From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:23:18 GMT

In article <BuDJrn.5Jz@apollo.hp.com>
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>
>In article <BuDA33.Hqw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>:   Hold it, hold it . . . *I'm* the one around here who usually cites
>>:   Singapore, et al, as examples of successful Big Government economic
>>:   policy that most free-market fanatics on the net are blissfully ignorant
>>:   of.    Just for that, I'm going to mention a strong counterexample:
>>
>>But do you really _want_ to use Singapore as an example?
>
>  Oh, yes, absolutely . . .
>
>>You know, that little country where there is a $500 penalty for not
>>flushing a public toilet, and where they (are reported to) have installed
>>cameras in, um, strategic locations to catch offenders.  :)
>
>  . . . not to mention strict penalties for leaving chewing gum on
>  subway seats.   Singapore is one of the most paternalistic nations
>  on earth.   It's really soft-core fascism.

     Before I knew what had happened I found myself a few weeks ago
in an argument with somebody from Singapore on talk.politics.guns
arguing for the rights of law-abiding gum owners.
     Odd world we live in...

>  The Economist ran a very interesting article on them and the other
>  "Pacific Tigers" earlier this year.  They represent a phenomenon
>  which is being *dangerously* ignored by conservatives, libertarians
>  and other free-market advocates and I'd like to prompt more dis-
>  cussion on it.
>
>  The official free-market line on the collapse of communism was
>  that central planning doesn't work; people need/want individual
>  liberty; eventually they'll rise up and demand it.

    Incompetent central planning doesn't work.  The problem with the
government exercising central planning is that it has a very bad
tendency to slip into politics and become an "old-boys" network where
things are run to keep the ruling group in power and provide them
with all kinds of nifty toys.
    Most people don't seem to be all that interested in liberty when
you get right down to it, which is a horrible thing to recognize when
you're generally libertarian.  They're interested in being secure,
physically and economically.  Central planning that doesn't recognize
this is bound to fail.  People won't rise up in the name of liberty,
they'll rise up because they're tired of being miserable.
     The Soviets weren't marching in the streets for democracy as
a political system.  They wanted the *standard of living* of
Europe, North America, etc.  Democratic reform *came* to the Soviet
Union.  (Where it will go is still up in that air.)  When that
standard of living did not appear immediately many became just as
angry with the new system.

>  But what really killed communism was *poverty*.  The people could
>  see how materially well-off the west was and that they weren't.
>  What if you had a *prosperous* centrally-planned paternalistic
>  society?   This is what Singapore is.  Singapore has a high, and
>  rapidly growing standard of living.  They are currently installing
>  the most modern telecommunications infrastructure in the world.
>  They have a achieved remarkable peace between their formerly
>  fractious ethnic groups.  And according to the Economist, they,
>  like other Asian Pacific rim nations consider the western pre-
>  occupation with individualism and liberty to be a kind of peculiar
>  affectation.  Even Japan is like this, just not quite as bad as
>  Singapore.
>
>  Free market advocates have been saying for years that this was not
>  possible; innovation and progress can only happen with the kind
>  of individual freedom the west offers.  Now that is IS happening,
>  free-market enthusiasts tell us that it's doomed to collapse; it's
>  just a temporary aberration.  *Maybe* it is.

     It would be foolish to argue that it isn't possible.  I won't
even argue that it doesn't work well.  Singapore is certainly
becoming a force to be reckoned with.  I *can* argue that I would
not want to live in such a place, and I feel that is a valid argument.
     Maybe it's a temporary aberration, maybe not.  We'll have to
wait and see.  One reason planned economies tend not to work is
a lack of long term planning, and certainly the free-market is
by no means immune.  The problem with planned economies is that
if the central planner makes a mistake the whole system goes in
the wrong direction.
     I also am skeptical that such a planned economy can last without
slipping into the problems describe above.  It's a terrible
temptation fo those in power to use their power selfishly.


>  But if this bit of
>  faith is misplaced then liberty-loving people are in trouble, be-
>  cause nothing succeeds like success.  As the rest of the world
>  sees the growing poverty, strife, and unemployment in US and EC
>  and compares this with the growing prosperity of the Pacific
>  Tigers, it becomes a cultural as well as an economic choice.

     I don't know specifically about Singapore, but it should be
noted that many of these up-and-coming countries have the advantage
of leaping forward in the footsteps of other countries, be they
Europe, the U.S., Japan, or whatever.  They have had the advantage
of not having to make the same mistakes.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh