond>
    - Paul Repstock says:
      February 13, 2011 at 9:35
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324955>

      Sadly Psycho; Canada has a legacy of politician who may be even more
      corrupt than yours. It is probably no even necessary to “invade
Canada” note
      that I still capitalize the name for sentimental reasons.
However, we have
      been sold for little more than 30 pieces of silver. Sadly, most Canadians
      are either oblivious or in denial…:(

http://freecanada.wordpress.com/
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324955#respond>

Schofield says:
February 13, 2011 at 2:22
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324700>

As Deng Xiaoping ought to have said:-

“When foxes are allowed to design hen-houses the common good is never
wrought large.”

Instead of:-

“Does it matter what color the cat is as long as it catches mice?”
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324700#respond>
katie says:
February 13, 2011 at 2:24
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324701>

the US supports dictatorships because dictatorships will *always* funnel
monetized profits upwards to the top, where the other global elites can
share in the booty, either through tax haven pirate banking arrangements,
provision of escape routes and hideouts as needed, and business
opportunities for the dictator’s family and cronies.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324701#respond>
nonclassical says:
February 13, 2011 at 4:23
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324760>

..one could postulate Cuba voided U.S. exploitation, and as such (since end
of Russian influence at least) has been an experiment..not a totally
unsuccessful one, given where they
were prior. Venezuela-Chavez might be a better model today-
especially after Bushit attempted destabilization, which continues.

Reading Perkin’s book, we find no less than 4 South American
democratically elected leaders gotten rid of, dictators implanted. I concur
with Richard Kline and Psychoanalytus,
who properly delineate William Blum’s work, and Perkins’ analysis-”Killing
Hope”-”Confessions of An Economic Hit Man”.

But as many here have commented recently, Naomi Klein’s model in “The Shock
Doctrine”, of destabilization obviously
is at work today, inside the U.S. as well as Middle-East.
We should all realize from Bush I, who told us he would not
depose Saddam, as that would destabilize the Middle-East…he could have gone
on to state destabilization of U.S. as well…but as Kevin Phillips shows in
“American Dynasty”, Bush I was not comfortable with family transition
to “finance” economics…(from military-industrial complex)
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324760#respond>
Deus-DJ <http://speakandactnow.blogspot.com/> says:
February 13, 2011 at 6:16
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324839>

Actually let me give some insight on this economic model that supports
dictators. I mentioned it in my earlier comment, but the basic mode of
analysis that makes this even more explicit is academic economics and its
contempt for democracy. The entire point of the public choice theory of
regulation was to say that price should be the sole mechanism to determine
everything. What’s even more dangerous about this than just your standard
neoclassical argument is that it’s also an argument against regulation(its
answer is that regulation picks winners and losers, and thus regulation
always does the opposite of what it is supposed to do).

The most essential thing to realize when listening to this theory is that
regulation has historically been a function of democracy. Thus, democracies
try to deal with problems moreso than dictatorships. That this answer to
this problem is then responded to with a “regulation is bad” argument shows
the true analysis at work: democracy is bad. That there are constant forces
at work to undermine the rule of law and regulation in general shows that
neoclassical economics is inherently anti-democratic and pro-dictator(as
long as that dictator allows a “free market”.

Professor Bill Black could give a more clear argument(in article form)
effectively showing this. I may ask him to write one.
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324839#respond>
scharfy says:
February 13, 2011 at 7:48
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324901>

GW posts on Chemtrails, links Alex Jones, cites himself multiple times,
rants about shortages of bumble bee’s, the military changing the weather,
and generally every far-left loon conspiracy theory under the sun. He also
is a rank truther.

Is he paying for posting privileges?
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324901#respond>
eric says:
February 13, 2011 at 9:18
pm<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-324947>

This analysis makes a lot of sense to me in theory, but I am made more than
a little uneasy by the offhand ignoring of East Asia. I mean, come on… How
can you just ignore the most significant example of the past couple of
hundred years?
Reply<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html?replytocom=324947#respond>
Paul Jurczak says:
February 14, 2011 at 3:52
am<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/guest-post-the-faulty-economic-development-model-behind-americas-support-for-dictators-instead-of-democracies.html#comment-325127>

“… we shouldn’t be pushing democracy until these countries reach per capita
incomes of $6,000 a year. If we were to do that, of today’s eighty-seven
democratizers, only four would qualify as being ready. That would exclude
the Baltics, Costa Rica, Poland, South Africa, and many others.”

This is not consistent with facts. Per capita GDPs (2010):
Estonia $14,400
Poland $12,300
Lithuania $11,600
Latvia $11,300
South Africa $6,710
Costa Rica $6,400

----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----

New Message	Reply	About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view