231–240 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Singapore is even more like a startup than you allude to. The whole country is run like a large corporation.
Yes, even to the degree that its leaders have become quite wealthy through the infrastructure of the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One thing about a democracy, if poor choices are made and poor leaders are selected, it’s only temporary until the next wave of elections. With sufficiently bad choices in a democracy it ceases to be a democracy before the error is corrected. Also, even when that doesn't happen, its possible for a choice to be bad but repeated in a democracy.
> With sufficiently bad choices in a democracy it ceases to be a democracy before the error is corrected. I’d like to see a real world example of what you mean. Because while lots of countries have elections, when leaders are allowed to arbitrarily extend their reign past with their laws allow, then I would agree with you. But those are the countries that I consider falling under the category of “masquerading as a de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol. I think you should give US more time to fail? (I guess). It's only 260 so years. That's too short if you place it into human history.
It’s actually one of the oldest continuing governments :) Current China is only ~70 years old for example. They have gone to great extents to erase their history, so they know they are young :)
Roman empire failed after 1500 years.
Portuguese Empire failed after 584 years.
Khmer empire failed 630 years.
Kush Empire failed after 1420 years.
Silla Empire failed after 980 years
Holy Roman empire failed after 838 years
Kanem Empire failed after 676 years.
Chinese empire failed after 2000 years.
I asked my friend what's the connection between all these Civilizations? He told me "Empire."
What a stupid answer.
The connection is "failure." You know what hasn't failed! The United States of America that's what!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because LKY himself is an incorrptible person. Here you can have an insight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=142FbTYeK7k
He controls a 313 billion dollar fund that includes the country's internet access, cell phones access, the state run broadcasting and the banks. What would corruption look like when you already control everything? Putting people in prison for criticizing you, because they do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just not true. There are very high levels of immigration allowed at all levels of society: from prostitute to executive. And I am not sure that any system that basically subsidizes housing at the level they do can be claimed to be a restrictive welfare society.
By subsidize housing you mean that the government builds housing which they then sell to citizens. Which is a form of middle class welfare, but quite different from what most westerners would consider subsidized housing. If you’re unemployed in Singapore, you get 3 months worth of welfare from the government. After that you rely on your own savings. (Unless you’re permanently disabled)
Unless western countries are willing to adopt a culture of filial piety where you can live with your parents until you’re married and your parents expect you to take care of them in old age, I don’t see them replicating that feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the civilizations I mentioned were authoritarian. Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Caesars, Chinese Emperors. The history of all great civilizations is by a huge majority created and maintained through authoritative rule. In fact, modern anthropological theory states that the first step in the formation of a big civilization requires central authorities to form first. >what we should really be looking at is whether they…
> America didn't have the capability to provide room for the influx of covid-19 patients No, America had (and still has) central authority make (making) a conscious choice not only not to direct energy at that purpose but to actively interfere with subordinate authorities attempts to do so for purposes linked to maintaining institutional power by placing blame. There was no lack of capacity caused by the absence of c…
Right of course. You're talking about the HBB, the Hospital Building Bureau the government sponsored central entity that builds all hospitals in the United States obeying trump and not building any hospitals.
According to wikipedia:
Health care in the United States is provided by many distinct organizations.[1] Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by private sector businesses. 58% of community hospitals in the United States are non-profit, 21% are government-owned, and 21% are for-profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US institutions have a huge issue with regulatory capture
Regulatory capture is profiteering off something other that value added. Which US institutions are profiting?
So while the 3 letter agencies don’t profit directly, sometimes the people do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the civilizations I mentioned were authoritarian. Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Caesars, Chinese Emperors. The history of all great civilizations is by a huge majority created and maintained through authoritative rule. In fact, modern anthropological theory states that the first step in the formation of a big civilization requires central authorities to form first. >what we should really be looking at is whether they…
Yes and how useful was that hospital? How much of that construction equipment moving about on the drone videos was just for show vs actually contributing to its construction?
Private enterprise would never spend resources to build hospitals to save lives simply because it isn't "profitable." Only a centrally planned government will pull off such a feat purely in the name of saving lives without regard to profit. I mean literally no non-profit in the united states is capable of building a hospital just to handle a temporary spike in demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hand-waving things away with your absolutist statement is what truly seems naive. IMO there is far more nuance than you suggest. Democracy seems to work well for some types of problems but not others. What happens to democracies when faced with threats that manifest over very short timescales? They aren't nimble enough to respond in time. This is most evident in larger democracies; look at US/India responses to COVID…
One thing about a democracy, if poor choices are made and poor leaders are selected, it’s only temporary until the next wave of elections. But in a dictatorship, or even something that masquerades as a democracy but is not, those choices may go unchecked for decades.
A study by political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University) released in April 2014 suggested that when the preferences of a majority of citizens conflicts with elites, elites tend to prevail. While not characterizing the United States as an "oligarchy" or "plutocracy" outright, Gilens and Page do give weight to the idea of a "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey A. Winters, saying, "Winters has posited a comparative theory of 'Oligarchy,' in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a 'civil oligarchy' like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection."
In their study, Gilens and Page reached these conclusions:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. ... The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
— Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, 2014
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote:
The stark reality is that we have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. This threatens to make us a democracy in name only.
— Paul Krugman, 2012
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not turn this into a character assassination. That's what they do in politics and I hope HN is above this stuff. Henry Ford invented the modern factory by bringing the conveyor belt into the manufacturing system. He was also an anti-Semite who supported Hitler. Do not ignore the fact he was an anti-semite, but also do not ignore the fact that he invented the modern factory. People are complicated, contradictory…
> Let's not turn this into a character assassination. This discussion is filled with praise for the late dictator. But say something negative and "let's not turn this into a character assassination". When discussing a notable person, why shouldn't we talk about their flaws as much as their positive attributes?