Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?

Mat Merrion wrote
> > Economic rationalism is what you get when you reject ideologies and
> > base your decisions on what produces economic results.  Unfortunately,
> > people fight the notoin tooth and nail, so conversion take many, many
> > years.
>

Patrick Powers replied:
> So economic rationalism is not an ideology?  I beg to disagree.
> However it is an ideology that is so deeply entrenched in the US that
> I hesitate to waste my precious time discussing it.  Let me just say I
> have left the US permanently to get away from this sort of thinking
> and am now living about as far away as you could possibly be on this
> earth.

Of course it is an ideology - no one claimed it was not.  However it is an
ideology supported by history.  To those that do not agree simply point out
the economic system that has done it better.  That is not to say it is a
'good' system in the sense people are happy with it.  Just like democracy
'is the worst system ever devised -except for any other one that has ever
been tried' so economic rationalism (rationalist capitalism or whatever you
want to call it) is the worst economic system ever devised - except for any
other one that has ever been tried.  Also just like their is no unique
system of democracy - each democratic country has their own variations -
that is no unique economical rationalist system.  However just like it is
easy to spot democratic systems it is also easy to spot economically
rationalist systems.  For example the Taliban was neither democratic nor
economically rationalist, China is not yet fully democratic (but getting
better) but is becoming increasingly economically rationalist, while
countries like Australia, USA, England etc are fully both.  Of course the
exact details of the system in each country differs - which is why you may
find one that suits you better.  But I believe the lesion of history is
clear - democratic capitalism is the only system that works.

Patrick Powers wrote:
> What you seem to be saying is that if others could be converted to
> this ideology of economic rationalism then the problem of terrorism
> would disappear.  Now that is a very old idea:  If everyone just
> thought as I do, then conflict would be eliminated.  Well, you
> certainly are free to attempt to do so.  I just hope it takes more
> than 30 years, as by then I will likely be dead of old age.  I really
> don't want to live in a world where money is considered the highest
> good.

No I do not think that is what is being said.  What we are saying is one of
the cripes Muslim countries have with the West is the economic power they
wield.  To the degree that Muslim countries do not embrace responsible
economic management (eg allow women to fully participate in the workforce)
then the gulf will widen and further problems will result.  However if they
were to become economically more rational (and not do things like base
economic decisions on religious beliefs) then the economic gulf will lessen.
Now I happen to believe when that happens it will make a big difference -
however the exact difference it will make is open to debate.

Patrick Powers wrote:
> So I suppose I ought to propose something else.  I think terrorism is
> the RESULT of attempts to impose economic rationalism on the
> non-Western world and such attempts should cease forthwith.  What do
> these terrorists want?  For their country of Saudi Arabia to be left
> alone and for it NOT to become westernized.  I always find it amusing
> that Americans say that these attacks occur because others are jealous
> of American wealth, when in fact they were funded by very wealthy
> people.

Do you really believe that is all they want?  Or do you believe as I and a
number of others do that if they got what they wanted the economic gulf
between the Muslim countries and west will widen further and cause even
greater resentment.  But I readily admit you may be correct.

Thanks
Bill