jhonny64
Σεβαστός
- Εγγρ.
- 31 Μαρ 2007
- Μηνύματα
- 67.517
- Like
- 2.736
- Πόντοι
- 1.306
Δημοκρατία εναντίον Μοναρχίας.
- Μέλος που άνοιξε το νήμα nikostratos
- Ημερομηνία ανοίγματος
- Απαντήσεις 43
- Εμφανίσεις 2K
- Tagged users Καμία
- Βλέπουν το thread αυτή τη στιγμή 1 άτομα (0 μέλη και 1 επισκέπτες)
OP
OP
nikostratos
Ενεργό Μέλος
- Εγγρ.
- 25 Ιουλ 2010
- Μηνύματα
- 4.041
- Κριτικές
- 22
- Like
- 460
- Πόντοι
- 306
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
H. L. Mencken
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Democracy: Cause of Debt Problems
According to this report, USA Inc., America's debt and future obligations total $47 trillion, or $395,000 per household.
Our debt problems did not happen overnight. They started long before the 2008-2009 recession. Governments in most democratic countries around the world have been running deficits and debts for decades to fuel fake economies and fake wealth. According to the above report, the U.S. has been running deficits for every year since 1965 with the exception of five years.
Other nations are not much different. (Europe's debt crisis is decades in the making. Canadians tend to feel that they are in a much better position. However according to that report, the U.S. has a gross debt of 83% of GDP and Canada has a gross debt of 82% of GDP.)
Most people claim that it is the politicians' fault. It is not.
Why do politicians persistently run deficits?
The simple answer: If they don't, voters will fire them and replace them with politicians who will.
It's not that the voters want deficits (most voters do not know the difference between deficit and debt anyways). Voters simply want money, as explained here.
Politicians know this. Therefore, they are pressured to spend and to keep taxes low. Spending too much and taxing too little, causes deficits. Politicians are humans like voters, which means they are motivated to preserve their income or jobs. Hence, they run budget deficits, year in and year out, to keep their jobs. Ultimately, voters control what politicians do and get what they want.
Therefore, politicians are behaving as expected, given the "rules of the game".
So, one can argue that it is the voters' fault for these persistent deficits.
Not necessarily. Every human has a couple of common traits. Every human wants to:
Maximize income or wealth
Minimize expenses
Therefore, voters want politicians to:
provide many socialist programs:
free healthcare
pension
subsidized education
welfare
unemployment insurance
etc., etc., etc.
reduce taxes
Therefore, voters are behaving as expected, given the "rules of the game".
However, these voter demands cause deficits.
According to the above "USA Inc." report, 80% of Americans are concerned about rising deficit and debt, but 60-80% of them are concerned about cutbacks. In other words, voters are concerned about the debt problem but do not want to help pay to solve the problem. Hence, the deficits persist.
So, what are the "rules of the game"? It's democracy. It's the system. There are thousands of different types of systems in this world. Each system shapes and motivates behaviour in different ways. If you want your sales rep to sell more, you increase his/her commission. If you do not want people to park on the street, you hand out parking tickets. The capitalist system motivates people to take risks and start businesses. The communist system eliminates that motivation. The democratic system enables voters to maximize their immediate well-being at the expense of the future. Most people in the democratic system are behaving as expected.
As explained in problem with democracy, we still think democracy is the best system in the world. This is because it is the most effective in minimizing or replacing corrupt officials in government.
However, the first problem we have is that we urge everybody to vote when many do not care about politics and do not know:
the difference between deficit and debt,
how much deficit and debt we have,
the difference between fiscal and monetary policy,
how we are making our country poorer in the long run, or
that we are stealing from children.
We do not allow people to drive a car unless they take lessons, pass tests and get licensed. We do not allow people to sell stocks unless they take lessons, pass tests and get licensed. We do not allow people to prescribe medicine, give legal advice or do a lot of things unless they take lessons, pass tests and get licensed. We do not allow teenagers to drink. We make senior citizens take driving tests to confirm that they can keep their license. Yet, we allow any citizen over 18 to vote. We may not be able to be so draconian as to force voters to take tests before they are allowed to vote, but we should urge voters to get a minimum level of understanding of our finances, fiscal situation, economics and how we are stealing from children, before we urge them to vote. This should be the first and minimal step that we take to fix the problem with democracy. Read more about the problem with democracy.
H. L. Mencken
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Democracy: Cause of Debt Problems
According to this report, USA Inc., America's debt and future obligations total $47 trillion, or $395,000 per household.
Our debt problems did not happen overnight. They started long before the 2008-2009 recession. Governments in most democratic countries around the world have been running deficits and debts for decades to fuel fake economies and fake wealth. According to the above report, the U.S. has been running deficits for every year since 1965 with the exception of five years.
Other nations are not much different. (Europe's debt crisis is decades in the making. Canadians tend to feel that they are in a much better position. However according to that report, the U.S. has a gross debt of 83% of GDP and Canada has a gross debt of 82% of GDP.)
Most people claim that it is the politicians' fault. It is not.
Why do politicians persistently run deficits?
The simple answer: If they don't, voters will fire them and replace them with politicians who will.
It's not that the voters want deficits (most voters do not know the difference between deficit and debt anyways). Voters simply want money, as explained here.
Politicians know this. Therefore, they are pressured to spend and to keep taxes low. Spending too much and taxing too little, causes deficits. Politicians are humans like voters, which means they are motivated to preserve their income or jobs. Hence, they run budget deficits, year in and year out, to keep their jobs. Ultimately, voters control what politicians do and get what they want.
Therefore, politicians are behaving as expected, given the "rules of the game".
So, one can argue that it is the voters' fault for these persistent deficits.
Not necessarily. Every human has a couple of common traits. Every human wants to:
Maximize income or wealth
Minimize expenses
Therefore, voters want politicians to:
provide many socialist programs:
free healthcare
pension
subsidized education
welfare
unemployment insurance
etc., etc., etc.
reduce taxes
Therefore, voters are behaving as expected, given the "rules of the game".
However, these voter demands cause deficits.
According to the above "USA Inc." report, 80% of Americans are concerned about rising deficit and debt, but 60-80% of them are concerned about cutbacks. In other words, voters are concerned about the debt problem but do not want to help pay to solve the problem. Hence, the deficits persist.
So, what are the "rules of the game"? It's democracy. It's the system. There are thousands of different types of systems in this world. Each system shapes and motivates behaviour in different ways. If you want your sales rep to sell more, you increase his/her commission. If you do not want people to park on the street, you hand out parking tickets. The capitalist system motivates people to take risks and start businesses. The communist system eliminates that motivation. The democratic system enables voters to maximize their immediate well-being at the expense of the future. Most people in the democratic system are behaving as expected.
As explained in problem with democracy, we still think democracy is the best system in the world. This is because it is the most effective in minimizing or replacing corrupt officials in government.
However, the first problem we have is that we urge everybody to vote when many do not care about politics and do not know:
the difference between deficit and debt,
how much deficit and debt we have,
the difference between fiscal and monetary policy,
how we are making our country poorer in the long run, or
that we are stealing from children.
We do not allow people to drive a car unless they take lessons, pass tests and get licensed. We do not allow people to sell stocks unless they take lessons, pass tests and get licensed. We do not allow people to prescribe medicine, give legal advice or do a lot of things unless they take lessons, pass tests and get licensed. We do not allow teenagers to drink. We make senior citizens take driving tests to confirm that they can keep their license. Yet, we allow any citizen over 18 to vote. We may not be able to be so draconian as to force voters to take tests before they are allowed to vote, but we should urge voters to get a minimum level of understanding of our finances, fiscal situation, economics and how we are stealing from children, before we urge them to vote. This should be the first and minimal step that we take to fix the problem with democracy. Read more about the problem with democracy.
OP
OP
nikostratos
Ενεργό Μέλος
- Εγγρ.
- 25 Ιουλ 2010
- Μηνύματα
- 4.041
- Κριτικές
- 22
- Like
- 460
- Πόντοι
- 306
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The root cause of the Euro Crisis
Much has been written about the Euro sovereign debt crisis. But all the commentators in newspapers have missed an important point. The crisis is at its heart a crisis of democracy.
The Euro Crisis started with Greece running out of money to pay its debts. The EU rallied to lend it money to keep Greece from defaulting. This is with much understandable reluctance from the Germans. Greece had been very naughty. It spent the money to lavish on its people a cushy welfare state where its civil servants retire much earlier than Germans do. It had given false figures to sell its bonds and some say even false figures to get into the EU. Now its debt to GDP ratio has risen to 12.6% when EU rules stipulate 3% at most. But then again, most EU countries failed to follow this rule.
Also according to the rules, each country must keep its finances in order and must not expect others to subsidize their expenditures. So nobody should expect other members to bail them out. But this rule was broken too.
But the fear is that if they don't help Greece out, other PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) countries could default on their debt as well. You see, these countries also borrowed to the hilt and banks and investors might not buy their government bonds at an affordable interest rate if they think richer northern countries are not coming to help them. If a large country like Spain defaults, then it would damage the European economy.
Clearly, all these governments have been overspending and over borrowing for many decades. This crisis did not start overnight. So what happened?
Karl Marx once said, 'Democracy is the road to Socialism.' He was wrong on nearly everything but on this occasion he was right. I would also like to add:
'Socialism leads to ruin.'
As I wrote in my previous essays, income distribution does not follow a normal curve but is skewed. In simple language, there are more poor people than rich people. So votrepreneurs (politicians) get votes by promising to transfer wealth from one group of people to another.
That is why all democracies end up with welfare states. So taxation will have to go up to fund all these government expenditures. But there is a limit to how much you can tax. With higher taxes, you get disincentives to work harder or to take risks. Investors would also prefer to invest elsewhere where taxes are lower. Higher income people also prefer to migrate to lower tax jurisdictions. Or some will simply cheat on taxes. This is the explained in the Laffer curve. Economist Arthur Laffer advanced a theory that is beautiful in its simplicity.
If income tax rate is zero, government revenue would also be zero. When you raise income tax rate income will initially rise. But if the income tax rate is 100%, government revenue will also be zero because nobody would want to work. So somewhere in between there is a point where government revenues are maximized. Income tax rates higher or lower than this point will result in lower tax revenues.
In other words, there is a maximum amount governments can squeeze from the taxpayers. If you keep squeezing taxpayers, they will migrate, work less hard, invest less or simply cheat on taxes and you end up with less tax revenues.
But for votrepreneurs to get elected, they keep promising to redistribute wealth. If tax revenues cannot keep up with their promises, then they resort to borrowing. As I explained in my earlier articles, democracies suffer from a serious flaw. Its political leadership is very short term in its thinking. This is not the fault of invidiual politicians but a systemic flaw. If you have elections once every four or five years, you cannot blame the votrepreneurs for not thinking long term. Thus problems are passed on to future leaders.
So they borrow and borrow because they know that when the debts come due, they won't be in office by then and it would be someone else's problem. Thus in every major democracy, you have huge government borrowings. See chart:
So the problem appears to be systemic for the reasons I have stated in this and earlier essays. Democracy leads to Socialism but as Margaret Thatcher once said:
'The Problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'
That eventuality is happening now across all the developed democracies. Bond investors are begining to wonder how long more can governments postpone paying the bills. But these numbers, horrible as they may be, are not the total liabilities of governments. They do not include promised entitlements like retirement benefits that politicians promised in order to get elected.
According to Jagadeesh Gokhale of the CATO Institute, the public sector debt plus promised social welfare spending such as retirement benefits amount to an average of 434% of GDP for Europe and a whopping 890% for the US. The total government liabilities comprising of actual debt plus politicians' promises are 549% for France, 442% for the UK and 418% for Germany.
This problem is worsened by the fact that birth rates are below replacement level in the developed democracies:
The above picture shows the total fertility rate (births per woman) in Europe. The comparable figure for the US is a still respectable 2.06 and a abysmal 1.2 for Japan. Since all governments are selling long term bonds (as long as 30 years in the case of the US), how are future governments going to repay for their excessive expenditures? Their tax base shrink as there are fewer young workers to pay those taxes.
In the old days, people depended on their children to see to their retirement. There was an incentive for more children and strong family ties. Today, modern societies still need the young to take care of the old. But instead of depending on our own children, we are depending on other people's children, albeit indirectly. The young will pay their taxes to pay for cushy retirement benefits. But raising children takes time and effort and costs money. So lets enjoy ourselves and let someone else do it. In the end, people don't have children or have less than they should.
These debt figures presented above are for current debts owing by the governments. Many of the votrepreneurs' promises are based on the pay-as-you-go system. For example, those working will pay retirement benefits to those who have retired. But with the low birth rates in Europe and Japan, you will soon have a serious problem. There won't be enough workers to pay for the votrepreneur's promises made decades ago. In some countries the projection is that there will one day be one worker to support one retiree. This means that either the worker must be heavily taxed or the retirement benefits and medical care spending will have to drop.
In the case of the Europeans, the votrepreneurs are trying to find a solution to the aging population with Muslim immigrants from North Africa, Turkey and Pakistan. This is a mistake for they bring in an incompatible culture which is likely to cause conflicts into with the native Europeans. Once again, votrepreneurs in democracies cannot see beyond the next elections. I think its far better to get immigrants from South America which has a similar culture.
This game of getting votes by promising one group of voters the money belonging to another will soon collapse. In the following article, my good friend, Fjordman, said that we should look at democracy as a mechanism. That is correct. We need to understand how the mechanism works. Democracy is a mechanism in which votreprenuers (politicians) get elected into office by promising one group of people the money of another group.
But because the law of economics is such that there is a limit to how much tax revenues you can squeeze from the economy, the cost of their promises will soon outstrip the tax revenues. Governments then resort to borrowings which will eventually lead to crisis that we now see in Greece and soon to come to other democracies. The future looks bleak.
The root cause of the Euro Crisis
Much has been written about the Euro sovereign debt crisis. But all the commentators in newspapers have missed an important point. The crisis is at its heart a crisis of democracy.
The Euro Crisis started with Greece running out of money to pay its debts. The EU rallied to lend it money to keep Greece from defaulting. This is with much understandable reluctance from the Germans. Greece had been very naughty. It spent the money to lavish on its people a cushy welfare state where its civil servants retire much earlier than Germans do. It had given false figures to sell its bonds and some say even false figures to get into the EU. Now its debt to GDP ratio has risen to 12.6% when EU rules stipulate 3% at most. But then again, most EU countries failed to follow this rule.
Also according to the rules, each country must keep its finances in order and must not expect others to subsidize their expenditures. So nobody should expect other members to bail them out. But this rule was broken too.
But the fear is that if they don't help Greece out, other PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) countries could default on their debt as well. You see, these countries also borrowed to the hilt and banks and investors might not buy their government bonds at an affordable interest rate if they think richer northern countries are not coming to help them. If a large country like Spain defaults, then it would damage the European economy.
Clearly, all these governments have been overspending and over borrowing for many decades. This crisis did not start overnight. So what happened?
Karl Marx once said, 'Democracy is the road to Socialism.' He was wrong on nearly everything but on this occasion he was right. I would also like to add:
'Socialism leads to ruin.'
As I wrote in my previous essays, income distribution does not follow a normal curve but is skewed. In simple language, there are more poor people than rich people. So votrepreneurs (politicians) get votes by promising to transfer wealth from one group of people to another.
That is why all democracies end up with welfare states. So taxation will have to go up to fund all these government expenditures. But there is a limit to how much you can tax. With higher taxes, you get disincentives to work harder or to take risks. Investors would also prefer to invest elsewhere where taxes are lower. Higher income people also prefer to migrate to lower tax jurisdictions. Or some will simply cheat on taxes. This is the explained in the Laffer curve. Economist Arthur Laffer advanced a theory that is beautiful in its simplicity.
If income tax rate is zero, government revenue would also be zero. When you raise income tax rate income will initially rise. But if the income tax rate is 100%, government revenue will also be zero because nobody would want to work. So somewhere in between there is a point where government revenues are maximized. Income tax rates higher or lower than this point will result in lower tax revenues.
In other words, there is a maximum amount governments can squeeze from the taxpayers. If you keep squeezing taxpayers, they will migrate, work less hard, invest less or simply cheat on taxes and you end up with less tax revenues.
But for votrepreneurs to get elected, they keep promising to redistribute wealth. If tax revenues cannot keep up with their promises, then they resort to borrowing. As I explained in my earlier articles, democracies suffer from a serious flaw. Its political leadership is very short term in its thinking. This is not the fault of invidiual politicians but a systemic flaw. If you have elections once every four or five years, you cannot blame the votrepreneurs for not thinking long term. Thus problems are passed on to future leaders.
So they borrow and borrow because they know that when the debts come due, they won't be in office by then and it would be someone else's problem. Thus in every major democracy, you have huge government borrowings. See chart:
So the problem appears to be systemic for the reasons I have stated in this and earlier essays. Democracy leads to Socialism but as Margaret Thatcher once said:
'The Problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'
That eventuality is happening now across all the developed democracies. Bond investors are begining to wonder how long more can governments postpone paying the bills. But these numbers, horrible as they may be, are not the total liabilities of governments. They do not include promised entitlements like retirement benefits that politicians promised in order to get elected.
According to Jagadeesh Gokhale of the CATO Institute, the public sector debt plus promised social welfare spending such as retirement benefits amount to an average of 434% of GDP for Europe and a whopping 890% for the US. The total government liabilities comprising of actual debt plus politicians' promises are 549% for France, 442% for the UK and 418% for Germany.
This problem is worsened by the fact that birth rates are below replacement level in the developed democracies:
The above picture shows the total fertility rate (births per woman) in Europe. The comparable figure for the US is a still respectable 2.06 and a abysmal 1.2 for Japan. Since all governments are selling long term bonds (as long as 30 years in the case of the US), how are future governments going to repay for their excessive expenditures? Their tax base shrink as there are fewer young workers to pay those taxes.
In the old days, people depended on their children to see to their retirement. There was an incentive for more children and strong family ties. Today, modern societies still need the young to take care of the old. But instead of depending on our own children, we are depending on other people's children, albeit indirectly. The young will pay their taxes to pay for cushy retirement benefits. But raising children takes time and effort and costs money. So lets enjoy ourselves and let someone else do it. In the end, people don't have children or have less than they should.
These debt figures presented above are for current debts owing by the governments. Many of the votrepreneurs' promises are based on the pay-as-you-go system. For example, those working will pay retirement benefits to those who have retired. But with the low birth rates in Europe and Japan, you will soon have a serious problem. There won't be enough workers to pay for the votrepreneur's promises made decades ago. In some countries the projection is that there will one day be one worker to support one retiree. This means that either the worker must be heavily taxed or the retirement benefits and medical care spending will have to drop.
In the case of the Europeans, the votrepreneurs are trying to find a solution to the aging population with Muslim immigrants from North Africa, Turkey and Pakistan. This is a mistake for they bring in an incompatible culture which is likely to cause conflicts into with the native Europeans. Once again, votrepreneurs in democracies cannot see beyond the next elections. I think its far better to get immigrants from South America which has a similar culture.
This game of getting votes by promising one group of voters the money belonging to another will soon collapse. In the following article, my good friend, Fjordman, said that we should look at democracy as a mechanism. That is correct. We need to understand how the mechanism works. Democracy is a mechanism in which votreprenuers (politicians) get elected into office by promising one group of people the money of another group.
But because the law of economics is such that there is a limit to how much tax revenues you can squeeze from the economy, the cost of their promises will soon outstrip the tax revenues. Governments then resort to borrowings which will eventually lead to crisis that we now see in Greece and soon to come to other democracies. The future looks bleak.
OP
OP
nikostratos
Ενεργό Μέλος
- Εγγρ.
- 25 Ιουλ 2010
- Μηνύματα
- 4.041
- Κριτικές
- 22
- Like
- 460
- Πόντοι
- 306
What are some disadvantages of absolute monarchy?
Answer
Monarchs have a difficult job. They have to walk the fine line of being strict enough that the subjects won't throw a fit when they don't get what they want but at the same time not being too dictatorial (or else the people will rebel)
For some monarchs, this too much to ask. They will do what they want, no matter how many toes they step on. They do this because they feel worthy and their subjects are unworthy. The worst part of that is, if your current king is not like that, his son could be. So with monarchies you're taking a big chance.
Power mad, that's the only down side. As long as they keep the countries best interest in sight they will always do there best and not care for money.
Cons -
Unilateral decision-making can lead to rash decisions with undesirable consequences
Citizens' interests may not be represented
Succession is not based on a person's fitness as a leader
Change of government is typically achieved through violent and bloody means
Experts and adviser may not be given a proper chance to give honest advice about ruler's policy decisions
Pros-
The advantages of an absolute monarchy are highly dependent on the nation state in question. Where the national identity is fractured a single enduring head of state can provide a focus for a sense of national consciousness and pride. Where a nation lacks a tradition of the peaceful hand over of power, infrequent changes of government can provide stability. Where these advantages have been sought outside of monarchy, warlords, political strong men and such have never been able to achieve the political legitimacy conferred on a reigning monarch.
Monarch can also assist in development through the suppression of official corruption. Where the citizenry (or subjects) lack the power to defend property rights these same property rights can be vested in the person of the monarch. Corruption by lower officials becomes a personal crime against the monarch which in theory the monarch has the power to respond to. The monarch can not him or herself engage in theft since in theory everything already belongs to him or her.
The list of nations for whom the lack of civil society and stability make the only alternative to single person rule, chaos and anarchy can be readily culled from the bottom of the index of failed nations states. For these nations, which may aspire to other more representative forms of government, monarchy may provide an attractive interim solution of national governance.
More developed nations may benefit from monarchy where ethnic identity is stronger than national identity. Under these circumstances representative forms of government have a tendency to be develop into a "spoils" system, which divides resources and power among politicians with little incentive to serve the nations as a whole. In theory the monarch can stand above the fractions and administer the nation fairly, efficiently and move quickly to address national crises.
As long as they have the best for the country in mind can't go wrong really, maybe a few mistakes but that always happens and will be easy to fix. if not will be forgiven much more easier than if its was a group of people.
Allows for quick and decisive decision-making
Good for military command
Allows for long-term stability of leadership
Can create a higher sense of nationalism & national identity
Avoids inefficiencies of poly-cameral legislative bodies.
Political stability, predictable diplomatic pattern, ruler stabilty because the head of monarchy does not change.
It should be noted that all of the advantages listed here are highly dependent on finding a single person able and willing to nurture the power of the monarchy over a significant portion of his or her lifetime. Under the best circumstances the monarch will act to legitimize his or her rule through the building of a strong civil society, strong political institutions and the management of factions through power sharing arrangements that make long tenure in office acceptable to the various fractions of the political establishment.
Read more:
Answer
Monarchs have a difficult job. They have to walk the fine line of being strict enough that the subjects won't throw a fit when they don't get what they want but at the same time not being too dictatorial (or else the people will rebel)
For some monarchs, this too much to ask. They will do what they want, no matter how many toes they step on. They do this because they feel worthy and their subjects are unworthy. The worst part of that is, if your current king is not like that, his son could be. So with monarchies you're taking a big chance.
Power mad, that's the only down side. As long as they keep the countries best interest in sight they will always do there best and not care for money.
Cons -
Unilateral decision-making can lead to rash decisions with undesirable consequences
Citizens' interests may not be represented
Succession is not based on a person's fitness as a leader
Change of government is typically achieved through violent and bloody means
Experts and adviser may not be given a proper chance to give honest advice about ruler's policy decisions
Pros-
The advantages of an absolute monarchy are highly dependent on the nation state in question. Where the national identity is fractured a single enduring head of state can provide a focus for a sense of national consciousness and pride. Where a nation lacks a tradition of the peaceful hand over of power, infrequent changes of government can provide stability. Where these advantages have been sought outside of monarchy, warlords, political strong men and such have never been able to achieve the political legitimacy conferred on a reigning monarch.
Monarch can also assist in development through the suppression of official corruption. Where the citizenry (or subjects) lack the power to defend property rights these same property rights can be vested in the person of the monarch. Corruption by lower officials becomes a personal crime against the monarch which in theory the monarch has the power to respond to. The monarch can not him or herself engage in theft since in theory everything already belongs to him or her.
The list of nations for whom the lack of civil society and stability make the only alternative to single person rule, chaos and anarchy can be readily culled from the bottom of the index of failed nations states. For these nations, which may aspire to other more representative forms of government, monarchy may provide an attractive interim solution of national governance.
More developed nations may benefit from monarchy where ethnic identity is stronger than national identity. Under these circumstances representative forms of government have a tendency to be develop into a "spoils" system, which divides resources and power among politicians with little incentive to serve the nations as a whole. In theory the monarch can stand above the fractions and administer the nation fairly, efficiently and move quickly to address national crises.
As long as they have the best for the country in mind can't go wrong really, maybe a few mistakes but that always happens and will be easy to fix. if not will be forgiven much more easier than if its was a group of people.
Allows for quick and decisive decision-making
Good for military command
Allows for long-term stability of leadership
Can create a higher sense of nationalism & national identity
Avoids inefficiencies of poly-cameral legislative bodies.
Political stability, predictable diplomatic pattern, ruler stabilty because the head of monarchy does not change.
It should be noted that all of the advantages listed here are highly dependent on finding a single person able and willing to nurture the power of the monarchy over a significant portion of his or her lifetime. Under the best circumstances the monarch will act to legitimize his or her rule through the building of a strong civil society, strong political institutions and the management of factions through power sharing arrangements that make long tenure in office acceptable to the various fractions of the political establishment.
Read more:
