tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post5269737572304241761..comments2024-03-28T07:08:58.221-04:00Comments on Todd Seavey: The Power of Nightmares (in Five Fits)Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-8205462967360939102008-10-15T21:39:00.000-04:002008-10-15T21:39:00.000-04:00FWIW, I don’t see Obama’s potential downsizing of ...FWIW, I don’t see Obama’s potential downsizing of the Armed Forces-assuming it occurs-as beneficial in the long run. Notwithstanding the dubious value of costly, long term military occupations, American intelligence and military assets-and this is only my personal opinion-still need to be concerned with frustrating the strategic goals of Iran, e.g. cannibalizing Lebanon and installing its client, i.e. Hezbollah, as chief political intermediary, among other powerful enemies. <br><br>AFRICOM has already been neglected by the Bush administration, to say nothing of our horrible policy of empowering individuals like Raila Odinga in Kenya. I can’t even begin to imagine how much damage an Obama presidency would inflict upon our foreign policy after the disastrous last quarter of the Bush administration, e.g. forsaking John Bolton, embracing the Clinton approach to nuclear disarmament in the DPRK, etc., etc., ad nauseam. <br><br>This is the one area where McCain clearly outshines his opponent. Unfortunately, it’s probably also the area of least concern to the American public.Gerardhttp://indolentmick.livejournal.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-92210566992862465632008-10-15T21:28:00.000-04:002008-10-15T21:28:00.000-04:00I know. Still, it’s a comforting thought.I know. <br><br>Still, it’s a comforting thought.Gerardhttp://indolentmick.livejournal.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-68419864265352364502008-10-15T20:44:00.000-04:002008-10-15T20:44:00.000-04:00Notice the date on that story. The case has been ...Notice the date on that story. The case has been considered and rejected.Jacob T. Levyhttp://jacobtlevy.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-37486615636204953272008-10-15T19:47:00.000-04:002008-10-15T19:47:00.000-04:00Rejoice!Our man is guaranteed at least 34 electora...Rejoice!<br><br>Our man is guaranteed at least 34 electoral votes.<br><br><a href="http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/local/local_story_263110956.html" rel="nofollow"> Check it out </a>Gerardhttp://indolentmick.livejournal.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-89946318811727852322008-10-15T13:06:00.000-04:002008-10-15T13:06:00.000-04:00Fair enough, but my underlying thesis, which I sho...Fair enough, but my underlying thesis, which I should have stated more clearly, is really just that there are so many intellectual perspectives at this juncture in history for which anticapitalism seems an easy, intuitive default that it’s hard to see most mainstream thinkers (intellectual or non-intellectual) fumbling their way to capitalist modes of thought anytime soon. <br><br>That is, whether you’re an Australian or Iranian politician, you see this juncture as a repudiation of capitalism. Whether you’re the Pope or a hippie-like artist in NYC, you see the present moment as a repudiation of capitalism. Whether you’re Barack Obama touting “trickle-up” redistribution of wealth or even a Wall Street-bashing Republican presidential candidate (McCain or Huckabee, take your pick), you see markets as annoying and unfair. <br><br>And now, if you’re the Nobel committee, you send the public to Gore to learn science and Krugman to learn econ (I realize the work Krugman won for was pro-market, but as with Harold Pinter’s post-win anti-Bush ravings, the public likely won’t notice that). <br><br>Game theory-type thinking may not jibe with every detail of econ proper, but I do think things are sufficiently dark intellectually right now that _simply getting people to think about incentives and consequences_ would be a step forward. <br><br>Right now, people think politics is simply a matter of deciding how it seems things “ought” to work and then vowing “yes we can” make them that way — and anyone who tries throwing econ consequences, real financial/legislative history, or frank observations about the self-interestedness of government politicians into the dialogue is seen as a nasty naysayer, possibly even a corrupt corporate tool, closet racist, paranoid populist, or other form of nutcase. <br><br>There is little room for market-based thinking among the intelligentsia — whether in DC or the Middle East — right now, and that does not bode well for the foreseeable future. <br><br>But who knows? Sources tell me environmentalism, for example, has largely ceased to excite the young on campus these days — blandly institutionalized as it has become — and perhaps even now there is a rising generation of more-libertarian thinkers who will eventually put into action the ideas I’ve for so long watched lie unused in an intellectual ghetto, the way we are now seeing green, multicultural, and anti-market ideas of a generation ago triumph on an institutional level. I may underestimate the potential out there.<br><br>For things to really change, though, we need a culture where capitalist ideas are so widely respected that it would seem odd for a likable TV character to say, for instance, “I’m not going to let corporate greed keep triumphing over doing what’s right” — and we are a hell of a long way from that line seeming odd or wrong to most of the populace.Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-57072543048153649352008-10-15T12:42:00.000-04:002008-10-15T12:42:00.000-04:001) Things are bad right now. But there’s simply n...1) Things are bad right now. But there’s simply no way that they’re as bad as they were during the long crisis of, say, 1914-1953 [interrupted by a few good years in the 1920s in some places, but not everywhere]. If the post-1980 or post-1989 era was possible after things had gotten that bad, I see no reason to think that it’s somehow now impossible to ever see improvement.<br><br>2) Game theory is far from automatically market-friendly, and indeed was resisted by Friedman’s Chicago School for quite a while. The strategic behavior of game theory disrupts the harmonious pursuit of self-interest in the traditional model– it makes status, power, and relative advantage important. The harmony model relies on non-tuism (not anti-altruism, but the idea that your preferences aren’t affected by how your trading partner fares– you don’t wish them poorly but you don’t care if they do well.) Game theory is relentlessly tuistic– it’s concerned with the other actor, all the time, and often in a zero-sum or negative-sum way.Jacob T. Levyhttp://jacobtlevy.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com