freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 8:08am:


While your European monarchy examples are compelling, there are also clear benefits to autocratic regimes. As a monarchy, Qatar is able to impliment the kind of long-term strategies our own system is unable to do due to our erection cycles.

Quote:


This vision is not a motherhood statement. Qatar's economy is envied by many other oil-states. Through the Al Jazeera network, Qatar has an influence no other country of its size has. Through its lack of tax, it's able to attract investment. As an economy, Qatar punches well above its weight. This is the advantage of resources AND smart investment.

Alas, Australia has the former, but not the latter, and this is the problem with a system that has to buy votes every 3 years.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:


It's an oil economy like the other OPEC countries. All have developed thanks to oil, not Mother or Uncle.

I am definitely not arguing for a benign dictatorship. I'm pointing out the advantages for development in semi-dictatorships, like Russia and China today, and before them, state-managed economies like the Soviet Union.

If we were to follow any form of political system, my ideal would be Northern European social democracy. We have similar resources and demography to a country like Denmark.

If we taxed our resources accordingly, I can't see why we couldn't have a very similar economy and provision of services.

But alas, we have Rupert, an obsequious US alliance, and a far more disengaged political - and social - system.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 2:41pm:


Or demokracy.

Mother knows best, eh?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 2:41pm:


Link please. Also state if muslims made any contribution toward this?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:


The US under the robber barons never really had public debates. The UK of the Corn Laws, or the Poor Laws,  or Triangular Trade never had them either. What you describe as "the stable democracies of the world" developed by quiet deals between private monopolies and their friends in government.

The British East India Company had an army,. At one point, it controlled and administered more people and territory than any state in the world.

In most cases, and the US is the the best example, the monopolies formed, or simply bribed, the government of the day - still do through lobbyists and political donations. Public debate was mediated - is mediated - by the very same monopolies. The Hearsts, General Electric, Rupert.

In the Soviet Union, the same functions were managed by the Party. This wasn’t communism, it was state capitalism. The Party merely administered supply, and where they could, demand. And no, power was not diffused throughout the party. Soviet power was vertical, not lateral.

Australia is a liberal democracy. The Fabian socialism of the ALP and the market liberalism of the Libs generally focuses on supply-side policies. Both major parties see the interest of business as the interest of the nation.

Or as Calvin Coolidge said, the business of Amerika is business.

All the way with Uncle, eh?

Those "key historical victories" were only won when the big monopolies were hit by the Great Depression and the state was forced to act. There are indeed goods and services where monopolies are useful. Most, however, are the result of financial moves and corporate takeovers.

The lessons of those key historical victories were forgotten by the 1980s. The result was the 87 Wall Street crash, which in the US saw the rise of a new phenomenon: offshoring. In Asia, it saw the rise of the tiger economies.

Globalization was ripe for monopolies. In the US, this was what globalization was all about. Amerika designs and promotes the brands, and Asia manufactures them. That was the business model anyway, and to a large extent, this is how it's still played out today,  competition from European and East Asian brands notwithstanding. The US is still number one - until around 2020-something if the predictions of China's rise are accurate.

All countries develop under a form of authoritarianism. Certain rights and freedoms come later. Unions, for example, were illegal in the US until the 1930s.

Adamant wrote on May 10^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:


Yes, I imagine it would be most inconvenient for G to have to answer your question about the Muslim contribution to demokracy in Denmark.

My bet is he keeps mum. You?