Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on April 17, 2003, 03:33:42 PM
-
Good article on democracy and economics.
Should Iraq Be Democratized? (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1210&month=55&title=Should+Iraq+Be+Democratized%3F&id=55)
Economists at the University of Freiberg, like Wilhelm Roepke and Ludwig Erhard, implemented free-market reforms after attaining posts in the interim government. In the summer of 1948, German inflation ceased, price controls disappeared or became ineffective, taxes fell and the tax code became simpler and flatter.
These reforms yielded excellent results. The barter system collapsed as people returned to monetary exchange. Absenteeism fell from 9.5 hours a week (May 1948) to 4.3 hours per week (October 1948). Production was at 51% of 1936 levels in June 1948. By December it rose to 78%—a 50% increase in a few months. Per capita productivity tripled following these reforms.
As for the Marshall program, this aid amounted to only 2 billion through 1954. Even at its peak it was less than 5% of German G.D.P. Reparations amounted to over 1 billion, thus negating most Marshall aid. Germany did avoid having to fund its' own national defense during these years. However, the Allies charged post-war Germany 2.4 billion dollars for defense. The German economic revival derived from radical privatization and deregulation, not the Marshall plan. Free-market reforms propelled West Germany into the prosperity and rapid development that it enjoyed during the 50's and early sixties.
What would have happened if West Germany had adopted democracy early on? The Marshall plan would have been the same, but not the Erhard/Roepke plan. The social democratic party opposed the Erhard/Roepke reforms. Party representatives, like Kreyssig, argued that price decontrol and currency reform would not work. The socialists in Germany eventually succeeded in reinstituting extensive intervention into the German economy, though not as much as under Hitler.
It is quite obvious that a nation that focuses on transferring wealth among its' citizens must be poor relative to nations that focus on producing wealth. There is no doubt that the U.S. government has respected property rights better than most other countries in history. It is also the case that many special interests use the U.S. government to transfer wealth from those who have earned it. While the exact reasons remain unclear, some democracies manage to avoid becoming poverty ridden transfer states, while others manage to fend off transfers well enough to enable continued development. What reasons do we have to believe that Iraq will follow the example of the U.S., rather than that of India?
Iraq is a poor nation with no prior experience with free markets. The Iraqi people will therefore not benefit from an entrenched system of property rights and free enterprise. Of course, this does not mean that the Iraqis cannot choose to adopt free markets, but why should we expect them to? Have the Iraqi people learned about the efficiency of free markets? Do they appreciate the natural rights of man to life, liberty, and property?
Most governments in history have been nondemocratic. Some of these nondemocratic governments have worked well. Recent experiences with Hong Kong, West Germany, and Japan have shown that people who survive war and escape tyranny can benefit from a lack of democracy. Since the results of adopting democracy are at least in question, and the likely requisites for success under democracy seem in doubt with Iraq, Bush and Blair would be wise to consider delaying their plans for democratizing Iraq. It might be better for the Iraqis to experience free enterprise first and democracy later.
miko
-
miko, you are confusing democracy (small d ) with "The Social Democratic Party" a political party that would like a authoritarian govt, like the old USSR, with price controls etc etc.
the only good thing is miko has absolutely no control over international policy.
PS. "french toast' has been renamed "french are toast", as in "i would like a order of french are toast."
-
MIko;
I know you didn't write that article but that you posted it is to your credit. But, I have some questions.
Germany and Japan are not democracies? What kind of governments are they?. Aren't those government's based upon elected representatives? Don't they form coalitions to elect Prime Ministers much like the UK. I don't think that democracy needs to be american democracy.
What I do wish for Iraq is that they too be allowed to benefit from a market economy. That they have shops that sell, and people that buy, they already have the basics of supply and demand. What they need to replace are the distributors, the wholesalers, etc.
I was once told by an Austrian Philosophy Professor that in Soviet Russia, when plots of land were parceled out for peasants to grow their own food, what happend was that they quickly saw that some were better at growing things, some were better at distributing things, etc. So, they got together and the ones that needed help "paid" the ones that were good farmers to farm their plot. They were paid in a percentage of the food from that plot. Sounds like free enterprise to me.
Iraq is an advanced society with many educated people. They have been oppressed for several decades by a totalitarian regime that crushed anything that could threaten it. Free enterprise makes for monied people, and that threatened the regime.
I think they will have some form of democracy and it may be very very different from other wesern democracies. i.e., Turkey is largely muslim and has a democracy very different from the U.S. My bet is that, when given the chance, they will also adopt some form of free enterprise economy and then will form some type of democracy because free enterpise can only truly survive and flourish in a democratic regime.
-
maybe it should be worded: CAN iraq be democratized?
-
I've not heard anyone say that we are installing an American style of government in Iraq. Pretty much everyone agrees that it wouldn't work.
I'm just curious to see what happens in regards to a region with Kurds, Shiites and whatever other race/sect is at feudal odds with another.
MiniD
-
Technically speaking, true democracy in Iraq is impossible. It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.
-
Miko is asking how quickly iraq should be democratrized. Post war germany was intially run by the US military and they implemente various reforms that set the stage for a succesful long term market system and long term democracy.
My biggest fear is that we will pack up and leave too soonwithout doing the right things to ensure iraq will be stable market democracy in 10 years time. Unfortunately I think this could happend because everyone wants the USA out soon and we all know the UN will fail as it always does and nobody will trust russia/france/germany to make iraq a democracy. Only america can do this.
For example. Lets say the USA oversees iraqi administtrsation of oil sales and uses the proceeds to rebuld and stabiolize iraq to make sure the country is ok. This is precisely the right thing to do and the only logical choice becuse free market ownership of the oil by irqi companies is unlikely in the short term and the money is need nationally to rebuild and buy food and medicine. But the second this happends blitz and the usa haters will jum all over us for STEALING THE OIL!!! Of cousres they will again propose no other solution to help the iraqi people rebulid but they wont an opportunty to bash the USA..
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Technically speaking, true democracy in Iraq is impossible. It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.
Wht does this mean? Can you cite examples? Give evidence? Do you expect that democracy will happened in two weeks after enduring 25 years of dictaorship? I know what you want you want another weimar so that in 20 years iraq is a nutcase country again and you can go on some BBS and spout how you knew that the USA was evil and wrong all this time...
OMG Holy crap it just dawned on me, are you reffering to the recent saddam hussein 99% yes vote?
You cant be, not even you, right?
-
MIKO I DIDNT READ ANY OF THIS CRAP..GIMME SOEM MORE tANK sTORIES pLEASE:)
sALUTE
BiGB
StuPid totally tubular Caps Lok
-
good question
-
The one thing that ww2 did for Germany was to highlight and train its people in their industrial/manufacturing capabilities. German engineering and manufacturing blossomed during the war and the only thing that set them back was their defeat. The specialized skillset was still there. The bashing of the marshall plan makes the assumption that the money it received paled in comparison to the gross national product of Germany, though the Marshall plan was responsible for much of the equipment used to generate that GNP.
Iraq is a somewhat different situation. Well... a drastically different situation. It does not have the engineering and manufacturing skills that Germany had during its economic recovery. Basically, the only hope is that someone comes in and infuses money without wanting much in return (except maybe oil).
Basically, the economic situation over there is somewhat bleak. If these two gentlemen can figure out how to turn a near third world nation into a prospering industrial one, I'm sure everyone would be interested. Right now, it seems as if most of the world is only concerned with their oil and how to make money (either for Iraq or themselves) from it. This doesn't really do much to better the economy of the nation, though it will help greatly in rebuilding it.
Dunno... just like comparing Germany to Iraq in regards to "the Berlin wall"... I think this comparison is somewhat silly. Germany built itself during the war. It only had to be rebuilt afterwards. Iraq still needs the initial construction.
MiniD
-
Good points, Mini D. And that was a very interesting article Miko.
Islam and fundementalist Muslims are resistant to democratic concepts to the point of considering it to be a sin against Allah. Nationalism is also a sin. They believe that no man or men should rule them, only Allah via the Qur'an and the scholars who interpret it.
I originally thought that since Iraq is considered "secular" that it was one of the better candidates for democracy. But there are a whole bunch of Muslim hardliners surrounding Iraq that consider Iraq to be Muslim land. Iraqis themselves, free from an Islamic apostate ruler and a secular government could snap back in a backlash into fundemental extremism, like the Taliban, if left alone.
I still think Iraq has a chance to eventually become democratic, but I think its gonna take a looong time. I'd be extremely happy for now if they got a healthy economy going, based on the free market.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Technically speaking, true democracy in Iraq is impossible. It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.
As I remember it, the deposed leader of Iraq was installed in power thru assination and coup. So to make the assertion that the US did not approve of the Iraqi's choice of their democratically elected government is an incorrect premise.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wht does this mean? Can you cite examples? Give evidence? Do you expect that democracy will happened in two weeks after enduring 25 years of dictaorship?
It means that the Iraqis will have to elect a government that the US government approves of.
Examples of US deposing/attempting to depose governments it doesn't approve of: The whole cold war deal, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua... the list is vast. In Iraq itself - the CIA is implicated in the assassination of the Iraqi prime minister General Abd-al-Karim Kassem (shortly after he helped start OPEC and announced he would nationalize the oil companies) this lead to a short bout of Baath party rule & a huge bloodbath of killing communists - whose names were supplied by the CIA. In 1968 the CIA covertly supported Baathist General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakrand's coup which meant that the Baath party regained power. The US was of course much more overt in overthrowing the Baath party and Saddam Hussein of course.
No, I don't expect democracy in two weeks. I reckon democracy in two decades would be pushing it for Iraq - the rivalries of powerful tribal, ethnic and religious groups will probably lead to instability, fragmentation into smaller states or, at worst, civil war if the democracy thing is pushed. If the democracy thing isn't pushed, it may well turn into an Iran-like theocracy run by shi'ites.
OMG Holy crap it just dawned on me, are you reffering to the recent saddam hussein 99% yes vote?
You cant be, not even you, right?
No. I was just stating what's been made fairly obvious - if the US doesn't like the new government it'll probably depose it - it doesn't matter much how they got it.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As I remember it, the deposed leader of Iraq was installed in power thru assination and coup. So to make the assertion that the US did not approve of the Iraqi's choice of their democratically elected government is an incorrect premise.
As I remember it, the coups and assassinations were US backed and/or funded (see above). I personally don't think it makes that much difference to the US government how the Iraqis get the government. But I'm willing to conceed it might (it's a much harder sell for a start)- hence I said "technically". However I say "technically" because even if your assumption is correct, I reckon the Iraqi's are going to be betting that it doesn't matter to the US government - after all, the US has funded/backed or just plain turned up and done it themselves for 3 major overthrows in Iraq. Each time the government was overthrown, the US government did not approve of that Iraqi government. Coincidence? Well it might be, but I don't think so. Operation Iraqi Freedom in my opinion just reinforces this message to Iraq: "Your country's government will only be allowed to operate if the US approves." But even that's a step up from Hussein, I suppose.
-
No you did not say it woud PROBABLY depose it, you said:
It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.
Seems to me you are just trying to weazel your way out of the stupidity of wht you said.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No you did not say it woud PROBABLY depose it, you said:
It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government.
Seems to me you are just trying to weazel your way out of the stupidity of wht you said.
Can't think of a better rebuttal, huh? :D
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Can't think of a better rebuttal, huh? :D
can't think of a better argument, huh?:D
-
Originally posted by Martlet
can't think of a better argument, huh?:D
Can't think of a better rebuttal, huh? :D
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Can't think of a better rebuttal, huh? :D
cant't think of a better argument, huh? :D
-
You said what you said and it was pretty clear that you were talking in the past tense, note the word "has".. This could only mean removal of the saddam government and the fact that you thought it was a legitimately elected one - which is preposterous.
"It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government."
No problem though, I'll just sit back and let you stew seeing how badly (for you) things have gone so far. :D
-
Won't work in Iraq IMO.
Too many different sects that like to take every opportunity they can to shed the blood of a rival sect.
What I have never understood, and probably never will, is that they are all Muslims, correct? They believe in Allah.
Here in the States, we have many various religions, and yet we don't go knocking off people because they are Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc.
The only way I see Iraq ever being a truly peaceful democratic nation is if and when they realize that they are all worshipping the same being, and quit trying to have one sect establish rule over the others.
They may be an "advanced, educated society", but when it comes to their religion and how they treat their fellow Muslims, I see more order in the baboon or chimp cage in the zoo.
-
There has been tons of religious sect violence and problems in the USA. Look at all the trouble the catholics had and also the mormons, yet they all are christians as are the various protestant groups.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You said what you said and it was pretty clear that you were talking in the past tense, note the word "has".. This could only mean removal of the saddam government and the fact that you thought it was a legitimately elected one - which is preposterous.
"It has just been amply demonstrated that if the US government doesn't approve of the Iraqis' election choice, the US will depose that government."
No I was stating that the current Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrates that the next government will most likely be deposed if the US doesn't like it. (I say most likely for fear of offending your oh-so-delicate America No 1 sensiblities) Maybe the semantics are confusing in the first statement - but hey, it was late and I was tired ;). Try adding the word "too" at the end and see how it reads. Besides I did attempt to clarify my stance in my second post, - elucidating that even if the US has no intention of deposing a democratically elected government (an assumption which is not supported by past evidence), the Iraqis will most likely not see it that way. I am of course presuming that the US will attempt to bring some sort of democratic process to the whole thing.
Perhaps a gedankenexperiment will serve to best illustrate the point: the Iraqis get democracy and elect an Ayatollah who calls the US the great Satan, supports Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda, and calls for the development of WMDs. Will the US go "Oh well, it's a democratically elected government. We can't invade them this time."? I think not. Will you be waving a "support Iraqi democracy" banner? Again, I think not. This is, of course is an extreme example - but where exactly do you draw the line? When is an elected government OK? The answer is of course when the US says it is OK. This is why I say technically it is not possible to have true democracy in Iraq.
No problem though, I'll just sit back and let you stew seeing how badly (for you) things have gone so far. :D [/B]
Sorry real life is analogue not binary. Just because I'm against a country invading another without due provocation or a UN mandate, and that I don't think democracy will turn up in Iraq for a long time yet doesn't mean things are going badly for me. Indeed like most people, the war on Iraq hasn't affected me one way or the other. Aside from filling the second half of the news with loads of Iraq coverage, that is. I think Hussein's removal is mostly a good thing, but I think the use of a questionable and technically illegal method is mostly a bad thing.
-
Well if an elected government poses a real threat to the world why wouldnt they be challenged by the world. Hell even the nazi party got to power by winning reichstag seats in the weimar elections - then they just kicked everyone out.
But I dont think we will just depose any govt in iraq just because. Why didnt US forces not stop that religius anti bush anti saddam protest yesterday. You cant say because it would be bad PR as removing a whole govt in a few months time, like you are predicting, will be much worse PR for the USA.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Well if an elected government poses a real threat to the world why wouldnt they be challenged by the world. Hell even the nazi party got to power by winning reichstag seats in the weimar elections - then they just kicked everyone out.
Although come to that the last government wasn't deposed by "the world" and "the world" did not agree that it was a real threat to "the world". Another gedankenexperiment for you: Iraqis elect a secular, socialist reformist government that nationalizes the oil fields, kicks out US businesses, welcomes French contractors and accepts Euros instead of dollars for oil. The Euros for oil thing would pose an enormous threat to the US dollar - which is no longer backed by gold - and ultimately could lead to the US economy crashing and burning. Again would the US get rid of that government or would they preserve Iraqi freedom over their own economic comfort? I'm betting the US would change the government.
But I dont think we will just depose any govt in iraq just because. Why didnt US forces not stop that religius anti bush anti saddam protest yesterday. You cant say because it would be bad PR as removing a whole govt in a few months time, like you are predicting, will be much worse PR for the USA.
I'm not arguing that the US will depose any government - only the ones they really don't like. You seem to be admitting much the same yourself.
As to the protests - bad PR to let them hold it, much worse to stop them - starts looking like you don't care a hoot about their freedom at all - which would lead everyone to suspect it might be an oil thing [Best Basil Fawlty voice] "Whatever you do don't mention the oil. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it." [/Best Basil Fawlty voice]
I'm not predicting the US will remove the Iraqi government in a few months - I'm pointing out that the US holds a military veto over the Iraqi people's choice of government in any upcoming election. And therefore true democracy is impossible in Iraq. Ultimately, the US position (as demonstrated by Operation Iraqi Freedom) is this: the US knows what's best for the Iraqi people - and the Iraqi people will have to comply with what the US feels is best for them or face regime change and its attendant bombings, invasions, military coups, assassinations or whatever.
-
Iraq should be whatever the iraqi people wants as long as their leaders don't bother their own people or anyone else.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Although come to that the last government wasn't deposed by "the world" and "the world" did not agree that it was a real threat to "the world". Another gedankenexperiment for you: Iraqis elect a secular, socialist reformist government that nationalizes the oil fields, kicks out US businesses, welcomes French contractors and accepts Euros instead of dollars for oil. The Euros for oil thing would pose an enormous threat to the US dollar - which is no longer backed by gold - and ultimately could lead to the US economy crashing and burning. Again would the US get rid of that government or would they preserve Iraqi freedom over their own economic comfort? I'm betting the US would change the government.
I'm not arguing that the US will depose any government - only the ones they really don't like. You seem to be admitting much the same yourself.
As to the protests - bad PR to let them hold it, much worse to stop them - starts looking like you don't care a hoot about their freedom at all - which would lead everyone to suspect it might be an oil thing [Best Basil Fawlty voice] "Whatever you do don't mention the oil. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it." [/Best Basil Fawlty voice]
I'm not predicting the US will remove the Iraqi government in a few months - I'm pointing out that the US holds a military veto over the Iraqi people's choice of government in any upcoming election. And therefore true democracy is impossible in Iraq. Ultimately, the US position (as demonstrated by Operation Iraqi Freedom) is this: the US knows what's best for the Iraqi people - and the Iraqi people will have to comply with what the US feels is best for them or face regime change and its attendant bombings, invasions, military coups, assassinations or whatever.
The first thing wont happend. I dont know why you and miko bring up the ridiculous idea that people, especially oil producers, will stop accepting dollars thereby cutting themselves off from the worlds largest oil market. Remember another one of the things that makes amreeka so evil is our disproportionate use of energy resouces like oil compared to our population. BTW you cant use the gold standard argument and the arab oil embargo argument at the same time, the gold standard folks argue that the oil shortage was caused by dollar not being valued against gold and not by any action of the arabs. But go ahead and belive that this will happend if it makes you feel better. I think that any iraqi oil production for the next few years will be nationanalized and thats exactly what the USA is intending to do, the proceeds from oil sales will be used to stabilize and rebuild iraq, they will be used for the benift of the iraqi people. But of course you think we will somehow magically "steal" the oil dont ya? So yes it most likely will be nationalized. I am sure any post saddam government will warmly welcome french russian and german companies as those countries lead the way for their liberation and stopping husseins beloved regime.
Yes the old regime was deposed by the world, a coalition of some 50 countries supported ur efforts. More european countries suported our efforts than did not. The countries who opposed us were mainly those with enormouus self interest in seeing saddam hussein stay in power. The UN, as an entity on to itself, had a vested interest in keeping the saddam govt in place because the UN's handling of the oil for food program netted them hundereds of millions in profits. Did every country agree, of course not. But you never have everyone agree do you?
What I was sayoing was that if any iraqi govt grew over time to pose a threat to world security like saddams the usa as a world power would have to deal with nit in some way. Now of course all of you would then say, you evil USA cant confront them because you made the election happend that elected them or something like that...
If you think we did not stop the protests because of bad PR how bad a PR would we get if we anulled an election? You cant have it both ways. And I think you are wrong anyway, the protests were outstanding PR for the USA, remember we were there in part to liberate the Iraqi people - those thousands of Iraqi demonstrators seemed pretty damn liberated to me. But of course you only focus on the negatives because of your prejudice towards the USA.
"the US knows what's best for the Iraqi people - and the Iraqi people will have to comply with what the US feels is best for them or face regime change and its attendant bombings, invasions, military coups, assassinations or whatever."
Is that how the USA acted in rebulding Japan and Germany?