Re: Economics of Islam

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

John,
     "Excellent" is indeed the word to be used,
especially given how dated it is.
     Certainly many Iranians had reason to be
angry at both the US and the UK for reimposing
the Shah.  However, today it is clear that a majority
of Iranians do not like the "odd mullahs" who control
the security apparatus there and also fund and
support terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, abroad
through their banyans.
      Osama bin Laden and his associates are a good
deal more than the odd mullah.  Last I saw, the execrable
Falwell and Robertson have apologized for their remarks,
(although Republican candidate for governor in Virginia,
Mark Early, a Robertson acolyte, has refused to repudiate
them).  Have not seen any apologies for Sept. 11 out of
any of bin Laden or his associates, quite the contrary.
They killed thousands of people.  Falwell and Robertson
just insulted a bunch, mostly non-Muslim Americans
actually, all the gays and abortionists and ACLU types, etc.
        And, of course, that the US CIA stupidly supported
the Mujaheddin (and supports the Saudi royal family)
is no excuse for al Qaeda killing thousands of people.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Legge" <jlegge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: Economics of Islam


> "Excellent" is hardly the word I would use for this dated and partial
> account of Islam.  Two points should also be remembered:
> 1.  The CIA/MI6 coup against Mossadeq in Iran occurred well within living
> memory: a modern, secularising and democratically elected leader was
ousted
> in favour of US oil interests.  Even so, it is the US which maintains an
> embargo against Iran, not the other way around, and the Iranian government
> actively sponsors its students in their overseas studies.  Australia has
> benefited from the US embargo in this and many other ways, but what about
> some talk of "US rage" when it obvious in which direction the active
> hostility is flowing.  As long as the US tolerates Falwell and Robertson
as
> well as a host of illiberal, right wing think tanks thriving on tax exempt
> dollars, it ill-behoves that country to object to the odd raving mullah.
> 2.  Modern Islamic fundamentalism, like Oslama bin Laden, like the SE
Asian
> heroin trade, if not exactly founded by the CIA grew immeasurably under
its
> influence and anti-Soviet support.  Good old fundamentalist Islam in
> Pakistan was seen as more reliably anti-Soviet than wishy-washy Indian
> neutralism, democracy and the rule of law. If Frankenstein upset his
master,
> it is convenient, though hardly intellectually honest, to forget the act
of
> creation.
>
> Who, by the way, is the "we" who think we understand why the centrally
> planned economies stagnated?  Practically until the day the Wall fell,
> economists were comparing market outcomes with those a "social planner"
> could have achieved.
>
> JML
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > Behalf Of Mason Clark
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2001 2:21 PM
> > To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Economics of Islam
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is an excellent article on the background of September Eleven:
> > "The Roots of Muslim Rage"  -- The Atlantic, September 1990:
> >
> >      http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm
> >
> > It is suggested that one source of the rage stems from the failure of
> > the Islamic nations to develop economically.  Some of them have
> > great oil wealth, but not general economic development -- there are
> > no "Islamic tigers" to compare with Korea, Taiwan, Hongkong,
> > China, ....
> >
> > We think we know why centrally-managed Communist nations have
> > economic-development problems.  Are there reasons why Islamic
> > nations have such problems?  Is Islam itself in any way an impediment?
> >
> >          Mason C
> >
>
>