Theme: Deception

  • The American Conservative: A Phony Case On Iran?

    via The American Conservative » Netanyahu Calls the Shots.

    We are seeing something awful unfolding before our very eyes – an essentially phony case for going to war being driven by a foreign country and its domestic lobby with the political class too terrified to say no and a complicit media beating the drum.

    Philip

    You’ve well argued the standard criticism. However, the practical reality is that the risk to Israel is simply too high that after an election that Obama may win, the next four year window is too tempting for Iran, and too threatening to israel. It’s a practical decision for them. There is nothing irrational about their actions.

    That the intelligence agencies argue that no decision has been made is an argument that I have trouble comprehending as rational. That they have conducted a multi-decade program of enablement is evidence enough. That the elimination of israel is a stated objective, and the laurels that will christen Islam’s leading state is enough of an objective for any political leadership.

    Iran has long desired to become the core state of post-ottoman islam, and has the population, military and economy to do it. A syrian, iraqi, irania, afghani, pakistani islamic block cum-civilization with two nuclear armed states given their internal fragility is strategically irrational for the USA to tolerate without total energy independence, and some evidence of a developing middle class that will engage in and have an interest in, the international system of specialization and trade.

    Moral arguments are nonsense in the face of strategic threats.

  • Brad DeLong Watch: Terminological Nits with Caldwell

    Brad takes issue with Chris Caldwell’s assertion that the republican party is not where wealth votes:

    It takes a somewhat weird failure to look at the cross-tabs to arrive at the conclusion that the Democratic Party is the party of “billionaires, academics, minorities and single women” and the Republican Party is the party of “landscape gardeners, construction workers, truckers.” For one thing, landscape gardeners throughout much of the country are now overwhelmingly Hispanic, and less and less likely to vote Republican with each passing day…

    via Brad DeLong.

    But Brad is using a convenient play on words. High finance is in bed with the democrats, and big oil is in bed with the republicans. “Billionaires” was a bad choice of pejorative language. He should have said “high finance”. So brad is just feeding the fires of dishonest discourse rather than correcting it. That said Chris is still off-base. Republican party is becoming the white party. which is why there is a clock running on its future. And further, it’s why we are not going to have a peaceful resolution of our class warfare: because it’s going to become race warfare. The libertarians have a solution but it’s too late to enact it. Bush was the last president with the opportunity. When one republican defected and ruined his chances of reform, the die was cast. Sometime in the not too distant future it’s going to get very bad here in the states.

  • Brad DeLong Watch: Terminological Nits with Caldwell

    Brad takes issue with Chris Caldwell’s assertion that the republican party is not where wealth votes:

    It takes a somewhat weird failure to look at the cross-tabs to arrive at the conclusion that the Democratic Party is the party of “billionaires, academics, minorities and single women” and the Republican Party is the party of “landscape gardeners, construction workers, truckers.” For one thing, landscape gardeners throughout much of the country are now overwhelmingly Hispanic, and less and less likely to vote Republican with each passing day…

    via Brad DeLong.

    But Brad is using a convenient play on words. High finance is in bed with the democrats, and big oil is in bed with the republicans. “Billionaires” was a bad choice of pejorative language. He should have said “high finance”. So brad is just feeding the fires of dishonest discourse rather than correcting it. That said Chris is still off-base. Republican party is becoming the white party. which is why there is a clock running on its future. And further, it’s why we are not going to have a peaceful resolution of our class warfare: because it’s going to become race warfare. The libertarians have a solution but it’s too late to enact it. Bush was the last president with the opportunity. When one republican defected and ruined his chances of reform, the die was cast. Sometime in the not too distant future it’s going to get very bad here in the states.

  • Paul Krugman Watch: Framing The Divide As Foolishness Rather Than Strategy Serves No One

    Paul Krugman writes that the right wing strategy is based on false principles. But he misses the point:

    There were some technical problems with my earlier post on GOP deficit phoniness, although not in any way that changes the message. So, here’s an update. I use the intermediate-cost estimate from CRFB (pdf) for the four Republican plans, and for consistency, I use CRFB’s own estimate (pdf) for Obama. … So it remains true that all of the proposals, except maybe Ron Paul’s (which contains huge and probably impossible spending cuts) would lead to higher deficits than Obama, based on a common assessment. … So let me rephrase my question: what conceivable evidence would convince people that supply-side magic doesn’t work?

    Paul, 1) The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational for Schumpeterian reasons: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. Again, this is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rationally Schumpeterian that the public intellectuals like yourself seek to fund the state. 2) There is no community of common interest in the country any longer. The combination of immigration, relocation, the dissolution of the family, and the consequential abandonment of traditional values by the lower classes, when combined with the evolution of technology that rewards those who can process and use abstract rules and principles has guaranteed a permanent and irreversible conflict of values. This is a religious conflict. This era is a battle of the communal religion of the secular state, and the aristocratic religion of the traditional classical liberals. The left’s strategy is to enable the lower classes to have a beneficent lifestyle. The right’s strategy is to constrain the reproductive ability of the lower classes and concentrate investment in the middle classes. Even if they must suffer hardship to obtain their political ends. There is nothing new about this conflict of visions. Its the female sentiment and male sentiment writ large. Progressive economists are terrible historians and worse political philosophers. You cannot have consensus on policy in a divided electorate. Arguing over technicalities is simply a self congratulatory distraction. I cannot tell whether you are intellectually honest. You are framing the debate under a false assumption that is contrary to the data. Since you’re doing that, it’s either an accident or an intentional misrepresentation. I don’t know which. But by falsely framing the discourse, you do a disservice as a public intellectual, and hinder the resolution of the underlying conflict. Demographically, your side will win within thirty years assuming there is no unforeseen change. But it will not because you convince anyone.

  • Paul Krugman Watch: Framing The Divide As Foolishness Rather Than Strategy Serves No One

    Paul Krugman writes that the right wing strategy is based on false principles. But he misses the point:

    There were some technical problems with my earlier post on GOP deficit phoniness, although not in any way that changes the message. So, here’s an update. I use the intermediate-cost estimate from CRFB (pdf) for the four Republican plans, and for consistency, I use CRFB’s own estimate (pdf) for Obama. … So it remains true that all of the proposals, except maybe Ron Paul’s (which contains huge and probably impossible spending cuts) would lead to higher deficits than Obama, based on a common assessment. … So let me rephrase my question: what conceivable evidence would convince people that supply-side magic doesn’t work?

    Paul, 1) The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational for Schumpeterian reasons: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. Again, this is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rationally Schumpeterian that the public intellectuals like yourself seek to fund the state. 2) There is no community of common interest in the country any longer. The combination of immigration, relocation, the dissolution of the family, and the consequential abandonment of traditional values by the lower classes, when combined with the evolution of technology that rewards those who can process and use abstract rules and principles has guaranteed a permanent and irreversible conflict of values. This is a religious conflict. This era is a battle of the communal religion of the secular state, and the aristocratic religion of the traditional classical liberals. The left’s strategy is to enable the lower classes to have a beneficent lifestyle. The right’s strategy is to constrain the reproductive ability of the lower classes and concentrate investment in the middle classes. Even if they must suffer hardship to obtain their political ends. There is nothing new about this conflict of visions. Its the female sentiment and male sentiment writ large. Progressive economists are terrible historians and worse political philosophers. You cannot have consensus on policy in a divided electorate. Arguing over technicalities is simply a self congratulatory distraction. I cannot tell whether you are intellectually honest. You are framing the debate under a false assumption that is contrary to the data. Since you’re doing that, it’s either an accident or an intentional misrepresentation. I don’t know which. But by falsely framing the discourse, you do a disservice as a public intellectual, and hinder the resolution of the underlying conflict. Demographically, your side will win within thirty years assuming there is no unforeseen change. But it will not because you convince anyone.

  • GOSSIP Back in Seattle for a few days. Hearing the usual industry gossip. (This

    GOSSIP

    Back in Seattle for a few days. Hearing the usual industry gossip. (This is still such a small town.) And, I suppose nothing should surprise me. But the daftness of human beings, and their ability to envision drama where none exists, never ceases to amaze me. How on earth do people come up with this stuff?

    Nothing ever happens to or with money without a lot of bankers and investors agreeing to it. The world is a mundane, bureaucratic, procedural place administrated by lawyers who are incentivized to over analyze everything.

    Each of us has a narrow view of the world, and an exaggerated concept of our place in it.

    This region is extremely simple. We had one company that created a lot of manufacturing and engineering jobs, that was overtaxed, over-regulated, and finally fled the state. We then won the lottery and got a second company that concentrated an unheard of amount of money in what was a previously semi-rural population. That company had an atypical organizational structure that asked purchasing decisions to me made by very junior people. That purchasing strategy was important when technology was new – since the older generation would not have been as aggressive or experimental – or cheap to hire.

    But times change. People learn. Competitors emerge. And the Innovator’s Dilemma (curse) and the rent-seeking and laziness, politicization and disutility of bureaucracy take their normal course. That company no longer spends money in the same manner. It’s stock no longer appreciates in value as it did. And it’s employees no longer posses the relative wealth that they did. And so the entire region is affected by those changes.

    And many people, who previously sold their skills and labor to that company, and because of it, who had an impression of themselves and their skills as special, scarce or unique, are now stunned and despondent over the change in their fortunes. They lived in homes, worked at companies, and built organizations, during a period, where the entire American economy was booming with debt, booming with cheap overseas products, and while at the same time, that regional company was exporting cash into a town with scarce resources, and a small population. Those frustrated people are competing the broader economy, not the unique and temporary economy that they were living in during the past. Like American laborers, who must now compete in the global economy against people who will work 14 hours a day doing the same work, people in this area must compete globally.

    Revel in our time. In what we had. But don’t expect that it is repeatable. Or that there is anything you, or the people you work for, or the politicians that supposedly administer our governments, could have done anything about. If you had the opportunity to live during the period from 1988 – 2008 in this area, then appreciate having had the joy of participating in one of the greatest times and places to live in human history. (Remember the fun of Entros? The art galleries prior to 2001? The multiple playhouses? The increase in great restaurants? The feeling that it would never end? Daily life when Neo came upon our movie screens? Remember when Redmond was the ‘sticks’, and when Bellevue didn’t have a skyscraper?)

    The American dream was first built on cheap land. Second on jobs that were possible because of cheap land. Third because the world went into a debilitating war. Fourth because of cheap credit made possible by the petrodollar and our postwar anti-communist military capability.

    But the world caught up. There was no malfeasance – on anyone’s part. It’s just the slow five hundred year grid, as industrial capitalism moved from the heartland of England to every nation in the world. People in Beijing and countless other cities are living the seattle experience today. We can envy them, or celebrate them.

    It’s a choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-01-17 17:22:00 UTC

  • Like most men, I get lots of hits from scammers from the Asian and Eastern Block

    Like most men, I get lots of hits from scammers from the Asian and Eastern Block countries. But this is the first time I’ve been solicited in Arabic over Facebook chat. I read on one of the blogs that the solicitation industry had moved off the web and onto Facebook. But I tend to think of Facebook as family friendly safe zone. So I was a little surprised at this.

    HER: ممكن نتعرف Is an introduction possible?

    ME: كل شيء ممكن Sure, anything’s possible.

    HER: فتحي من جيجل . و أنت با حلوة [?I think?] you’re sweet and attractive

    ME: لدي العديد من النساء بالفعل. لا أستطيع أن تبقي أكثر من ذلك. إنما أنا رجل واحد. I have many women already. 🙂 I can’t take any more. I am only one man.

    HER: باي باي Bye

    (And before someone teases me, I talk to people about libertarianism in just about every language on earth (thanks to google translate). So, how am I to know from the name “Fethi Mazi”, a profile thumbnail of a sunset, and a request for introduction that it’s a solicitation?) It’s probably some guy in a room running fifty chat sessions at once.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-01-04 11:44:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANS: Has someone already torn apart Bryan Caplan’s paper criticizing Au

    LIBERTARIANS: Has someone already torn apart Bryan Caplan’s paper criticizing Austrianism? Or do I have to? (Seriously.)

    The use of the pretense of science as a means of obscuring preferences is just ridiculous no matter what side of the fence one is on.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-01-01 12:33:00 UTC

  • of Demand. But for What? Yet another excuse for justifying the expansion of the

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2011/12/28/classifying-people-by-state-rather-than-occupation-simply-justifies-the-state/Lack of Demand. But for What? Yet another excuse for justifying the expansion of the state.


    Source date (UTC): 2011-12-28 08:49:00 UTC

  • Pravda Rails Against Fox News Without Realizing That They’re Looking In The Mirror.

    Over on Pravda, the popular, nationalistic and jingoistic Russian news agency, Fox News is attacked for it’s nationalist sentiments. I replied:

    Fox news is not exactly a minority business. It’s the most popular cable news channel. A better point of view, would be that Fox caters to the same audience that Pravda does: Nationalists. Just as Russians feel they are a threatened minority, so do white americans. And from that perspective, both the Jingoism of Pravda and Fox news serve the wants of their audiences. FWIW: Americans were against communism, not Russians, or even a Russian empire. And frankly, if Russians would rebuild their empire, if for no other reason than to secure their borders, the world, and the west, would be a better place. However, forming an alliance of any sort that would assist Iran in becoming the core state of islam, by uniting Syra, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan into a military-political block, is not going to help either Russia or the west. Islam is a political system not just a religion, and it is naturally more despotic than even the byzantines.