Ali's question is fascinating. When the country gets too corrupt and too chaotic, that is inconvenient. When the country gets too democratic, that too is dangerous.
Maybe we could construct a mirror of Robert Barro's estimation of the appropriate level of democracy. On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 08:53:54AM -0800, ALI KADRI wrote: > I have asked once on the list about the role of > imperialism in social development in the third world. > so here i ask again: > put bluntly does the us benefit more from a third > world country with a socially regressive agenda or > from one with a socially progressive agenda? > > depending on where you stand on this question then it > is possible to say that US kills people, schools, > hospitals, etc because it is better for its interests > or not, no! > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > from Microsoft's SLATE on-line newsmagazine: > > > > Chomsky Speak > > > > By Inigo Thomas > > > > Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 3:25 PM PT > > > > In Pakistan to promote the view that the United > > States sponsors terrorism, Professor Noam Chomsky > > told an audience of 1,500 people that the 1998 > > bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory > > (wrongly believed by the CIA to be an al-Qaida > > chemical weapons plant) may have resulted in the > > deaths of several thousand people. (Other reports > > say that one or maybe two people died at the factory > > after it was hit by U.S. cruise missiles.) This > > instance of U.S. terrorism, Chomsky says, is an > > indication of what will happen in Afghanistan. > > "Coalition forces [meaning American and British > > forces together with their proxy, the Northern > > Alliance] are making plans to further destroy the > > hunger-stricken country. The consequences of their > > crimes will never be known and they are quite > > confident about that. And that is the enormous > > outcome of the crime of the powerful �" > > > > Chomsky is famous for his analysis of U.S. > > government actions and the language used by > > officials to blind the citizenry from the truth, yet > > in this speech the MIT professor comes close to > > adopting the language of distortion he abhors. > > Chomsky implies that the Afghan famine is a result > > of U.S. and British military action, although an > > Afghan farmer might say that a lack of rain in > > recent years as well as the Taliban regime were more > > directly responsible for the dearth. Moroever, and > > contrary to what Chomsky says, the United States and > > its allies are not planning to "further destroy" > > Afghanistan, although they do hope to destroy the > > Taliban, whose willful destruction of their own > > country has created a humanitarian calamity. > > Finally, what truth is there in Chomsky's remark > > that the "consequences of their crimes will never be > > known and they are quite confident about that"? The > > implication is that the Americans and the British > > are getting away with murder in Afghanistan, but if > > th! > > e consequences of previous American actions have > > been revealed, and Chomsky offers some examples in > > the very same speech, why is he so sure that the > > consequences of these so-called "crimes" will remain > > a mystery? What's so special about Afghanistan? Of > > course, you could also be led to believe that no > > "crimes" have taken place in Afghanistan, in which > > case there will be different consequences. > > > > ---- > > comments? > > Jim Devine > > > > _________________________________________________ > > The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb > > http://www.thatweb.com > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. > http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
