Foxy sounds a bit like British Hebrew Economist- "David Ricardo".

The nation that produces a commodity most efficiently should produce it for the world (this means there will be more productive capacity to produce other commodities).

See some objections to this idea below... I have my own objections too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo#Criticism_of_the_Ricardian_theory_of_trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo

I agree with Ayn Rand that you can't do business with those that are "out to get you".
_____________

Machiavelli in The Prince (also Yuri Bezmenov) recognised that The West had a weakness over Asia in that because of it's subsidiarity/ granular structure, it could be fragmented and destroyed. Asian government being more authoritarian, based on it's rotating officials model, could attack western structures without them being able to defend against it.

I've never heard of David Ricardo. And when travelling
to other countries, as a foreigner I don't want to run
the risk of focusing on poverty and a lack of resources or
on corruption, religious strife, et cetera. These are
valid issues but they are not the only side to any country.

I made a small list. We all have our favourites that we
admire and respect for a variety of reasons. Countries
where we feel welcomed. Often where people have a
strong sense of identity, community, and belonging.
Where they like to celebrate their traditions, cuisines,
et cetera.

I've learned a great deal from my travels, including that
we need to respect the norms and values of our neighbours.
To try to avoid steretypes, judgements, and biases.
But of course at times, that's easier said than done.

cont'd ...

Talking about Ayn Rand?

There are many who admire her. For me tha fly in
the ointment of Ayn Rand's philosophical "objectivism"
is the plain fact that humans have a tendency to
co-operate and to look out for each other as noted
by many anthropologists.

What if we all allowed ourselves to be blinded to all
but our own self interests?

Dear Canem,
So many words and such energy you have devoted to trying to justify to yourself that you aren't a frightened little man, afraid or unable to see the beauty and wonder of the world around you and everything human existence has contributed. Oh well, Foxy generously gave you a short list of things you might like to work on. Good luck.

Ayn Rand doesn't seem to be against cooperation but seems to be against forced cooperation.

Ayn Rand is not just about "self interest" it's probably more accurate as "enlightened self interest". As far as cooperation vs competition is concerned I agree that both are important. There is a lot more to Objectivism. Ayn Rand describes Objectivism as the philosophy of life and says that there exist philosophies of death. Objectivism is rooted in life giving attributes of productivity, and the paradigm that a successful life sustaining civilization needs to encourage those individuals and systems that lead to the most productivity. It seems to accept Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

Ayn Rand seems to be against those organisations that use their market power to create laws and red tape to artificially protect themselves from competition, and believes that in the long term this doesn't even help those creating the laws.

Other insight into Objectivism is through John Galt's Speech and Francisco's Money Speech.

I believe that there are some flaws with Ayn Rand- but she says many things that make sense

Paul has basically made my point for me. That point being that one of the fundamental solutions to the massively excessive DV in the aboriginal community can't and won't be addressed because it means addressing the massive misogyny inherent in aboriginal culture.

So Paul doesn't deny that there is a massive DV problem with the less integrated aboriginals. He doesn't deny that aboriginal women suffer at rates vastly greater than women in other groups. He just thinks its racist to point it out. And so, by trying to suppress the facts, his approach will ensure that the problem persists. But in the minds of these people like Paul, protecting the reputation of the culture is vastly more important than protecting the actual women.

That, to my thinking is a despicable approach.

As an aside Paul refers to me several time in the plural..."Because the racists who started the thread..."; "Naturally, the racists is assisted". I think he's so impressed by my output that he thinks I'm more than one man.