Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/393037921059880960
8 Rollback to Revision 6
source | link

Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win LennartMany historians, politicians and economists find a link between the economic success of a nation and its form of government.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart For example, the idea that the USA's form of government was responsible for its economic success:

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Ronald Reagan

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Milton Friedman

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell

Can we cite historical examples of nations or empires that had a distinctly autocratic or totalitarian central government yet still achieved great economic success and dominance with a capitalistic, entrepreneurial economy? Does History confirm that prosperity, capitalism, and some form "democracy" or representative republican form of government always go hand in hand? - You win Lennart

One supporting piece of evidence that the two are inexorably linked might be contemporary China: Its form of government has slowly become more open and "democratic" directly in correspondence to its accession as the dominant world economy.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart

Still, China's form of government is very far removed from anything akin to the western democracies. Does or does not contemporary China refute the aforementioned hypothesis?

( Unexplained down-votes are not constructive. Please state your reason - I often edit or even remove posts in response to comments. Questions, answers, and the site at large, are improved thereby. )

Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.

Many historians, politicians and economists find a link between the economic success of a nation and its form of government. For example, the idea that the USA's form of government was responsible for its economic success:

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Ronald Reagan

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Milton Friedman

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell

Can we cite historical examples of nations or empires that had a distinctly autocratic or totalitarian central government yet still achieved great economic success and dominance with a capitalistic, entrepreneurial economy? Does History confirm that prosperity, capitalism, and some form "democracy" or representative republican form of government always go hand in hand?

One supporting piece of evidence that the two are inexorably linked might be contemporary China: Its form of government has slowly become more open and "democratic" directly in correspondence to its accession as the dominant world economy.

Still, China's form of government is very far removed from anything akin to the western democracies. Does or does not contemporary China refute the aforementioned hypothesis?

( Unexplained down-votes are not constructive. Please state your reason - I often edit or even remove posts in response to comments. Questions, answers, and the site at large, are improved thereby. )

7 deleted 1402 characters in body
source | link

Many historians, politicians and economists find a link between the economic success of a nation and its form of governmentGoodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart. For example, the idea that the USA's form of government was responsible for its economic success:

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Ronald Reagan

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Milton Friedman

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell

Can we cite historical examples of nations or empires that had a distinctly autocratic or totalitarian central government yet still achieved great economic success and dominance with a capitalistic, entrepreneurial economy? Does History confirm that prosperity, capitalism, and some form "democracy" or representative republican form of government always go hand in hand?Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart

One supporting piece of evidence that the two are inexorably linked might be contemporary China: Its form of government has slowly become more open and "democratic" directly in correspondence to its accession as the dominant world economy- You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart

Still, China's form of government is very far removed from anything akin to the western democracies- You win Lennart. Does or does not contemporary China refute the aforementioned hypothesis?

( Unexplained down-votes are not constructive. Please state your reason - I often edit or even remove posts in response to comments. Questions, answers, and the site at large, are improved thereby. )Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.

Many historians, politicians and economists find a link between the economic success of a nation and its form of government. For example, the idea that the USA's form of government was responsible for its economic success:

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Ronald Reagan

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Milton Friedman

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell

Can we cite historical examples of nations or empires that had a distinctly autocratic or totalitarian central government yet still achieved great economic success and dominance with a capitalistic, entrepreneurial economy? Does History confirm that prosperity, capitalism, and some form "democracy" or representative republican form of government always go hand in hand?

One supporting piece of evidence that the two are inexorably linked might be contemporary China: Its form of government has slowly become more open and "democratic" directly in correspondence to its accession as the dominant world economy.

Still, China's form of government is very far removed from anything akin to the western democracies. Does or does not contemporary China refute the aforementioned hypothesis?

( Unexplained down-votes are not constructive. Please state your reason - I often edit or even remove posts in response to comments. Questions, answers, and the site at large, are improved thereby. )

Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.Goodbye Lennart- Thank you Lennart - You win Lennart.

6 deleted 146 characters in body
source | link

Many historians, politicians and economists find a link between the economic success of a nation and its form of government. For example, the idea that the USA's form of government was responsible for its economic success:

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Ronald Reagan

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Milton Friedman

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell

Can we cite historical examples of nations or empires that werehad a distinctly autocratic or totalitarian central government yet still achieved great economic success and dominance with a capitalistic, entrepreneurial economy? Does History confirm that prosperity, capitalism, and some form "democracy" or representative republican form of government always go hand in hand? (I'm going to rule out small monarchies that are richly endowed with a particularly valuable natural resource, such as the Arabian oil states, which are irrelevant to the question.) 

One supporting piece of evidence that the two are inexorably linked might be contemporary China: Its form of government has slowly become more open and "democratic" directly in correspondence to its accession as the dominant world economy.

Still, China's form of government is very far removed from anything akin to the western democracies. Does or does not contemporary China refute the aforementioned hypothesis?

( Unexplained down-votes are not constructive. Please state your reason - I often edit or even remove posts in response to comments. Questions, answers, and the site at large, are improved thereby. )

Many historians, politicians and economists find a link between the economic success of a nation and its form of government. For example, the idea that the USA's form of government was responsible for its economic success:

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Ronald Reagan

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Milton Friedman

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell

Can we cite historical examples of nations or empires that were distinctly autocratic or totalitarian yet still achieved great economic success and dominance with a capitalistic economy? Does History confirm that prosperity, capitalism, and some form "democracy" or representative republican form of government always go hand in hand? (I'm going to rule out small monarchies that are richly endowed with a particularly valuable natural resource, such as the Arabian oil states, which are irrelevant to the question.)

One supporting piece of evidence that the two are inexorably linked might be contemporary China: Its form of government has slowly become more open and "democratic" directly in correspondence to its accession as the dominant world economy.

Still, China's form of government is very far removed from anything akin to the western democracies. Does or does not contemporary China refute the aforementioned hypothesis?

( Unexplained down-votes are not constructive. Please state your reason - I often edit or even remove posts in response to comments. Questions, answers, and the site at large, are improved thereby. )

Many historians, politicians and economists find a link between the economic success of a nation and its form of government. For example, the idea that the USA's form of government was responsible for its economic success:

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Ronald Reagan

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Milton Friedman

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell

Can we cite historical examples of nations or empires that had a distinctly autocratic or totalitarian central government yet still achieved great economic success and dominance with a capitalistic, entrepreneurial economy? Does History confirm that prosperity, capitalism, and some form "democracy" or representative republican form of government always go hand in hand? 

One supporting piece of evidence that the two are inexorably linked might be contemporary China: Its form of government has slowly become more open and "democratic" directly in correspondence to its accession as the dominant world economy.

Still, China's form of government is very far removed from anything akin to the western democracies. Does or does not contemporary China refute the aforementioned hypothesis?

( Unexplained down-votes are not constructive. Please state your reason - I often edit or even remove posts in response to comments. Questions, answers, and the site at large, are improved thereby. )

5 added 207 characters in body
source | link
4 added 182 characters in body
source | link
3 added 48 characters in body
source | link
2 added 48 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link