FrankGol

The phrase “economic rationalist” as currently used originated with Pusey, who didn't define it clearly. It's a label used more often in disapproval than approval, so the “economic rationalism” of its proponents and opponents are different, and both use loaded terms in their definitions.

John Hyde’s definition is:

“Economic rationalists contend that governments should develop the institutions that make markets work better, avoid unnecessary substitution of their own judgements for those of buyers and sellers, and govern without favour.”

Pusey’s definition is:
“A doctrine that says that markets and prices are the only reliable means of setting a value on anything.”

This gulf between the definition of proponents and opponents was drawn out well in the study “Economics Through the Looking Glass: ‘Economic Rationalism’ as Seen by Public Figures” By Malcolm Anderson and Michael Harris, (IAESR Working Paper 6/96), which grouped opinions into the categories of “hawks” and “doves.”

Self-described “hawks” characterised what they believed as:

- Finding the lowest cost means to an end or social goal

- Concerned with policies that actually work, rather than sounding a nice idea

- Belief that free markets reduce rent seeking

In contrasts, doves characterised hawks’ views as:

- Government intervention is always detrimental to economic performance

- Competition is better than co-operation

- A preference for more efficient over more equitable outcomes

- An unswerving commitment to free markets, privatisation, deregulation and lower government spending

None of these definitions was accepted by a majority of self-described hawks.

So a picture of good intentions disrupted by dogma and self-interest could also apply for economic rationalism.

Self-described economic rationalists see their ideas as little more than sound stewardship, focussing particularly on responsible and prudent management of others’ resources, an idea with lots of authentic biblical resonance. But they may underestimate the extent to which their understanding of the benefits of competition, the effectiveness of certain social and economic policies, and the likelihood and seriousness of government failure are ideologically not empirically based, and the insufficiency of economic tools to evaluate some social goals and policies.

I reckon Jesus would have voted with the doves :)

Jesus has voted already but few follow his teachings. Least of all the Greens who despise his prayer and want it banned in opening Parliament. He has already formed a Christian Party that represents his value of all life.

The thing is Biblical history demonstrates that we get the government that reflects the nations moral attitudes. The further they move from his teaching the more they make themselves prone to destruction. The Bible calls it judgment day. Israel found themselves overtaken by Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome. All nations that enforced beliefs and practises upon them they totally abhorred. The nation that forgets God will self destruct or be overtaken by a greater power.

RHIAN....I was so blessed by your 2nd last post.. you captured the essense of the issue very well..and FRANKGOL even agreed :)

See Frank.. we are really not that far apart page wise.

The points made by Rhian, demonstrate how human fallability creeps into all political movements. Thats why I will criticize anyone who claims Jesus for 'their' side of a multi sided political battle.

We might be able to show that 'some' aspects of a particular party are more 'Biblical' than another parties, but then..that other party may well have different points which are more Biblical than some of the other mobs also.

That's why I say Jesus would not be in the voting game he is in the repentance/faith/forgiveness 'business'... renewing people from within... rather than subscribing to a particular political system.

I'm sure that if Kev Rudd and John Howard both went in to see Jesus for 'confession' they would both have plenty to pour out :)
as would we all.