|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 14 2016 18:45 Surth wrote:Show nested quote + But it still tells you a lot about both Donald the Doofus and his chosen party. People have to stop equating Trump with Republicans whenever they see fit. How is it that we simultaneously have discussions about how Trump is barely accepted by most of the big players in the GOP, and at the same time have cheap potshots like "Trump is like, soooo typical republican." Also, in general, Krugman can shut the hell up.
Well on that subject (the economy), Trump is just another Republican who believes in vodoo economics. On that level he is not that different from his colleagues.
In fact his "clowns" as K puts it, and in particular, that Moore guy and Heritage Foundation, have been the economics "wonks" of the GOP for years.
Since you like Krugman so much, I let him explain it himself:
Trump didn't put the con in conservatism
So, I’m in a time zone far, far away — and also still shaky, although I’m finally managing to hold down some food. Output will still be low, but I wanted to note something about the reactions to the John Harwood interview with Paul Ryan, which are very relevant to understanding the Republican mess.
Liberals have been jumping, rightly, on Ryan’s extraordinary dismissal of any attempt to look at the distribution of tax cuts as “ridiculous.” But conservative writers — even those who are relatively moderate, or at least try to seem that way — clearly still view Ryan as an almost saintly figure: serious, intellectually honest, and compassionate toward the poor.
He isn’t, of course. His various budgets all have the same basic outline: huge tax cuts for the rich combined with savage cuts in benefits for the poor, with the net effect being to increase, not reduce the budget deficit. But he pretends that they’re deficit-reduction proposals by claiming that he will raise trillions in revenue by closing unspecified loopholes and achieve trillions more in unspecified savings. In other words, Ryan has been playing a con game in which he uses magic asterisks to mask a reverse Robin Hood agenda — take from the poor, give to the rich — as deficit hawkery.
This isn’t hard to see, and it has been pointed out many times. Back in 2011, at the height of media Ryanolatry, the truth even became slightly mainstream, as reporters started to point out the absurdities of his assumptions.
But moderate Republican pundits can’t, won’t see the obvious. For them it’s all about affect — how he comes across — which is also why they saw tax-slashing, war-starting Marco Rubio as somehow a break from the failures of the Bush years.
So when these commentators lament the blindness of primary voters, their willingness to be taken in by an obvious con, they might want to take a look in the mirror. Is it really the con that bothers them, or just the vulgarity?
source
I get you don't like Krugman, but why should he "shut the fuck up"? He at least is a serious economist who knows damn damn well what he is talking about.
|
You guys are so dramatic and seem persuaded by what the media reports about Trump. To understand the context, you actually have to actually watch the entire speech. The connections that you are making simply don't exist. Oblade has already made the points.
|
Question to the mods, because I have no idea:
Am I (and Stealth Blue I guess) allowed by law to quote blog articles if I put the source? I do it because it seems current practice here, but is that legal?
|
On June 14 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 18:45 Surth wrote: But it still tells you a lot about both Donald the Doofus and his chosen party. People have to stop equating Trump with Republicans whenever they see fit. How is it that we simultaneously have discussions about how Trump is barely accepted by most of the big players in the GOP, and at the same time have cheap potshots like "Trump is like, soooo typical republican." Also, in general, Krugman can shut the hell up. Well on that subject (the economy), Trump is just another Republican who believes in vodoo economics. On that level he is not that different from his colleagues. In fact his "clowns" as K puts it, and in particular, that Moore guy and Heritage Foundation, have been the economics "wonks" of the GOP for years. Since you like Krugman so much, I let him explain it himself: Show nested quote +Trump didn't put the con in conservatism
So, I’m in a time zone far, far away — and also still shaky, although I’m finally managing to hold down some food. Output will still be low, but I wanted to note something about the reactions to the John Harwood interview with Paul Ryan, which are very relevant to understanding the Republican mess.
Liberals have been jumping, rightly, on Ryan’s extraordinary dismissal of any attempt to look at the distribution of tax cuts as “ridiculous.” But conservative writers — even those who are relatively moderate, or at least try to seem that way — clearly still view Ryan as an almost saintly figure: serious, intellectually honest, and compassionate toward the poor.
He isn’t, of course. His various budgets all have the same basic outline: huge tax cuts for the rich combined with savage cuts in benefits for the poor, with the net effect being to increase, not reduce the budget deficit. But he pretends that they’re deficit-reduction proposals by claiming that he will raise trillions in revenue by closing unspecified loopholes and achieve trillions more in unspecified savings. In other words, Ryan has been playing a con game in which he uses magic asterisks to mask a reverse Robin Hood agenda — take from the poor, give to the rich — as deficit hawkery.
This isn’t hard to see, and it has been pointed out many times. Back in 2011, at the height of media Ryanolatry, the truth even became slightly mainstream, as reporters started to point out the absurdities of his assumptions.
But moderate Republican pundits can’t, won’t see the obvious. For them it’s all about affect — how he comes across — which is also why they saw tax-slashing, war-starting Marco Rubio as somehow a break from the failures of the Bush years.
So when these commentators lament the blindness of primary voters, their willingness to be taken in by an obvious con, they might want to take a look in the mirror. Is it really the con that bothers them, or just the vulgarity? sourceI get you don't like Krugman, but why should he "shut the fuck up"? He at least is a serious economist who knows damn damn well what he is talking about.
If he was a serious economist he'd actually use facts and analysis to make his point. His blogs are a joke since it contains hardly any substance.
|
On June 14 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I get you don't like Krugman, but why should he "shut the fuck up"? He at least is a serious economist who knows damn damn well what he is talking about.
He should shut the hell up. I don't condone the use of the word "fuck"! :D
For one thing, he's a serious economist. I find serious economists suspect. They generally lack any knowledge of history. How many economists do you know that produce studies which actually deal on the scale of centuries? Little wonder that Moritz Schularick's and Alan Taylor mined their one dataset for so long. Their position on politics generally collapses into a (myopic) position on economics. Krugman's position on the brexit is "it would be bad for the economy", nevermind that the EU continues to be a fundamentally undemocratic institution that needs to be destroyed and built up again from the ground up.
|
On June 14 2016 21:21 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I get you don't like Krugman, but why should he "shut the fuck up"? He at least is a serious economist who knows damn damn well what he is talking about. He should shut the hell up. I don't condone the use of the word "fuck"! :D For one thing, he's a serious economist. I find serious economists suspect. They generally lack any knowledge of history. How many economists do you know that produce studies which actually deal on the scale of centuries? Little wonder that Moritz Schularick's and Alan Taylor mined their one dataset for so long. Their position on politics generally collapses into a (myopic) position on economics. Krugman's position on the brexit is "it would be bad for the economy", nevermind that the EU continues to be a fundamentally undemocratic institution that needs to be destroyed and built up again from the ground up.
You mean to tell me that an economist says it is bad for England's economy to leave a trade union spanning continental Europe with who they do a large share of their trading?
And your trying to use this as a point against him? Oo
|
|
|
On June 14 2016 16:41 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 16:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Trump banning the Washington Post from his events for saying things about him, based on his own words, that he didn't like. Guy clearly feels he isn't accountable to a free press.
In the words of Klay Thompson, "I guess his feelings got hurt." Was the Washington Posts headline accurate? Apparently not because they changed it.
We all know what this is. This is Trump getting back at the WaPo for making him look like a fool over the Veterans Charity money issue a few weeks ago. He was chomping at the bit to find the slightest error or hyperbole to ban a newspaper owned by a man, Jeff Bezos, who Trump is KNOWN to hate. Just another example of his thin skin.
How any supporter can look at the growing list of media companies banned from his events and not get an authoritarian vibe perplexes me. Banning people who say bad things about you (especially when much of what they say about you is absolutely true or based on known facts) is Putinesque.
|
Trump did not revoke their press pass over that one headline. He has been taking shots at them for a while and claimed their owner had it out for him. We knew this was coming.
|
On June 14 2016 14:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 13:46 Doodsmack wrote:
"Hey you know those laws that make you an accessory to a crime if you have substantive knowledge but don't tell anyone, they should apply to terrorism too. They already do though, so nevermind."
Is that really all Trump's saying in this speech about what he'll do as President? Here's the rest of the speech: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-securityHere's the video, the text doesn't reflect the liberties and stumbles he takes in delivery: + Show Spoiler +But in that snippet, yes, he's trying to display strength after a tragedy, that's all. He's saying someone murdered 50 people, do a full investigation, and if anyone else was involved, go after them. It seems more obvious than controversial, blown up by HuffPost for I guess their own reasons. The shot he took at HRC was hyperbolic, but they are opponents, right?
The comments are in the context of Trump's past statements too, and simply displaying strength after a strategy is not the only time Trump has said this. It seems more like a vague and extreme policy prescription from Trump, who is known for those sorts of things (especially considering this same speech was rife with the Muslim ban - sweeping policy proposals he has stated in the past and he claims are validated by the tragedy).
I'll take your word for it that the HRC second amendment statements were hyperbolic, and that others understand them that way too.
|
On June 14 2016 20:57 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 18:45 Surth wrote: But it still tells you a lot about both Donald the Doofus and his chosen party. People have to stop equating Trump with Republicans whenever they see fit. How is it that we simultaneously have discussions about how Trump is barely accepted by most of the big players in the GOP, and at the same time have cheap potshots like "Trump is like, soooo typical republican." Also, in general, Krugman can shut the hell up. Well on that subject (the economy), Trump is just another Republican who believes in vodoo economics. On that level he is not that different from his colleagues. In fact his "clowns" as K puts it, and in particular, that Moore guy and Heritage Foundation, have been the economics "wonks" of the GOP for years. Since you like Krugman so much, I let him explain it himself: Trump didn't put the con in conservatism
So, I’m in a time zone far, far away — and also still shaky, although I’m finally managing to hold down some food. Output will still be low, but I wanted to note something about the reactions to the John Harwood interview with Paul Ryan, which are very relevant to understanding the Republican mess.
Liberals have been jumping, rightly, on Ryan’s extraordinary dismissal of any attempt to look at the distribution of tax cuts as “ridiculous.” But conservative writers — even those who are relatively moderate, or at least try to seem that way — clearly still view Ryan as an almost saintly figure: serious, intellectually honest, and compassionate toward the poor.
He isn’t, of course. His various budgets all have the same basic outline: huge tax cuts for the rich combined with savage cuts in benefits for the poor, with the net effect being to increase, not reduce the budget deficit. But he pretends that they’re deficit-reduction proposals by claiming that he will raise trillions in revenue by closing unspecified loopholes and achieve trillions more in unspecified savings. In other words, Ryan has been playing a con game in which he uses magic asterisks to mask a reverse Robin Hood agenda — take from the poor, give to the rich — as deficit hawkery.
This isn’t hard to see, and it has been pointed out many times. Back in 2011, at the height of media Ryanolatry, the truth even became slightly mainstream, as reporters started to point out the absurdities of his assumptions.
But moderate Republican pundits can’t, won’t see the obvious. For them it’s all about affect — how he comes across — which is also why they saw tax-slashing, war-starting Marco Rubio as somehow a break from the failures of the Bush years.
So when these commentators lament the blindness of primary voters, their willingness to be taken in by an obvious con, they might want to take a look in the mirror. Is it really the con that bothers them, or just the vulgarity? sourceI get you don't like Krugman, but why should he "shut the fuck up"? He at least is a serious economist who knows damn damn well what he is talking about. If he was a serious economist he'd actually use facts and analysis to make his point. His blogs are a joke since it contains hardly any substance.
He is Nobel prize in economy and his blog has plenty of substance, figures and graphs. Just read it because you criticism is plainly unfounded. He addresses a public of non-economists and doesn't do a whole lot of maths in his posts, although all those written (wonkish) need substantial understanding of economic mechanism to be understood.
On June 14 2016 21:21 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I get you don't like Krugman, but why should he "shut the fuck up"? He at least is a serious economist who knows damn damn well what he is talking about. He should shut the hell up. I don't condone the use of the word "fuck"! :D For one thing, he's a serious economist. I find serious economists suspect. They generally lack any knowledge of history. How many economists do you know that produce studies which actually deal on the scale of centuries? Little wonder that Moritz Schularick's and Alan Taylor mined their one dataset for so long. Their position on politics generally collapses into a (myopic) position on economics. Krugman's position on the brexit is "it would be bad for the economy", nevermind that the EU continues to be a fundamentally undemocratic institution that needs to be destroyed and built up again from the ground up.
Same I don't think you have read his blog, because Krugman is constantly making historical analysis. And if you find serious economists suspects, who do you trust on economics? How is this anti-intellectual posture helpful? You should find non serious economists, such as Moore, suspect.
And Krugman position on Brexit is very nuanced because he is a ferocious critics of the Eu as it is. He has debunked catastrophist claims again and again, even though he doesn't think Brexit would be a good idea at all. The "stay" is just a lesser of two evils in his eyes. For example:
I guess it’s time to weigh in on an issue I have mostly been avoiding: Britain’s vote on whether to leave the EU, aka Brexit.
Not to keep you in suspense: if I had a vote, I’d vote “remain.” But I wouldn’t be as enthusiastic as I’d like – and if “remain” wins, as I hope it does, I’ll still feel a sense of dread about what the future holds.
source
and his analysis of the impact of the Brexit on British economy looks like that :
Here it goes: before it joined the EU, Britain did only about a third of its trade with Europe. Now it’s about half, and it’s unlikely that much of that represents trade diversion. So unless Britain can negotiate something that looks like Norway’s deal – which would basically mean accepting EU policies in which it would no longer have a voice – we might expect Brexit to reduce the share of trade in British GDP from about 30 percent to about 25 percent.
What’s that worth? I’ve previously used the elegant Eaton-Kortum trade analysis as a benchmark for assessing globalization; it tells us that real income, for given technology, is (1-trade share)^(-1/theta), where theta is a parameter reflecting how much comparative advantage there is in the world (don’t ask). Eaton-Kortum suggest theta=4 fits best. In that case, Brexit would reduce British real income by 1.7 percent. Call it 2 percent, with the understanding that there are big error margins around all of this.
source
Really unsubstantial and clearly biased on Brexit. Or not.
|
If your debt is related to a worthwhile investment, then it might be that you have done a wise choice despite the debt interest you have to pay (because the result of your investment means you are better off despite the loss from the interests). In a time of crisis, trying to reduce your debt by cutting public spending is suicidal. That's what Europe is doing now, and it doesn't work. At all.
Of course spending trillions in two wars that brought nothing but chaos was not a good idea. Maybe cutting massively taxes for rich people because of some hypothetical growth that never happened coming out of it wasn't either (that's what I call vodoo economics).
As for Japan, it's 15% unless you decide to trust Sovereign Man more than Bloomberg. Your choice.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-24/japan-s-debt-trap
|
|
|
Do Heritage Foundation/Paul Ryan proposals even come benched in a framework by any "serious" economists these days or are they just basically just a combination of number crunching + hope? I'm not sure even Austrians really believe in a lot of what neocons sell to the public-especially since it's now coming with a protectionism stamp on it courtesy of Trump.
|
On June 11 2016 10:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:On June 11 2016 10:17 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 10:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:I'm pretty sure deliberately targeting family members of terrorists violates some sort of international law for starters. If you think you can shoot terrorism to death it shows you have zero understanding of how any of this actually works. If you think killing family members is going to help you destroy terrorism I'm afraid you've missed the boat entirely. It's almost as if you're actively trying to create more terrorism. On June 11 2016 10:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:49 BallinWitStalin wrote:On June 11 2016 09:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote:On June 11 2016 09:40 SolaR- wrote:
I really liked when Trump said to target families of terrorists. I won't deny or pretend to act like it's wrong. The end justifies the means, and this is war not a fucking safe space. Sorry..
Besides many of these so called families harbor terrorists, and even some degree support their ideology.
All Trump is saying is that you have to fight fire with fire. You can't fight with your arms tied behind your back while you have terrorists directly targeting civilians and us deliberately not attacking known terrorists because we are scared to kill some of their family members. uh, we don't " deliberately not attacking known terrorists because we are scared to kill some of their family members." you're factually wrong there. We readily accept collateral damage, both of family, and non-family members, while killing terrorists. Okay, well you get the point. If we can gain an advantage by specifically targeting their family members, we should take it. This is evil, man. Like, actual literal evil. Targeting innocent individuals because of a connection to an enemy is morally wrong, and people advocating for it are evil. Terrorists who engage in that (i.e. suicide bombers who blow themselves up around kids, civilians, etc.) are rightly considered evil by broader society. The amount of cognitive dissonance necessary to categorize their actions as evil while advocating doing *the exact same thing* is astounding. What if torturing a terrorist's family saved the lives of a million innocent civilians. Is it evil then? Evil is relative, and most of the time the end justifies the means. You've watched way too much 24. You watch too much 24, if that is your frame of reference to real world examples. Situations like that happen everyday, a lot of them we probably don't even hear about. Killing a few to save the lives of more is always the best option. If killing families is the easiest and quickest way to exterminate ISIS it is totally worth it. Good or Evil doesn't matter. Power is the only currency of humanity. but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it? It has worked very well historically.
On June 11 2016 10:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:42 Aquanim wrote:On June 11 2016 10:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:
but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it? It has worked very well historically. ...What? Give me an example. I don't mean of a conventional war like WW2 where countries were in conflict, I mean where indiscriminate killing helped to defeat an organisation along the lines of ISIS. Every great empire from antiquity onwards slaughtered civilians when necessary to pacify occupied lands.
On June 11 2016 10:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:56 farvacola wrote:Perhaps that's why I didn't mention morality. Perhaps there's a pragmatic, outcome driven reason behind not torturing and killing innocents? One can only wonder  Maybe, but history has shown than the more brutal methodology produces results.
On June 11 2016 11:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 11:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 11 2016 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2016 11:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 11 2016 10:58 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2016 10:56 farvacola wrote:Perhaps that's why I didn't mention morality. Perhaps there's a pragmatic, outcome driven reason behind not torturing and killing innocents? One can only wonder Maybe, but history has shown than the more brutal methodology produces results. Can you elaborate? For example, waterboarding produces shit results, and it's actual torture. Who gives a shit about water boarding a few people? I'm talking about mass subjugation of entire societies. Well the scale wasn't mentioned, but okay. Things don't have to be unnecessarily torturous and deadly to be effective though. You can also win with ideas. If we're dealing with a society that is receptive to our ideas, sure. If the society is not so receptive, then it needs to be utterly destroyed first.
I was not able to respond to this initially due to the thread being locked, but since it's the second time I see you advocating genocide as the only truly effective way of dealing with terrorists in the Middle East, your posts definitely deserve a reply. I'm not going to get into moral considerations and bother to point out how utterly despicable what you're defending is -- that wouldn't bother you since you've repeatedly argued that morality should largely be left at the door when dealing with international relations/defending the "national interest" of the United States abroad. I'll focus on addressing the merits of your argument in favor of crimes against humanity (including with respect to the historical record of the mass targeting of civilians that you're advocating, and the extent to which it is policy-relevant when it comes to the kind of conflict we're discussing) with regards to the effectiveness you ascribe to those practices.
So, what does the scientific literature on the targeting of civilians in warfare tell us about its historical effects on the outcome of conflicts? Well, it is to a considerable extent accepted among scholars that states which engage in the targeting of civilians tend to not be helped by the practice -- and that it is in fact often counter-productive. Robert Pape's famous Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1996) addresses the topic, and he argues that several factors play a role in making the indiscriminate targeting of civilians ineffective, one of which is that hurting civilians is more likely to turn them against the attacking party rather than against their own government or leaders. In The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians (New York, Random House, 2002), Caleb Carr likewise argues that attacking civilians is not effective and is instead counter-productive. His argument has been criticized when it comes to the effectiveness of the use of "terror" by terrorists, but largely validated with regards to the use of violence against civilians by state actors and empires (a point made by Michael Ignatieff in his review of the book, who cites the example of the French in Algeria to illustrate it). I'll also cite Ivan Arreguín-Toft's The [F]utility of Barbarism: Assessing the Impact of the Systematic Harm of Non-Combatants in War (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, 2003). Through a statistical analysis of 387 cases between 1816 and 1999 (75 of which involved the indiscriminate targeting of civilians), as well as the analysis of two case studies, the author concludes that "in general, war crime doesn’t pay: barbarism increases the costs and risks of military operations, and poisons chances for peaceful post-war occupation and development". Indeed, "[w]hen done at anything short of a genocidal level, [...] barbarism backfires both tactically – that is, it makes military operations themselves more costly to the perpetrator – and politically – military victory by means of barbarism will result in political failure after the war". He also points out the limitations of violence against civilians at the genocidal level, and I'll come back to that point shortly. Finally, although Benjamin Valentino and his co-authors do not focus on the issue of effectiveness in their article « "Draining the Sea": Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare » (International Organization, vol. 58, No. 2, Spring 2004, pp. 375-407), they nevertheless write, based on their case studies: "we believe that mass killing has often failed as a military strategy for the same reasons that states seem hesitant to employ it in the first place. The costs and risks of mass killing-including its potential to provoke greater opposition, alienate supporters, and draw third parties into the conflict-often outweigh its potential as a counterinsurgency strategy".
To be fair, I have to mention that next to this body of literature, a couple of authors have published works which are more nuanced on the effectiveness of the indiscriminate targeting of civilians in warfare; they are, in particular, Alexander Downes and Patrick Johnston. Their findings, however, still do not support your argument. Looking at the historical record, Downes concludes in Targeting civilians to win? Examining the military effectiveness of civilian victimization in interstate war (draft paper, 2009) that "civilian victimization worked far better in the past than it does in the present. In fact, targeting civilians today contributes nothing to winning wars". Less wars are decided by sieges than in the past, for example. Still, analyzing guerilla warfare did lead him to conclude in « Draining the Sea by Filling the Graves: Investigating the Effectiveness of Indiscriminate Violence as a Counterinsurgency Strategy » (Civil Wars, vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 420-444) that "[i]ndiscriminate violence against civilians can be effective in defeating guerrilla insurgencies under certain – relatively restrictive – conditions". Among these, he includes "When the population from which the guerrillas draw support is relatively small, the land area in which the insurgents operate is similarly constricted, and external sanctuary and supply is not available" -- conditions which are certainly not well met in the Middle East. He mentions that other strategies can be just as, or even more, effective. Indeed, unless the aim is to engage in ethnic cleansing, the indiscriminate targeting of civilians is likely to be less effective than other strategies to "control" a population. Downes actually comments on what his findings mean for the Iraq war, and he writes that "leaving aside questions of morality, the Sunni population is probably too numerous for indiscriminate violence to do anything but backfire and produce further anger." Finally, in his PhD thesis The treatment of civilians in effective counterinsurgency operations, Patrick Johnston finds evidence supporting the idea that the targeting of civilians can be effective in counterinsurgency operations, yet this is mostly the case for targeted killings (instead of indiscriminate violence) and for short-term objectives, not to ensure long-term stability. With regards to your argument that violence of genocidal proportions would be the most effective solution, he finds to the contrary that "killing civilians has diminishing military returns: incumbents who killed massive numbers of civilians were much less likely to defeat insurgencies than incumbents who inflicted lower levels of civilian casualties", and that the evidence directly "challenges the [...] view that annihilating an insurgency’s entire potential support base is effective".
What can we conclude from this overview? Well, most scholars disagree with the idea that indiscriminate (and even sometimes discriminate) violence against civilians tends to be effective. Among those who have a more nuanced view on the matter, it is nevertheless accepted that most of the historical cases in which violence against civilians was effective are poor indicators of what its effects can be today. They also argue that while violence against civilians can sometimes be effective, this only applies under certain specific contextual conditions, and through specific types of actions -- which, as Downes argues, makes it difficult to argue it would be useful to resort to such violence in Iraq. With regards to your claim that large-scale violence is the answer, the evidence points to this kind of violence being simply not effective to defeat insurgencies, and even being counter-productive.
Of course, you could also argue that the problem would be solved if the U.S. "simply" dropped enough nuclear bombs to cover virtually all of the Middle East, but that's a ludicrous argument considering you'd still not kill everyone, the survivors would likely want to get their revenge, and in any case it would result in the U.S. being an absolute pariah on the world stage. Its security and national interest would without a doubt be negatively impacted by such a course of action. In short, the U.S. military was right to revise its approach in Iraq in 2006 towards making the "welfare and protection of civilians a bedrock element of military strategy" -- even though this is still obviously certainly not a guarantee of success.
|
On June 14 2016 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 20:57 RvB wrote:On June 14 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 18:45 Surth wrote: But it still tells you a lot about both Donald the Doofus and his chosen party. People have to stop equating Trump with Republicans whenever they see fit. How is it that we simultaneously have discussions about how Trump is barely accepted by most of the big players in the GOP, and at the same time have cheap potshots like "Trump is like, soooo typical republican." Also, in general, Krugman can shut the hell up. Well on that subject (the economy), Trump is just another Republican who believes in vodoo economics. On that level he is not that different from his colleagues. In fact his "clowns" as K puts it, and in particular, that Moore guy and Heritage Foundation, have been the economics "wonks" of the GOP for years. Since you like Krugman so much, I let him explain it himself: Trump didn't put the con in conservatism
So, I’m in a time zone far, far away — and also still shaky, although I’m finally managing to hold down some food. Output will still be low, but I wanted to note something about the reactions to the John Harwood interview with Paul Ryan, which are very relevant to understanding the Republican mess.
Liberals have been jumping, rightly, on Ryan’s extraordinary dismissal of any attempt to look at the distribution of tax cuts as “ridiculous.” But conservative writers — even those who are relatively moderate, or at least try to seem that way — clearly still view Ryan as an almost saintly figure: serious, intellectually honest, and compassionate toward the poor.
He isn’t, of course. His various budgets all have the same basic outline: huge tax cuts for the rich combined with savage cuts in benefits for the poor, with the net effect being to increase, not reduce the budget deficit. But he pretends that they’re deficit-reduction proposals by claiming that he will raise trillions in revenue by closing unspecified loopholes and achieve trillions more in unspecified savings. In other words, Ryan has been playing a con game in which he uses magic asterisks to mask a reverse Robin Hood agenda — take from the poor, give to the rich — as deficit hawkery.
This isn’t hard to see, and it has been pointed out many times. Back in 2011, at the height of media Ryanolatry, the truth even became slightly mainstream, as reporters started to point out the absurdities of his assumptions.
But moderate Republican pundits can’t, won’t see the obvious. For them it’s all about affect — how he comes across — which is also why they saw tax-slashing, war-starting Marco Rubio as somehow a break from the failures of the Bush years.
So when these commentators lament the blindness of primary voters, their willingness to be taken in by an obvious con, they might want to take a look in the mirror. Is it really the con that bothers them, or just the vulgarity? sourceI get you don't like Krugman, but why should he "shut the fuck up"? He at least is a serious economist who knows damn damn well what he is talking about. If he was a serious economist he'd actually use facts and analysis to make his point. His blogs are a joke since it contains hardly any substance. He is Nobel prize in economy and his blog has plenty of substance, figures and graphs. Just read it because you criticism is plainly unfounded. He addresses a public of non-economists and doesn't do a whole lot of maths in his posts, although all those written (wonkish) need substantial understanding of economic mechanism to be understood. Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 21:21 Surth wrote:On June 14 2016 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I get you don't like Krugman, but why should he "shut the fuck up"? He at least is a serious economist who knows damn damn well what he is talking about. He should shut the hell up. I don't condone the use of the word "fuck"! :D For one thing, he's a serious economist. I find serious economists suspect. They generally lack any knowledge of history. How many economists do you know that produce studies which actually deal on the scale of centuries? Little wonder that Moritz Schularick's and Alan Taylor mined their one dataset for so long. Their position on politics generally collapses into a (myopic) position on economics. Krugman's position on the brexit is "it would be bad for the economy", nevermind that the EU continues to be a fundamentally undemocratic institution that needs to be destroyed and built up again from the ground up. Same I don't think you have read his blog, because Krugman is constantly making historical analysis. And if you find serious economists suspects, who do you trust on economics? How is this anti-intellectual posture helpful? You should find non serious economists, such as Moore, suspect. And Krugman position on Brexit is very nuanced because he is a ferocious critics of the Eu as it is. He has debunked catastrophist claims again and again, even though he doesn't think Brexit would be a good idea at all. The "stay" is just a lesser of two evils in his eyes. For example: Show nested quote +I guess it’s time to weigh in on an issue I have mostly been avoiding: Britain’s vote on whether to leave the EU, aka Brexit.
Not to keep you in suspense: if I had a vote, I’d vote “remain.” But I wouldn’t be as enthusiastic as I’d like – and if “remain” wins, as I hope it does, I’ll still feel a sense of dread about what the future holds. sourceand his analysis of the impact of the Brexit on British economy looks like that : Show nested quote +Here it goes: before it joined the EU, Britain did only about a third of its trade with Europe. Now it’s about half, and it’s unlikely that much of that represents trade diversion. So unless Britain can negotiate something that looks like Norway’s deal – which would basically mean accepting EU policies in which it would no longer have a voice – we might expect Brexit to reduce the share of trade in British GDP from about 30 percent to about 25 percent.
What’s that worth? I’ve previously used the elegant Eaton-Kortum trade analysis as a benchmark for assessing globalization; it tells us that real income, for given technology, is (1-trade share)^(-1/theta), where theta is a parameter reflecting how much comparative advantage there is in the world (don’t ask). Eaton-Kortum suggest theta=4 fits best. In that case, Brexit would reduce British real income by 1.7 percent. Call it 2 percent, with the understanding that there are big error margins around all of this. sourceReally unsubstantial and clearly biased on Brexit. Or not.
His brexit blog is alright and the fed one had some substance but for every one that has some substance a lot of it has little. He has a nobel prize on international trade that doesn't make him an expert on everything economics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this idea that you can still build europe back up after it is destroyed is basically european version of bernieorbust
|
On June 14 2016 22:05 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 16:41 CorsairHero wrote:On June 14 2016 16:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Trump banning the Washington Post from his events for saying things about him, based on his own words, that he didn't like. Guy clearly feels he isn't accountable to a free press.
In the words of Klay Thompson, "I guess his feelings got hurt." Was the Washington Posts headline accurate? Apparently not because they changed it. We all know what this is. This is Trump getting back at the WaPo for making him look like a fool over the Veterans Charity money issue a few weeks ago. He was chomping at the bit to find the slightest error or hyperbole to ban a newspaper owned by a man, Jeff Bezos, who Trump is KNOWN to hate. Just another example of his thin skin. How any supporter can look at the growing list of media companies banned from his events and not get an authoritarian vibe perplexes me. Banning people who say bad things about you (especially when much of what they say about you is absolutely true or based on known facts) is Putinesque.
I agree with your assessment that the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post and Politico can't really be considered news organizations, rather media companies.
Tabloid click-bait 'journalists' with no morals/ethics or professionalism have a place in a presidential campaign. That place is outside.
edit: I forgot to add Gawker, BuzzFeed and Foreign Policy. Washington Post is the only one in the banned group that can say they have actual journalists.
|
On June 14 2016 22:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:If your debt is related to a worthwhile investment, then it might be that you have done a wise choice despite the debt interest you have to pay (because the result of your investment means you are better off despite the loss from the interests). In a time of crisis, trying to reduce your debt by cutting public spending is suicidal. That's what Europe is doing now, and it doesn't work. At all. Of course spending trillions in two wars that brought nothing but chaos was not a good idea. Maybe cutting massively taxes for rich people because of some hypothetical growth that never happened coming out of it wasn't either (that's what I call vodoo economics). As for Japan, it's 15% unless you decide to trust Sovereign Man more than Bloomberg. Your choice. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-24/japan-s-debt-trap
Somewhat hard to apply capitalist theory when the president spent trillions bailing out banks and carmakers.He chooses what fails and what survives? Not right.
Europe is a total mess with the negative interest rates and totally unsustainable welfare system.It's beyond help now.The bankrupt nation states need to ditch the euro and go back to their own currencies.Created by the nations treasury not a reserve bank.There is no real long term solution involving the Euro currency.
|
HuffPo's actual staff is decent, but the website is mostly crap written by unpaid contributors so you're looking at a needle in the haystack if you' want real journalism. If I had to rank, I'd put it something like HuffPo = Buzzfeed < Daily Beast = Salon < Politico <<< The Atlantic < New Yorker = Economist < WaPo = NYT = WSJ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
