Friday, May 12, 2006
The linkage between economic and political freedom
Zimbabwe v. Nicaragua: Who ya got?
There are economic lessons from history, including contemporary history, that left-wingers-- almost unanimously-- do not seem to grasp. Or even care to attempt to grasp. Tax relief, property rights, GDP growth, and economic freedom mean nothing to these socialists, if the menace of "inequality" persists.
18 Comments:
By 
cakreiz, at
Fri May 12, 11:34:00 AM:
Hopefully, in the not too distant future, Cuba's economic growth and political liberties graphs will model Nicaragua's. One can only imagine the prosperity that Havana would've enjoyed had political and economic freedoms been present.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri May 12, 03:06:00 PM:
I'm not sure why you're attacking the left because Nicaragua is having more growth than Zimbabwe...
Is Mugabe a Democrat? What are you trying to prove here?
"Tax relief, property rights, GDP growth, and economic freedom mean nothing to these socialists, if the menace of "inequality" persists."
I think tax relief is fantastic. How about some relief for the middle class? Property rights are super, just super. GDP Growth is all well and good, very nice. Economic freedom is great, too. I'm all for it. Somehow I end up being a "socialist" anyway. Is that because I desire environmental regulations, health care, and small business incentives? Funny, I thought socialists fell a bit further to the left than me.
I guess we dumb lefties don't even know our own minds. Good things there's super smarties out there to tell me that, although I support capitalism, property rights, GDP Growth, and tax relief, I'm a socialist. I suppose I ought to haul myself into the yard and declare war on myself. Thank you, Mr. Tigerhawk, for opening my eyes.
Ridiculous.
By the way, any comment at all on President 29% Approval Rating? NSA scandal? Dusty Foggo? Porter Goss? The Governor of Kentucky? General Hayden? Karl Rove's imminent indictment? Or are you too busy figuring out how to call an entrepreneur like me a socialist?
Thought so.
I'll be getting back to something relevant now.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri May 12, 03:28:00 PM:
I assure you, Screwy, that in the writing of this post -- which can hardly be called writing -- I gave you a moment's thought.
As for that other stuff, why should I care? Why would anybody care about the low approval rating of a president in his second term? I'm not even sure I don't want the Dems to pick up at least one House of Congress this fall. Sheesh.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Fri May 12, 03:28:00 PM:
Screwy, off your meds today? What in TH's post did you see as a personal attack?
By TigerHawk, at
Fri May 12, 03:29:00 PM:
"I didn't give you a moment's thought."
There's really not much more humiliating than snark riddled with error.
By allen, at
Fri May 12, 03:48:00 PM:
Facts! Facts! Facts! That's all you people care about. Well, what about feelings? You know, there's no accounting for feelings.
See! That's exactly what I mean. I'm on this site for two seconds and already I'm brainwashed and talking about accounting and double entry bookkeeping. There ought to be a law!
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri May 12, 03:55:00 PM:
Which House would you like to see them pick up, Hawk? Will you be voting for Democrats?
The President's approval ratings don't matter? Come on.
I didn't think you gave me a moment's thought. The stupidity of saying that all lefties are socialists isn't something I'd expect to find you highlight. It's, as I said, ridiculous.
Which Democratic policy areas attract you?
This has suddenly become a terrifically relevant discussion.
By 
, at
Fri May 12, 04:34:00 PM:
A couple of other factors to consider in the Zimbawe data:
1st big dip in 1982 corresponds to factional violence and the suppression by Mugabe and his supporters of a rival independence movement.
Steady growth in mid to late 80s corresponds to increased multinational investment and development aid and corresponding divestment from apartheid South Africa.
1992 plunge (I was there, then) corresponded to worst drought in 25 years and the first year that AIDS orphans reached 1 million (out a total population of 11 million).
Mugabe's increasing despotism, sabre rattling and land grabs, along with disinvestment from Zimbabwe and reinvestment in the larger, South African market, have driven everything down since then. Both divestment and Mugabe's policies were mutually reenforcing.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri May 12, 05:20:00 PM:
What Democratic policy areas attract me? Hmmm... That's a toughie.
I'm pretty liberal on social matters, so I would say:
1. I support gay marriage.
2. I am a supporter of lawful abortion (although I think that we would all be better off if Roe were reversed, but that's just a guess).
3. I would take a treatment approach to drugs, rather than a prosecutorial one.
4. I am a technocrat on bioethics matters -- I really have no problem with fetal stem cell research.
5. I would substantially reduce the federal deficit, which the Democrats claim to favor. I would probably do it with different taxes and spending cuts than Democrats would generally support, although if President Gore proposed a carbon tax I would get behind it.
6. In foreign policy, I do agree that we should work harder to create the impression that we give a damn what meaningless European countries think.
With a few drinks in me, I could probably think of some other stuff.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri May 12, 05:20:00 PM:
What Democratic policy areas attract me? Hmmm... That's a toughie.
I'm pretty liberal on social matters, so I would say:
1. I support gay marriage.
2. I am a supporter of lawful abortion (although I think that we would all be better off if Roe were reversed, but that's just a guess).
3. I would take a treatment approach to drugs, rather than a prosecutorial one.
4. I am a technocrat on bioethics matters -- I really have no problem with fetal stem cell research.
5. I would substantially reduce the federal deficit, which the Democrats claim to favor. I would probably do it with different taxes and spending cuts than Democrats would generally support, although if President Gore proposed a carbon tax I would get behind it.
6. In foreign policy, I do agree that we should work harder to create the impression that we give a damn what meaningless European countries think.
With a few drinks in me, I could probably think of some other stuff.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri May 12, 06:48:00 PM:
Thanks, Hawk.
Your comment helped me remember a post you wrote back in January I believe. It was a list of things you believed, and it sparked quite a conversation as I recall.
By cakreiz, at
Fri May 12, 10:01:00 PM:
I recall the same post, Screwy- and I agreed with it then. TH's list here is easily something a slightly right-leaning centrist can endorse. But try throwing in 'strong military' and watch progressive's scramble for the doors.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat May 13, 07:40:00 AM:
cakreiz,
You consider yourself a centrist. It's nice to put a name to the name.
Strong military, in the current environment, means never questioning any military spending at all. That's the problem we progressives run into. I'd like to see a lot of military earmarks, like missile defense, be cut out of the budget. I'm for a military that's peerless in the world but not one that gets to do whatever the hell it wants. For some, I become a weak peacenik at this point.
With the money we've spent in Iraq, we could have a fully functional national health security program. Everyone in America covered. But, unless I support this unnecessary war, I'm somehow "weak" on the "War on Terror".
By cakreiz, at
Sat May 13, 08:39:00 AM:
Screwy: I'm not speaking in terms of the "current environment". I'm speaking of a historic progressive distrust of the military. I'm remember the slanderous attacks in the mid-80s on Reagan's medium-range missle policy in Europe. It was going to undermine peace and world stability. He was a deranged cowboy. I never voted for Reagan but always respected his use of strength against the Russians.
I remember the 1991 Gulf War Senate vote- where 49 Dem senators opposed Bush the Senior's plan to stop Saddam's incursion into Kuwait (Al Gore sided with Bush, interestingly).
I remember George McGovern's call for unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam. [I had mixed feelings about it since I was sitting in Travis AFB on election day '72, waiting for a flight over.]
There's a reason that the Democrats don't have big thinkers in the foreign policy/military arena (Biden, perhaps?). Misgivings, mistrust, general disdain of the military are common. I'm not taking partisan shots. Military might makes the left uncomfortable.
You speak of military waste, and I agree. Don Rumsfeld has advocated a leaner, meaner military for decades. But I don't think he's your guy.
I'm sick about the cost of the War. I'm hopeful that it'll somehow be worthwhile, though I'm apprehensive about it. But since we chose to take out Saddam, we owe the Iraqis a chance for stability (Powell's Pottery Barn view was always right.)
You can pay lip service to "a military that's peerless in the world" (for you personally that may be true). But historically, it hasn't been true of the left.
By cakreiz, at
Sat May 13, 09:52:00 AM:
Sorry about the pseudo-rant, Screwy. Evan Bayh sums up my thoughts nicely:
"If you ask me why we lost the last presidential election, I’d say . . . it was because of our perceived problems with national security [ . . . ] The American people [ . . . are] not going to trust us on [health care, education, the environment, jobs] if they don’t first trust us with their lives."
By cakreiz, at
Sat May 13, 10:18:00 AM:
Rumsfeld's not my guy either. His "leaner meaner" concept was misapplied to an occupation.
Colin Powell's my guy. He shoulda been president. His intelligence, demeanor and views are what we need in the executive branch.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat May 13, 10:34:00 AM:
Ooh, cakreiz, you lost me there. Colin Powell is perhaps the most overrated person in the United States, if not the world. True, the press looks upon him kindly, but one gets the sense that is because he rarely makes a decision without leaking a hedge to Bob Woodward.
By cakreiz, at
Sat May 13, 11:45:00 AM:
He's always calm, considered, reasoned and smart, TH. I just prefer his deliberate approach. And I think he would've been more cautious about going into Iraq- which mirrored my view at the time.
