OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


ChristianKl 20 June 2015 09:08 AM
63%

Syria is unstable because it has an opposition that's supported by foreign money. If that wouldn't be the case Asad would have control over most of Syria.

Mubarak favored free markets in a way that resulted in little food subsidies. Food prices radically increased. Wheat got 30% more expensive in a single year. Hungry people were unhappy. The Egyptian military prefered to have a government that was more involved in the economy and thus didn't stand up for Mubarak and allowed his regime to fall.

The regime did fall first to the Muslim Brotherhood because the Muslim Brotherhood is a working institution with political power. It had the infrastructure to feed demonstrators. It had bodies.
Then the Muslim Brotherhood overstretched and didn't account for the fact that they got their power because the military prefered things that way. The military decided to take over.

I don't free speech is to blame for destabilising Egypt.

stars0
Reply


melian 20 June 2015 02:21 PM
68%

Wheat got 30% more expensive in a single year. Hungry people were unhappy.

USSR, China and North Korea lost millions of people during famines and yet experienced no revolutions. Egypt itself went through a much worse period during the rule of Nasser.

All countries occasionally go through an economic crisis. In a democratic country this would lead to government peacefully losing power to an opposition. In a full autocracy, the government will crush all attempts at rebellion in the bud. But in a partial autocracy, where people can speak freely but cannot peacefully change their government, the revolution becomes both feasible and desireable.


stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 21 June 2015 07:35 AM
64%

North Korea keeps it's military happy with Songun (military first). That's one of the huge problems with North Korea.
Regime change isn't in the interest of the Korean military.

Mubarak didn't keep his military happy. He followed the Washington consensus playbook of deregulation and making
Egypt interesting for foreign investors.
Egypts military controls part of Egypts economy. Generals that control military controlled companies get substantial less
salary than businessmen who run privately controlled companies of the same size.

Mubarak wanted to make his son Gamal his successor. Gamal isn't from the military. Gamal started his career in
Bank of America. He was pro-free market while the military was quite happy controlling part of the economy and
didn't want it's companies getting privatized.

From the perspective of the deeply nationalist military the market economy failed when food prices weren't
controlled by government subsidies but allowed to strongly rise.
The military decided against defending Mubarak's regime. It decided against using force to put down the rebellion.

When speaking about Egypts press freedom under Mubarak, it's also worth noting that it wasn't perfect.
The Freedom house score for 2010 is Ƌ' for civil liberties with is the same that Russia got in that year.

Once Mohamed Morsi turned out to want to much power as a president and didn't to what the military wanted him to do,
the military finally decided to use power and take it for itself.

stars0
Reply


melian 22 June 2015 05:54 PM
68%

Regime change isn't in the interest of the Korean military.

That’s probably true with the respect to the top ranks who would lose their privileged positions if the regime falls. The middle rank officers and the common soldiers (who are referred as “soldier-builders” even by the official media) are likely to gain a lot in case of unification with South Korea. No matter how big is the relative share of pie that the regime gives its military, in absolute terms the South can give a lot more.
When speaking about Egypts press freedom under Mubarak, it's also worth noting that it wasn't perfect.

For the regime to survive, the fear it inspires must match the discontent it produces. Being much more successful in its policies, the government in Singapore can afford to give the citizens even more freedom than in Egypt. The Kim dynasty can fail a lot worse than Mubarak, but still survive due to the overwhelming fear it inspires. But the Egyptian government was a bit more liberal than it could afford.


stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 23 June 2015 12:28 PM
64%

Generals make military decisions and the North Korean army is willing to shoot North Koreans who demonstrate. That wasn't true for Egypt. The Egyptian military was not willing to use force to put down demonstrations to protect Mubarak.

Unarmed revolutions don't succeed when the military is willing to put them down regardless whether there was free speech before the eve of the revolution.

But the Egyptian government was a bit more liberal than it could afford.
Liberal in the sense of not regulating the economy but not in the sense of free speech.

stars0
Reply