roxhana2 (August 24, 2008 at 3:47 am)

I LOVE THIS GUY.

philosophyarchitect (August 14, 2008 at 12:02 am)

The primary problem is the autocratic nature of those government which stops market economies from developing; when formerly controlled nations adapt market economies, they cease being third world, like Japan and South Korea and, it appears, near-future China. Maybe if the west stopped hating itself the people in these nations would be more likely to adapt what has made us flourish.

philosophyarchitect (August 13, 2008 at 11:59 pm)

Our culture, unfortunately, opposes reason individualism and capitalism too much for a CEO-minded person to be elected even if he or she did run. Considering the sort of nonsense one needs to withstand to be a politician no wonder they don't run!

philosophyarchitect (August 13, 2008 at 11:58 pm)

And only capitalism allows technology to flourish. Socialism/capitalism is not the passive transfer of a finite amount of wealth. The ability to keep and sustain private property is absolutely necessary for economic expansion and innovation.As a small, small example, go down the list on the economic freedom (i.e. capitalism) index and think about the general trend as the amount of this goes up and/or down.

philosophyarchitect (August 13, 2008 at 11:54 pm)

A country where individual rights are consistently upheld is, in a sense, necessarily somewhat anti-democratic. Yes having government leaders elected is absolutely necessary to keeping a nation free, but to give the majority absolute rule over the individual is inherently unfree. But that is only by a broad definition of democratic.

amoll (August 12, 2008 at 7:43 am)

uuummm need some deep thought !!

machphantom (August 4, 2008 at 7:52 am)

I think gates hit on something here... as part of the social contract with the world we owe it to ourselves to find new markets where we can trade and develop.I'm not saying to force any one's hand, but certainly this is the direction we need to move towards.

Marly61 (July 30, 2008 at 12:29 pm)

neoliberalism's antidemocratic nature flows from the fact that it was driven by the technocratic class. To flourish professions do not need a majority of citizens to believe in their expertise. They require a source of payment for their services and/or support for their professional training. As in the United States, Mexican businesspeople were willing to foot the bills in order to change the way the country's educational elite thought about economics.

Marly61 (July 30, 2008 at 12:25 pm)

the politics of the global economy is a one-party system, dominated by a class of multinational investors and their client policy experts. We might call it the Neoliberal Party—or perhaps the Party of Davos, from the site (until last year) of the annual meeting of the world's financial and policy elite. In a one-party system, the absence of democracy is hardly a surprise. Although one can see the beginnings of a party in opposition (the Party of Porto Alegre?) in the anti-globalization protests.

Marly61 (July 30, 2008 at 12:23 pm)

Wow, so when people's lives are saved by shifting resources from rich elites, one less yacht, to children born in the USA without health care (I know a 9 year old, without health care, who was murdered by the USA health care system from a tooth-ache) that is only shifting problems?