Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (108100)	7/26/2003 1:22:24 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A large part of the mistake was the failure to realize that democratic reforms were actually the most potent weapon against communism. Actually, I believe economic and legal (constitutional) reforms play a greater role in opposing communism than mere democracy (suffrage). After all, what value is democracy if there are few legal guarantees that provided a firm foundation under that system?? What value is democracy if there are no property rights available (for everyone), and the ability to legally defend them based upon an establish legal code? Vote merely to "confirm" those who already possess all the power? No Steven.. While I understand where you're coming from, I don't believe it's necessarily the form of political system that will protect people from totalitarianism or authoritarianism. It's a system where people have an expectation that they receive fair and due process by the government and the system which that government represents. And only under democratic, and authoritarian systems do we find economic property rights generally respected. Under Communist systems, the state owned everything... people were just permitted to the use of it. And use it (up) they did.. not having any ownership risks or costs. Since the economy was massively import-dependent, this naturally caused considerable inflation. Not being particularly familiar with the Phillipine economy (other than likely being agricultural), what exactly were they "import dependent" upon? Technology? They paid for it with something, didn't they? Did they use capital borrowed from the IMF and World Bank, or was it foreign capital that eventually expected a return on their investment, not for it to be stolen or "reappropriated" by the Marcos regime and it's sucessors? I've heard it stated by various international analysts that currency devaluations and stock market collapses are usually preceded by capital flight by private investors. These are the people who recognize that the "party is over" and it's time to find safer havens for their capital. I've recently been re-reading "Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Thomas Friedman. I would highly recommend it, since I believe that he has captured the inherent complexity involved in understanding why developing economies have had (have) difficulty modernizing into a viable economy. And I believe he's correct in his assessment that every government on the planet is now vulnerable to the democratization of capital markets, the "electronic herd" as he refers to it, with it's investors seeking the greatest return in the shortest period of time. And Friedman also subscribes to the belief that local investors generally know well before the foreign ones, when it's time to get the hell out of a particular investment or currency. So can foreign influences truly be blamed for all of these problems? Or might we spend more time blaming those local power elites who used and abused their powers, transferring it off-shore for their "retirement accounts".. If there's anything that holds back the developing world, it's the pervasive nature of Kleptocratic regimes which abuse their power and face no accountability. We can place whatever political "clothes" we desire over the body politic. But if it's corrupt and the ability of man to exploit his fellow man not constrained, the whole system will eventually collapse in upon itself. Hawk