The debt limit “crisis” is a classic example of what is wrong and what is right with the U.S. form of government. I am not interested in discussing that particular situation, who is to blame, etc., etc., except to the extent that it illustrates the larger issue. To wit, editorials criticize Congress for pandering to their core constituencies in desperate bids for reelection, rather than doing “what’s right for the country.” Well, wait minute. Isn’t that why we elect people? So they do what we want? What better way to make them do what we want than voting them out when they don’t?
Of course, the American people as a group (or the supporters of either party as a group) are not necessarily a font of wisdom about what is best for the country as a whole. Such groups tend to optimize for themselves, producing some combination of tragedy of the commons and tyranny of the majority.
So. Are we better off in the long run having elected representatives, who are beholden to the groups that have the most power to reelect them? Even if we get the occasional impasse? How can we possibly expect them to do “what’s right for the country” if it gets them voted out of office?
“We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.” - Jean-Claude Juncker
Yes you are better of in a democracy than in a tyranny. A quick glance on a list of the world’s richest countries, removed those that struck oil-luck, should be enough to convince anyone. And current problems notwithstanding, you shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the USA is the richest, most powerful and most innovative nation on Earth. And even if you wouldn’t be as affluent, then democracy would still be preferable to tyranny, since money isn’t the end all of everything. However there are many forms of democracy, and the one implemented by any one country is not necessarily the best imaginable. One could perhaps learn from Switzerland, perhaps the one democracy with the most direct form of rule, also one of the most successful economies.
We expect them to do what’s right for the country because that’s what we elect them to do. If we continually punish them for it, then the problem is with us, not them.
The only modification I might make to the OP is to point out that the US system is not the only form of democracy available. Certain parliamentarian systems are much less bound by gridlock, and more readily willing to make sweeping changes. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is open to debate.
It’s not as though countries run by despots never have problems with debt. Some people seem to think authoritarian governments are more efficient. Generally speaking, the opposite is true. Authoritarian regimes tend to be inefficient, as they’re frequently slowed down by corruption and incompetents who got their authority through nepotism. Not that elected governments can’t suffer from corruption and incompetents who got their authority through nepotism. However, elected officials are more easily replaced when such things get rampant enough to really rile up the populace.
Not at all. The oil countries are excluded because they are rich from enormously valuable natural resources, not due to any particular acumen in governing themselves.
If you did a study of how individuals became rich, you would have to exclude certain people otherwise you would come to the conclusion that the best way to become rich is to select rich parents.
Further, the wealth tends to be very unevenly distributed. Equatorial Guinea is an extreme case, but worth mentioning: Thanks to truly astonishing oil wealth, its GDP per capital is in excess of $36,000. This places it 28th in the world, right between Ireland and Denmark.
It will, I trust, astonish no one at all to learn that the Equatoguinean standard of living does not approximate that of Ireland or Denmark. The UNDP’s Human Development Index, which ranks based upon things like access to water, electricity, education, etc., places EQ at 117. The reason is that petrostates enable governments to make massive amounts of money just by running (or leasing) the oilfields and paying off the military, with no need to invest in the population as a whole. Most states need an educated, healthy workforce in order to make money; petrostates don’t. There’s a reason development experts refer to the “curse of oil” - there really aren’t any petrostates that are particularly nice places to live for most people, most of the time.
The same could be said for the US. Land being one such resource, but US wealth is founded on many others. That it is not currently primarily a resource-based economy doesn’t mean that isn’t the foundation of its wealth. You only have to look at wikipedia’s list of commodity production to see how many the US is a leader in.
It’s true that wealth does not inherently equal quality of life, but there is a strong correlation between them.
If you want to include aspects other than wealth, look at the Human Development Index (which is not the one absolute standard of quality of life, but it’s a very good one). The top 30, with the exception of Hong Kong, are all democracies or parliamentary republics, which I think it’s reasonable to say are quite similar. That would seem to lead to the conclusion that a democratic or republic government is the system that is most likely to lead to a good life.
The argument is “self-governance = better off”. Rune did not mean this specifically in terms of wealth; it was an example. He clearly stated there were several ways to measure the superiority of democracy (The statement is so clearly obvious it hardly needs any support anyway). Please give an example of an authoritarian country with a one resource economy that doesn’t suck for its citizens’ wealth and liberty.
No, that is the best way to be rich. If you’ve never not been rich then you can’t really become rich.
Basically, the only exceptions to the “rich requires Democracy” rule are: Singapore, China, Belarus, Tunisia, and Jordan. Obviously Jordan and Tunisia have had uprisings recently. China remains the big mystery…
ETA: I should add that oil-rich nations have been excluded form that chart, and the list.
Yes I used “better off” in that sentence as synonymous with “wealth.” What is unclear to you? Democracies are better at creating wealth (which was the topic of the OP) but even if democracies weren’t better at creating wealth, democracy would still be preferable to tyranny because wealth isn’t everything (once you get above a certain sustenance level). Qatar is apparently the richest country on earth. Personally I wouldn’t want to live there.
For the same reason that I’d exclude lottery winners from a list of people who have been successful in business. Luck doesn’t reflect much on the character of a person or a nation.
Autoritarian governments are more efficient. However they tend to be more efficient at those things the authorities deem to be important. Typically that would be holding onto their authority.
Much of the ineffieciency of democratic governments comes from the fact that they typically represent a much wider range of opinions and viewpoints.
Well, politicians become efficient at holding on to authority, too. As has been said already, they do what gets them re-elected.
Bread and Circuses, anyone? Or, more aptly, bread and circuses, everyone!
Now, the last time I mentioned this someone tried to “correct” me, with the comment that that was said of the Roman republic and not the American democracy, not realizing 1. the U.S. system more closely resembles a republic. and 2. Bread and Circuses applies to any system where the populace holds enough sway that they need to be placated. Whether it’s a politician trying to maintain votes to keep his seat, or a despot trying to keep the population from rioting and taking his head.
Typically, democracies and republics work well at first while people are invested in the system and invested in a better outcome for all. Eventually, generations arise that don’t realize what sacrifice was involved in making a prosporous, civilized country, and instead feel entitled to the privileges (that were hard won by previous generations,) without feeling a duty to the citizenship that won them in the first place. Then the people start to demand more privileges, which politicians must grant to stay elected, and the system eventually collapses under its obligations that everyone wants but no one wants to pay for. (e.g. current debt crisis?)
I’ve heard it said that a benevolent dictator is the best government, in that a king who feels both ownership and responsibility takes care of his property. He tries to develop his kingdom for the better. (A bad dictator, is still really bad, though.)
The thing about democracy is that, in the long run, every policy has to have the support of the majority. So no policy that is harmful to the majority will endure.
A minority can promote the goals of some special interest but once the majority perceives the favoritism exists, it will act to correct it.
Wow. You’ve just “proved” that the debt crisis doesn’t exist. If it’s harmful to be 14 trillion in debt, the U.S. can’t be there, because the majority wouldn’t allow it. If the U.S. is 14 trillion in debt, it can’t be harmful. Crisis over.
Your premise assumes “facts” not in evidence. You’re assuming that the majority of people know what is harmful. You’re assuming that people will make hard choices for the good of others over what benefits them right now…
Humans, (as a group, there are individual exceptions,) find it difficult to make hard choices for their own future good over what they want right now, or a majority of Americans wouldn’t be overweight or obese, and no one would smoke, etc.
But, the majority wants favoritisms of their own… And they will overlook what harm it might do to others in the future.