Michael Daly wrote:
On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Totalitarian capitalistic country

There were several in South America years ago. the US
supported them because they were capitalistic and ignored
the grotesque human rights abuses that took place. Time
to pull out your history books.

Mike

Banana Republics, and nice way to say fake government, no doubt. But
again I don't buy the stretch that they represented any sort of
capitalism.

Obviously this end of the spectrum is harder to find because the two
principles are diametrically opposed. Capitalism emphasizes the
individual. Totalitarian denies the individual. So their possible
coexistance is fleeting at best. Even a benevolent king, would still
controll all the assets, and hence not really capitalism.

On the other end of the spectrum the situation can be more compatible,
and accebtable if the totalitarian is benevolent, such as some
constitutional monarchies where I believe the king is trully concerned
for their subjects. It can be hell where the leader is not so nice.

Inbetween there are many shades and colors. However I still maintain
that the political/economical factors are interrelated, and can not be
considered in a vacuum. TnT