Elected autocrats tend to follow six steps: win elections; capture referees, such as courts and other independent bodies; attack or seize control of the media; demonize and undermine the opposition; change the rules of the game; and win new elections that are no longer free. — Kelemen
"Whether national elections are free and fair";
"The security of voters";
"The influence of foreign powers on government";
"The capability of the civil servants to implement policies". — Democracy Index
We can say that they have greater means and seem to use them to exert more influence than other firms, even big domestic ones. But are they more able to convert these means into success politically? Again our data cannot give a direct answer. But the direction of US foreign economic policy in the past decades suggests they have been very powerful. The lowering of trade barriers via the GATT/WTO and various preferential trade agreements, the opening of capital markets and signing of bilateral investment treaties and economic agreements with investment protections, and the harmonization of regulations in many areas in preferential trade agreements are all policies that the US government has pursued actively and ones that MNCs have championed. MNC preferences, versus those of purely domestic firms, seem to be very congruent with much of recent American foreign economic policy. Rodrik (2018) claims, for example, that preferential trade agreements are tools for MNCs: “Trade agreements are shaped largely by rent-seeking, self-interested behavior on the export side. Rather than rein in protectionists, they empower another set of special interests and politically well-connected firms, such as international banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational corporations” (as cited in Blanga-Gubbay, Conconi, and Parenti 2019, p. 4). — Kim Milner
And granted the US stopped being a democracy some time ago and is already a full-blown plutocracy. Reagan was probably the nail in that coffin.
I was thinking about something along these lines today while daydreaming - that I seriously give very little shits about Russia as any kind of major world-level threat — StreetlightX
I think it's almost to Putin credit that he's made it seem as though Russia is a far bigger fry than it is. — StreetlightX
The subject of foreign intervention and territorial expansion by Russia has come up a few times in this thread, with a few of the usual suspects frothing at the mouth about Putin's evil designs, or some such caricature. — jamalrob
Some analysts claim Putin may be the richest man in the world. Bill Browder, a British-American financier who previously did business in Russia, has estimated that the Russian President is worth about $200 billion.
You have to begin contributing here properly — jamalrob
I'll accept what you say about Putin's wealth if it makes you happy, — jamalrob
but for the purposes of this discussion I don't really care about it.
One was about the conceptual basis of the conflict between Russia and the West, — jamalrob
and one was claiming that Putin's increasing authoritarianism is a response to perceived threats to his position. — jamalrob
recognize the greatest force for freedom in the world since Pearl Harbor, even on a per-capita basis, as a democracy. — Paul Edwards
Right. So you refuse to read research handed to you in a plate because...
As for "Joe Biden: Accelerated Liberal Imperialism" hasn't imperialism, liberal or otherwise, been US policy, more or less, since the get go? (Earlier eras of imperialism maybe shouldn't be described as "liberal".)
Imperialism tends to be such a good thing for the imperialists, be they Belgian, Dutch, German, Russian, English, French, Italian, American, Spanish, Japanese or Chinese--whosever--it's hard to imagine potential imperialists foregoing the opportunities. If they could be imperialists, why wouldn't they?
Since the beginning, has any country's leadership ever said: "We could become fabulously rich by taking over and exploiting those shit hole territories over there; but, you know, imperialism is just wrong, and we wouldn't want to become wealthy by doing something that moralists would consider distasteful." ???? — Bitter Crank
Historically speaking the US has not been anywhere near the level of imperialism when compared to the European powers. We briefly experimented with it as a matter of national policy in the Phillipines in the 1890s but I just don't recall America having the desire or stomach to maintain these colonies. Just to be clear when we're talking about imperialism in the traditional sense we're talking about colonies. — BitconnectCarlos
I've read everything you wrote Paul. It's crap.
Define imperialism. Some political science theories look at the ability to project power over territory which doesn't necessarily mean it has to be part of the sovereign territory of a country. — Benkei
I remember reading a study done that concluded that imperialism was extremely expensive from the host country's point of view and the policy of imperialism didn't really make sense economically. — BitconnectCarlos
Those that are the wealthiest now have had to focus on maintaining a competitive export oriented industry. They have to compete on the open global market, not to rest on their laurels and have income from raw materials from the colonies take care of the government finances.The wealthiest, highest functioning European states, the Nordics, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. had fairly limited or no colonial aspirations. Meanwhile, Russia exerted and still exerts control across a huge amount of natural resources in Central Asia, and later held sway over Eastern Europe, and remains a low functioning and poor state. — Count Timothy von Icarus
(The real cost of Empire. Notice how high the defence spending is and how large the military is prior to the 1960's.) — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.