tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post3370978087570128752..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: That Sucking Sound is Your Brain on JournalismBrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-43020585428177883932014-10-27T11:13:40.304-07:002014-10-27T11:13:40.304-07:00Update on election in Brazil from this morning'...Update on election in Brazil from this morning's 10/27/14 local liberal rag:<br /><br /><i>Brazilian President Rousseff re-elected<br /><br />RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff has been re-elected to a second term to lead the world’s fifth-largest nation.<br /><br />Official results released Sunday by Brazil’s top electoral court show that the left-leaning Rousseff beat opposition contender Aecio Neves.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Rousseff’s victory extends her Workers’ Party rule, which has held the presidency since 2003. <br /><br />During that time, they’ve enacted expansive social programs that have helped pull millions of Brazilians out of poverty and into the middle class. — Associated Press</i> <br /><br />Apparently, the news hasn't reached Clovis yet that he need not worry anymore. Problem of poverty in Brazil is solved.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-19481017515016793092014-10-17T14:31:26.956-07:002014-10-17T14:31:26.956-07:00AOG,
---
You're really reaching for points of...AOG,<br /><br />---<br />You're really reaching for points of disagreement now.<br />---<br />What, you can't make that kind of claim in front of a physicists and expect no reaction.<br /><br />I remember you did mention getting a minor on Physics, right?Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-60924316027474616212014-10-17T13:58:22.746-07:002014-10-17T13:58:22.746-07:00Clovis;
Do you realize that, by your reading, eve...Clovis;<br /><br /><i>Do you realize that, by your reading, every democracy should be a resounding failure?</i><br /><br />No, I don't realize that. Enlighten me. Did you realize my point only applies to governments that over long periods consistently consume larger fractions of GDP?<br /><br /><i>It is more like 40 floors before that happens</i><br /><br />You're really reaching for points of disagreement now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-45528791022492739932014-10-16T19:11:36.781-07:002014-10-16T19:11:36.781-07:00AOG,
---
My reading of history is that government...AOG,<br /><br />---<br />My reading of history is that government will ride that linear route right off a cliff, at which point I claim it becomes non-linear. <br />---<br />Do you realize that, by your reading, every democracy should be a resounding failure?<br /><br />For in every one of them people would be voting themselves bread and circus, and kabum. But then, why is it that all the examples you cited are more the exception than the rule?<br /><br />---<br /> or is stable in the sense that if you jump off a 100 story building, your path is stable for 99 floors.<br />---<br />What? Are you claming you achieve terminal velocity after just one floor? It is more like 40 floors before that happens. See, it is not only in economics that you present and oversimplified view.<br /><br /><br />As for the fiscal outlook of the US, you don't need to argue further, I am by now convinced its long term projection is a bit worrisome. You were right.<br /><br />What I am not convinced is that there is no going back and possible changes before you get anywhere near that cliff.<br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-65161943020971592972014-10-16T16:32:08.655-07:002014-10-16T16:32:08.655-07:00My reading of history is that government will ride...My reading of history is that government will ride that linear route right off a cliff, at which point I claim it becomes non-linear. Why didn't Venezuela stop digging their economic hole? It was linear all the way down. Or Greece. Or Detroit. Or Peronist Argentina? My own state of Illinois is cruising straight on in the same place, linearly running toward the cliff.<br /><br />But let's look at the 538 article, in particular the graphs labeled "Total Government Spending as Share of GDP" and "Entitlement Spendin as Share of GDP". Both of those look to have a clear upward slope. Let's quote just past that<br /><br />--<br />Specifically, overall government spending on entitlement programs increased at a 4.8 annual rate in the 40 years between 1972 and 2011, net of inflation. Health care spending increased at 5.7 percent per year (and federal government spending on health care increased at a 6.7 percent pace). In contrast, the gross domestic product grew at a rate of 2.7 percent over this period, with tax revenues increasing at about the same rate as the G.D.P. <br />--<br /><br />I suppose we can quibble about words, but to me ever increasing spending is not stable*, and spending that grows faster than tax revenues and GDP is even more not stable, or is stable in the sense that if you jump off a 100 story building, your path is stable for 99 floors. This kind of system has a tipping point and consistent movement toward it, linear or more than linear, is simply not stable. It will collapse at some point in the future and in a rather sudden and catastrophic manner. History is full of examples, of which I noted but a few.<br /><br />I'll end with another quote from the article, which supports my initial claim<br /><br />--<br />To clarify: all of the major categories of government spending have been increasing relative to inflation. But essentially all of the increase in spending relative to economic growth, and the potential tax base, has come from entitlement programs<br />--Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-2718546565513008992014-10-16T13:51:10.005-07:002014-10-16T13:51:10.005-07:00AOG,
---
If they used the same data and got diffe...AOG,<br /><br />---<br />If they used the same data and got different graph shapes, one of them is being dishonest.<br />---<br />Or, which is the case, they plotted different things. <br /><br />The 538 graph does present a slightly negative derivative today, when all transfer payments are included (which was your requirement to portray "welfare", and is the difference between said graphs). And the long term tendency looks to be roughly linear. In that sense, they don't look to be an exploding (non-linear) system. And that was my initial point when saying "Doesn't look like an unstable system to me".<br /><br />---<br />I would point out that we started this with my claim this type of spending is unsustainable over the long run, and you are now citing articles that agree with me. I think you should admit it makes your counter claim disputable.<br />---<br />I hope to have clarified my "counter claim" above. <br /><br />As I see it, the initial dispute was not about sustaintability, but about stability. A system with linear behavior usually allows for route correction. So they are only unsustainable in the long run if society was to function in automatic pilot for the next decades, with no new input to the system. That is not usually the case.<br /><br />And the fact that I am citing data and analysis that favors your view should be evidence that my "ulterior motive" is not "trying to disagree with" you, but to find truth.<br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-65599277742812357242014-10-16T12:45:06.060-07:002014-10-16T12:45:06.060-07:00Clovis;
If they used the same data and got differ...Clovis;<br /><br />If they used the same data and got different graph shapes, one of them is being dishonest.<br /><br />We could spend forever arguing about the perceived shape of the graphs, but I would point out that we started this with my claim this type of spending is unsustainable over the long run, and you are now citing articles that agree with me. I think you should admit it makes your counter claim disputable.<br /><br />As for supporting Al Qaeda or IS and the foreign policy reaction to such, you are confusing <i>justified</i> with <i>advantageous</i>. A campaign against the Saudi Entity may well be the former without being the latter.<br /><br />As for your quote, I am quite aware of that and therefore think carefully about such analogies. But I see that such effort cannot stand against your blithe dismissal of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-65275806918290474712014-10-16T10:41:24.332-07:002014-10-16T10:41:24.332-07:00AOG,
---
Again, the original had a dramatic drop ...AOG,<br /><br />---<br />Again, the original had a dramatic drop off, neither the CATO nor th 538 one does. I think it says something about your original cite.<br />---<br />It says indeed: the 538 one takes a good deal of its data from that original site, as you'd see if you had read the piece. <br /><br />---<br />As for your other question, yes, I would consider supporting Al Qaeda as sponsoring terrorism against the USA.<br />---<br />So may I infer the same applies for countries supporting ISIS too? When does the campaign against Qatar and Saudi Arabia begin? For I guess they have done already more damage than any petty terrorism charge you may have against Saddam times.<br /><br />---<br />How does generalizing make it invalid? I thought that was what physicists did to create a new theory. Are those invalid too?<br />---<br />You may appreciate reading this <a href="http://greatguys.blogspot.com.br/2014/10/fragile-knowledge.html" rel="nofollow">nice piece of blogging</a>. I will quote a relevant part for you:<br /><br />"This reminds me of a point made in a TV interview by the late Richard Feynman back in the early 1980s. His point was that most people have fragile knowledge. They do not know under what conditions some ideas are valid and when they are not, analogous to some mathematical techniques being applicable in limited domains."<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-82615758821076907962014-10-16T10:23:52.444-07:002014-10-16T10:23:52.444-07:00Skipper,
---
A "genocide" is like a dro...Skipper,<br /><br />---<br />A "genocide" is like a drought. The assessment is invariably past tense.<br />---<br />Not really, and not always. Rwanda is a case where bells were ringing loud and clear about what was to happen.<br /><br />And look how you are playing it: you believe to be omnscient enough to take preventive action, but feel absolutely incapable of acting on the here and now.<br /><br />I don't know why you walk your dog with a gun then, for if you can't foresee that bear one day before, you surely won't be able to take action when it appears right in front of you. <br /><br />---<br />Easy. We didn't intervene against Al Queda — despite several acts of war — until after the direct threat became reality. <br />---<br />And what could you have done before knowing the extension of their operations? It is not like you didn't <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)" rel="nofollow">try anyway</a>.<br /><br />---<br />You would have the US do nothing until China is presenting a direct threat, which means China is in a stronger position, and the US position is weaker. <br />---<br />Wait, now you are making this up. I am not defending the US should not prepare itself, and use soft/hard power, diplomacy and strategic alliances to project its will. Or that it should not redraw its military strategy and assets to answer to possible threats. That's all very different from directly rushing to misguided action, like invading a country.<br /><br />---<br />Our actions in the region must be viewed first and foremost, perhaps even exclusively, in ensuring the free access of Persian Gulf oil to world markets. <br />---<br />And then again, that can not possibly explain Iraq 2003, unless you blindly believe in your own omnscience.<br /><br />---<br />Why I'm not taking you seriously is that you haven't spent one syllable analyzing the situation in the Persian Gulf at the time.<br />---<br />I am aware that's the kind of answer you wanted, but you won't like it a bit too, for I am basically dismissive of the supposed importance of "containing" the Islamic Revolution.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-23836867018033485072014-10-15T21:46:18.933-07:002014-10-15T21:46:18.933-07:00When the UN forces there stationed made me a call ...<i>When the UN forces there stationed made me a call asking what to do. I would answer "Help comes on wings", instead of "Get the hell outta there!".<br /><br />Too naive? Maybe, but you asked, I am answering. </i> <br /><br />That is where your "policy" becomes incoherent. <br /><br />A "genocide" is like a drought. The assessment is invariably past tense. You wouldn't intervene until the genocide has already happened, which means the intervention would happen long after it would have been most useful.<br /><br /><i>For the record, I don't know what you are talking about here. Can you provide specific examples of where and how my strategy would be troublesome? </i> <br /><br />Easy. We didn't intervene against Al Queda — despite several acts of war — until <i>after</i> the direct threat became reality. <br /><br />China is being very provocative in the Western Pacific and China Sea. None of those provocations present a direct threat to the US. You would have the US do nothing until China <i>is</i> presenting a direct threat, which means China is in a stronger position, and the US position is weaker. <br /><br />You take no account of how US allies — who are always acting amorally — would react to a situation where the US won't exert its strength compared to another country that will.<br /><br /><i>[Hey Skipper:] Would a month long closure of the Straits of Hormuz constitute a direct threat to the US?<br />---<br />[Clovis:] Today, yes. Not necessarily in future, with possible development of other pipelines. </i> <br /><br />Our actions in the region must be viewed first and foremost, perhaps even exclusively, in ensuring the free access of Persian Gulf oil to world markets. Remember: US national security strategy is amoral. If a closure of the Straits of Hormuz was to result only in a humanitarian disaster in energy or economically poor countries, we wouldn't be lifting a finger.<br /><br />But such an occurrence would have, in addition to the humanitarian aspects, a drastic effect on our economy.<br /><br />Hypothetical: graphene leads to economical fuel cells using natural gas as feedstock. As a consequence, all surface transportation achieves more than three times current thermodynamic efficiency.<br /><br />We will no longer give a damn about the Persian Gulf, no matter how much of a dystopia the place turns into when the market price of oil drops to $10 a barrel. <br /><br />But a hypothetical then is not now, or the past.<br /><br /><i>[Clovis:] OK. Hmm... your military industrial complex foresaw that was the perfect guarantee for great contracts for the next 30 years? <br /><br />[Hey Skipper:] Thanks for relieving me of the bother of taking you seriously. </i> <br /><br />Why I'm not taking you seriously is that you haven't spent one syllable analyzing the situation in the Persian Gulf at the time. If you had, you might have demonstrated to yourself what a nasty business international relations invariably is.<br /><br />(BTW — great song, thanks for the link.)Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-4086744281134690622014-10-15T21:46:04.374-07:002014-10-15T21:46:04.374-07:00You have a funny way of looking at it, Skipper. I ...<i>You have a funny way of looking at it, Skipper. I say violence was rampant in S America and you say no. You say beheadings are especially reprehensible and I say no more than style differences between regions. </i><br /><br />Harry, I've asked before, and I'll ask again. Please do NOT tell me what I've said without quoting directly. You would also do well to do the same with yourself.<br /><br />I know you can't do so, because you never said "violence was rampant in SA", so I couldn't possibly have responded to what you didn't say. <br /><br />Same for right and left wing violence. Quote what I actually said -- "elide" is a great word, BTW. Its meaning seems to have eluded you.<br /><br />I don't know what it is about Progressives. When I dove into that fever swamp at Crooked Timber, commenters there never quoted me, but instead told me what I had said.<br /><br />They invariably got it wildly wrong. Which made me wonder about their reading skills, intellectual acuity, or honesty.<br /><br />I have never known conservatives or libertarians to do that.<br /><br /><br /><br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-5995136478178843132014-10-15T18:29:31.181-07:002014-10-15T18:29:31.181-07:00You have a funny way of looking at it, Skipper. I ...You have a funny way of looking at it, Skipper. I say violence was rampant in S America and you say no. You say beheadings are especially reprehensible and I say no more than style differences between regions. I note that rightwingers doted on disappearances. And somehow you object that I have not sufficiently condemned left violence.<br /><br />I am the one who says there was violence and you are the one who said there wasn't. Please keep that straight.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-41522894585678325382014-10-15T10:19:43.665-07:002014-10-15T10:19:43.665-07:00Skipper,
This one is part of the soundtrack I am ...Skipper,<br /><br />This <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXacYv1yAiM#t=11" rel="nofollow">one</a> is part of the soundtrack I am making to be part of your album, "Songs of the future past".<br /><br />Enjoy!<br />(I really like this one, I've found the guy recently).Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-24787856674672553122014-10-15T08:18:17.446-07:002014-10-15T08:18:17.446-07:00Skipper,
---
[Clovis:] OK. Hmm... your military i...Skipper,<br /><br />---<br />[Clovis:] OK. Hmm... your military industrial complex foresaw that was the perfect guarantee for great contracts for the next 30 years? <br />Thanks for relieving me of the bother of taking you seriously.<br />---<br />I see. If I were a five-star general and Supreme Commander of US Forces, would you take me <a href="http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html" rel="nofollow">more seriously</a>?<br /><br />---<br />When would you have intervened in Rwanda? <br />---<br />When the UN forces there stationed made me a call asking what to do. I would answer "Help comes on wings", instead of "Get the hell outta there!".<br /><br />Too naive? Maybe, but you asked, I am answering.<br /><br />---<br />That is meaningless. An essential part of national security strategy is preventing affairs from ever reaching the point of a "direct threat". Aside from leaving a gaping hole where a definition would be, you would allow death by a thousand cuts. <br />---<br />For the record, I don't know what you are talking about here. Can you provide specific examples of where and how my strategy would be troublesome?<br /><br />---<br />Would a month long closure of the Straits of Hormuz constitute a direct threat to the US?<br />---<br />Today, yes. Not necessarily in future, with possible development of other pipelines. Yet you are sure you could foresee that such a closure would be catastrophic in a far in future new Iran-Iraq war, and that alone was good enough reason for an invasion. Or something like that. I don't know anymore, this "back to the future" machine makes me dizzy.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-83003496687800912912014-10-15T08:11:02.313-07:002014-10-15T08:11:02.313-07:00Clovis;
I looked at your latest link and its grap...Clovis;<br /><br />I looked at your latest link and its graph, and it looks more like the CATO graph than your original one. Again, the original had a dramatic drop off, neither the CATO nor th 538 one does. I think it says something about your original cite.<br /><br />As for your other question, yes, I would consider supporting Al Qaeda as sponsoring terrorism against the USA.<br /><br /><i>you taking a simple relationship and generalizing it to where it is no longer valid</i><br /><br />How does generalizing make it invalid? I thought that was what physicists did to create a new theory. Are those invalid too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-2760565726816909372014-10-15T07:56:43.884-07:002014-10-15T07:56:43.884-07:00Peter,
---
The Swedish Institute for Peace and Se...Peter,<br /><br />---<br />The Swedish Institute for Peace and Security, hardly a rabid American booster, did a comprehensive study of where Hussein got his arms from the late seventies to the first Gulf War. 1% came from the U.S. and the U.K. 87% came from Russia, China and France.<br />---<br />A very good point, Peter. Yet, you won't see up above any writing of mine specifically accusing the USA of directly arming Iraq in the 80's. Scroll up and see for yourself. Why to give arms if you can give money, contacts and influence?<br /><br />So I certainly accused it of giving support in general, and that <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran" rel="nofollow">it did</a>. In <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1412.htm" rel="nofollow">many ways</a>. Some people could say that those good, good westerners behaved in <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512268.pdf" rel="nofollow">hipocritical ways</a> too.<br /><br />And since you gave no link to the Swedies, I think they hardly could have done a better job than the <a href="http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2009/N3248.pdf" rel="nofollow">RAND Institute</a> at this matter. Brazil is listed there a few times too.<br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-56687912174262910082014-10-15T07:44:36.398-07:002014-10-15T07:44:36.398-07:00AOG,
---
I disagree. Your original graph showed a...AOG,<br /><br />---<br />I disagree. Your original graph showed a strong decrease at the right edge, these don't.<br />---<br />And that says something about the CATO institute, doesn't it?<br /><br />My first link original one showed the graph up until today, while CATO's fig 5 plotted it only up to 2003.<br /><br />Interestingly, the CATO piece has other graphs plotted until 2011 (the piece is from 2012), but that particular per GDP chart ranged only up to 2003. Had it gone to other years, it would show the recent downward trend of the first one. One wonders why the author neglected that.<br /><br />You can see what it looks like in the fifth graph appearing in this <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-growth-in-government-spending/" rel="nofollow">piece</a>. I find this analysis far better than CATO's, even though it also paints a somber future. It does so with a bit less disingenuity though.<br /><br />---<br />I mean "sponsoring terrorism against one's nation, citizens, and/or allies?", exactly as I wrote. But your question shows your ulterior motive of trying to disagree with me, rather than address my question.<br />---<br />You mean, if I ask for examples of a too general argument you write, it means I am discussing in bad faith? Or that I am not addressing your question? Go figure.<br /><br /><br />---<br />I don't. I think the underlying mechanism, a variant of Gresham's Law, is a strong unifying factor. Bad activity (government spending) drives out the good activity (real, that is private sector, economic activity). <br />---<br />AFAIK, that is usually treated in the economics literature in terms of govt spending "crowding out" the private sector. There are many discussions on when and how it happens, and it is not such a one-to-one correspondence you look to imply. <br /><br />I have the feeling that most of our discussions here start with you taking a simple relationship and generalizing it to where it is no longer valid. Bret likes to do that too. You guys think that's "wisdom and experience", I give it another name.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-35592159882154641032014-10-15T03:20:06.256-07:002014-10-15T03:20:06.256-07:00[On supporting Iraq in the 80's]
Well, Clovis...[On supporting Iraq in the 80's]<br /><br />Well, Clovis, the first response might be "So bloody what?", but no need. You have succumbed to an urban myth beloved by the left and now so widely belived that it has become holy writ. The Swedish Institute for Peace and Security, hardly a rabid American booster, did a comprehensive study of where Hussein got his arms from the late seventies to the first Gulf War. 1% came from the U.S. and the U.K. 87% came from Russia, China and France. But don't let that spoil the good time you are having plucking the eagle's feathers.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15836910211382887430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-31468721042362430172014-10-14T20:32:04.997-07:002014-10-14T20:32:04.997-07:00[Harry:] Yeah, the collectivists forced the rightw...<i>[Harry:] Yeah, the collectivists forced the rightwingers to do it. </i> <br /><br />History is often quite interesting. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=maoist+south+america&oq=maoist+south+america&aqs=chrome..69i57.5479j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=maoist+communist+terrorism+south+america" rel="nofollow">Give it a try sometime</a>.<br /><br />Almost as interesting as your continuous eliding of collectivist atrocities.<br /><br />And your unattributed pronunciamentos.<br /><br /><i>[Clovis:] You compare a recently populated region, where the culture (after the indigeneous people were wiped out) is reasonably homogeneous, with one where a mix of different races, culture, religion and external border fiddling made the perfect storm. </i><br /><br />The point is that arbitrary boundaries do not guarantee conflict: most are arbitrary to one degree or another, and the vast majority of them aren't sources of conflict. Harry's blithe pronunciamento about arbitrarily redrawing arbitrary boundaries overlooks how intermingled religions, languages, and, to a lesser extent, races are in the region. One of the reasons that wars have become so much less common over the last 25 or so years is because countries have almost universally accepted national boundaries as sacrosanct.<br /><br />As with all international problems worthy of the term, the current schlamozzle with ISIS, and the Kurds, and Turkey, and Syria, and minority sects, and the Shia, and Sunnis, and Persians and Arabs has <i>no</i> good options. At any moment the choice is between the least worst. <br /><br />It is safe to say, though, that Obama in designedly failing to reach a SOFA with the Iraqi government, managed to choose the worst worst.<br /><br /><i>[Hey Skipper:] [On supporting Iraq in the 80's] How about taking another guess.<br />---<br />[Clovis:] OK. Hmm... your military industrial complex foresaw that was the perfect guarantee for great contracts for the next 30 years? </i> <br /><br />Thanks for relieving me of the bother of taking you seriously.<br /><br /><i>Surely not. Contrary to you, I don't claim to have a spacetime travelling machine. </i> <br /><br />Which makes your putative policy incoherent. When would you have intervened in Rwanda? <br /><br /><i>If you want no moral involved, I will just settle with the "don't intervene, ever, unless that's a direct threat to you". And by direct threat to you, I really do mean one with the standard causality relation we observe in nature … </i><br /><br />That is meaningless. An essential part of national security strategy is preventing affairs from ever reaching the point of a "direct threat". Aside from leaving a gaping hole where a definition would be, you would allow death by a thousand cuts. <br /><br />Would a month long closure of the Straits of Hormuz constitute a direct threat to the US?<br /><br /><i>[Bret:] Ultimately, "you break it, it's yours" is only useful … </i> <br /><br />"You break it, it's yours" is merely an empty collection of words that progressives use instead of thought.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-44899654327618807522014-10-14T18:16:26.726-07:002014-10-14T18:16:26.726-07:00AOG,
---
Your data is too narrow. When I say &quo...AOG,<br /><br />---<br />Your data is too narrow. When I say "welfare state" I mean all transfer payments [...]<br />---<br />Actually, as far as I can tell by looking around, those graphs are very near what you get if all transfers are accounted for.<br /><br />I went for the kind of piece that would most probably represent your views, and the graphs there (in GDP) are very <a href="http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf" rel="nofollow">alike</a>. See his Fig 5.<br /><br />He surely shares your opinion of an unbounded system, but I don't think the data agrees with that.<br /><br />---<br />Does that include sponsoring terrorism against one's nation, ciAtizens, and/or allies? Iraq was doing that.<br />---<br />You mean, like supporting al Qaeda?<br /><br />---<br />As for welfare vs. foreign aid, I think people are people and the basic mechanisms of society are consistent, and therefore the underlying causes of failure in one are the same as the other.<br />---<br />I think that conflating both is misleading. What they share that you look to be pointing out - possibility of perverse incentives - is a smal thing compared to much they don't share. <br /><br />And at what they share, I think I argued effectively that you can and should minimize those perverse incentives. You look to be skeptical about that possibility, arguing this is a slippery slope, but it does not follow recent (last few decades) evidence, when many countries made cuts to their social programs benefits for example.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-46901319837266869602014-10-14T11:25:30.536-07:002014-10-14T11:25:30.536-07:00Clovis;
Doesn't look like an unstable system ...Clovis;<br /><br /><i>Doesn't look like an unstable system to me.</i><br /><br />Your data is too narrow. When I say "welfare state" I mean all transfer payments, as that is the standard meaning of that phrase. The federal budget continue to grow and almost all of that growth is in such payments (defense and discretionary spending are shrinking or stable).<br /><br /><i>the contraceptive thing has a lot more to do with showing up their position "in your face"</i><br /><br />I think that's a major movivation for the activists, but they sell it to the American Street as a freebie. That is why I specifically used the term "advertistments", not "motivations".<br /><br /><i>by driect threat to you, I really do mean one with the standard causality relation</i><br /><br />Does that include sponsoring terrorism against one's nation, ciAtizens, and/or allies? Iraq was doing that.<br /><br />As for welfare vs. foreign aid, I think people are people and the basic mechanisms of society are consistent, and therefore the underlying causes of failure in one are the same as the other. Again, it ends up at "what if aid for problem X makes problem X worse through unintended consequences?". You asked earlier for a quote of you blithely dismissing this concern - well, there you go again :-).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-59204974936575534562014-10-14T11:13:49.293-07:002014-10-14T11:13:49.293-07:00Bret,
---
Ultimately, "you break it, it'...Bret,<br /><br />---<br />Ultimately, "you break it, it's yours" is only useful if the breaker is willing to pay and/or the shopkeeper can force him to do so at reasonable cost. My vote for the United States is to let the shopkeepers (the inmates?) of faraway lands clean up the shop (asylum?).<br />---<br />Where is Skipper when we do need him?<br /><br />For he should remember you, Bret, that the same interests that led to Iraqi invasion also lead to pretty high costs for the breaker if things there go still more South.<br /><br />---<br />I guess that makes teenage girls the most well-plugged in people on the planet. And note that my implication was that plugged in meant knowledgeable enough to be competent at running things.<br />---<br />Well, I do think teenage grils are pretty well-plugged in many senses. And I don't think your implication above was obvious at all.<br /><br />---<br />You've left out another and quite common third possibility: aid comes as shipments of food from a foreign source. <br />---<br />I didn't, my comments made clear I find it credible to be the case in Africa. But since AOG introduced that when I was talking about welfare in relatively modern form (and societies), that's changing subjects. Welfare is, by definition, a within-society thing, so I don't understand why you are mixing up both subjects here.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-85074500671322482402014-10-14T10:58:10.102-07:002014-10-14T10:58:10.102-07:00Skipper,
---
So when I say that South Americans s...Skipper,<br /><br />---<br />So when I say that South Americans seem to get by pretty well without chopping heads off [...]<br />---<br />And that's another thing where you "should not have been quite so sweeping".<br /><br />You compare a recently populated region, where the culture (after the indigineous people were wiped out) is reasonably homogeneous, with one where a mix of different races, culture, religion and external border fiddling made the perfect storm.<br /><br />And the little thing SA has in common with the ME - a few arbitrary borders - proved enough to give us a few bloody wars too. So if anything, your mention of South America only helps my point.<br /><br />---<br />[On supporting Iraq in the 80's] How about taking another guess.<br />---<br />OK. Hmm... your military industrial complex foresaw that was the perfect guarantee for great contracts for the next 30 years?<br /><br /><br />---<br />Clearly then, interventions taken to prevent a foreseeable genocide must be even more justifiable than those in the actual event.<br />---<br />Surely not. Contrary to you, I don't claim to have a spacetime travelling machine.<br /><br /><br />---<br />Why should Americans pay for these sorts interventions, both financially and physically, when the US otherwise has no interests?<br />---<br />They shouldn't, if they don't want to. My moral guideline for intervention were an answer for another moral guideline for intervention ("Hey, if they are ruled by a brutal murderer-dicator, we should free them and install democracy!").<br /><br />If you want no moral involved, I will just settle with the "don't intervene, ever, unless that's a direct threat to you". And by driect threat to you, I really do mean one with the standard causality relation we observe in nature, Skipper, so please spare me from another discourse like "Hey, we might need to invade them in future if awful things happen, so let'us invade them now!".<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-63139961375951456322014-10-14T10:41:10.346-07:002014-10-14T10:41:10.346-07:00AOG,
---
You didn't answer what your policy w...AOG,<br /><br />---<br />You didn't answer what your policy would be, if those criticisms were accurate. <br />---<br />Indeed. The reason being I don't feel qualified to give a meaningful answer. Sorry for my lack of omniscience.<br /><br />---<br />[On welfare systems] The problem is history shows such a system is rarely stable. There is too much short term electoral advantage in upping the payments in exchange for votes.<br />---<br /><a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending" rel="nofollow">Doesn't look like</a> an unstable system to me. <br /><br />---<br />A couple of links on my last paragraph - one about Brazil and another more general one.<br />---<br />And this time I know where you've found your links. I suggest you read the <a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/196494/#respond" rel="nofollow">comments up there</a>.<br /><br />---<br />The Democratic Party here is very open about it - listen to their advertisements, they consist mostly of two themes - Republicans are evil theocrats who will lock you up for not wearing a burqua, and we, the Democratic Party, will give you lots of stuff (say, contraceptives).<br />---<br />I don't aspire to say I understand your fellow citizens better than you, but I must say that's quite not the impression I have from them.<br /><br />Their prejudice against religion is a cultural clash far removed from our welfare discussion, and the contraceptive thing has a lot more to do with showing up their position "in your face" (still the cultural war) than with saving money on some cheap pills.<br /><br />Still, I may be wrong, I don't live in your country after all.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-33385533416872007932014-10-14T09:44:23.926-07:002014-10-14T09:44:23.926-07:00'"Disappearing" people was a consequ...'"Disappearing" people was a consequence of murderous collectivism'<br /><br />Yeah, the collectivists forced the rightwingers to do it.<br /><br />I would not say there hasn't been bordercrossing violence recently; there is a kind of quasiwar on between Colombia and Venezuela. Raising our sights a little, there was that invasion by El Salvador (our allies, yay us!).<br /><br />I suppose the reason ISIL doesn't throw teenage girls out of helicopters is that they didn't manage to steal any helicopters from the Iraq government. But once they do, watch out below!<br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.com