If you look back at my post, you will see that "ideology" has two separate definitions, the second being "a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture." What that means in this case is "an individual's manner of thinking." The word does not have any sinister meaning. By the way, neither does the word "systematic," which means "orderly" as opposed to "haphazard."Originally posted by Mitteleuropeo
* In my opinion, every thinking person has an idea, but he/she should be open also to other ones, let alone to moderate changes.I feel that Mr. Bush is ages far away from that, since he regards his dogma of the superiority of the market economy and of the right of the US to impose their views to other Countries as an obvious consequence of the military superiority of the USA.
The US have achieved their overhelming power mainly through the fact of being practically immune from foreign attacks and of being competitive in the markets due to the economy of scale, made possible by a large homogeneous market. Think of the defeat in Vietnam, of the poor results in bringing peace into Irak, of the huge debts of US-households...
I guess, you will seriously rethink about the advantages of running after an ideology, let alone to export it to Countries having a different history (which leads to a different ranking of values). Mr. Adam Smith had also an ideology, as well as Mr. Keynes. According to me, the one of Mr. Smith has proven to be short-sighted, whereas the one by Mr. Keynes has never proved to be wrong, especially because it is not really an ideology, but a way of thinking (and acting), thus being open to suggestions and changes, as experience may require.
I am seriously interested in hearing the comments from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean!
Have a good time!![]()




Rispondi Citando
I've also found some sites where I can watch the news in Italian, so at least I can work a little on pronunciation. I am sure I will officially have the worst Italian on the face of the earth. 