tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6847548017397640897..comments2024-03-28T22:45:34.599-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Political Insanity and Dysfunction: Are we citizens to blame?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56703964186245600442016-07-18T05:37:54.569-07:002016-07-18T05:37:54.569-07:00There are some libertarians against the TPP - not ...There are some libertarians against the TPP - not because they dislike free trade, but because they dislike giving up sovereignty to foreign corporations.Howard Brazeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08837948125432719131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42752628677829728042016-07-16T09:12:30.255-07:002016-07-16T09:12:30.255-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35153680510553461582016-07-15T23:07:39.506-07:002016-07-15T23:07:39.506-07:00Duncan you make goodpoints. Still, Gandhi's #...Duncan you make goodpoints. Still, Gandhi's #2 complaint about the British Raj was their mercantilism, destroying Indian industry in favor of Manchester mills. And that was the empire he deemed obviously the least-bad to date, because the other would have killed him. We did see an electrified/industrial empire with nuclear weapons, the USSR. We saw two that were almost at that scale... the Nazis and Japanese Empire. The Czars had most of those tools and were assholes.<br /><br />Sorry. Watch the miniseries THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE to see what it all could have been, had social innovations not overcome the 99% human drive to recreate vicious oppression and enhance it with technology. Read 1984.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9165432056367672032016-07-15T21:46:10.713-07:002016-07-15T21:46:10.713-07:00Hi
Re - the great enriching from the 16th century ...Hi<br />Re - the great enriching from the 16th century on<br /><br />I disagree with Alfred's view that it was to do with trade,<br />I think it was simpler than that - human knowledge had increased to the stage that we could actually do something<br />It is all very well thinking about steam engines<br />But if you can't<br />Make the metals<br />Machine them<br />Measure them<br />Then you are stuck <br />In the 16th century a lot of these things came together and acted to change what was possible<br />This was also an accelerating process - each discovery/invention made several others possible<br /><br />This also ties into my thoughts on the American Empire<br />An empire in a world of air travel computers and atom bombs is inherently different from an empire in a world of sailing ships<br /><br />YES - the Marshal Plan was a superb act of realpolitik - it converted enemies into friends<br />And it is possible that a British empire would have missed that opportunity but I believe it is more likely that the government that built the NHS would have grasped that opportunity firmly <br /><br />The USA DID do that and DID build up the rest of the world and we should be grateful <br />But I am not at all sure that it was exceptional in doing so<br /><br />A British Empire during the sailing ship era would not have done so - but in an era of air travel..... <br /> duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91905721092908911932016-07-15T21:18:47.053-07:002016-07-15T21:18:47.053-07:00It just occurred to me... dang... I may have misju...It just occurred to me... dang... I may have misjudged the situation. If the election looks to be a rout, Donald will be desperate for a face saving out. Betrayal by the party elders, including his running mate, might fit the bill perfectly. Oh, anyone sane would know they bolted _because_ he was a loser, bigtime...<br /><br />But the important thing, when it comes to face, is maintaining appearances with a big enough minority. If he can nurse the notion he was stabbed in the back, then for a few tens of millions that will be the excuse narrative. Whoa. So... Trump may at some point try to DRAW the betrayal?<br /><br />Oooh. I have some wires loose. They spark. Ack!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11599605404700063802016-07-15T17:36:18.655-07:002016-07-15T17:36:18.655-07:00LATE NEWS - it seems all media have agreed that D ...LATE NEWS - it seems all media have agreed that D Trump will announce Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. The following is still an appraisal of the factors DT must have (or should have) taken into account. Whether or not picking Pence is a wise move on Trump's part has little to do with whether Pence will help get more voters to support the ticket (he won't.) What simmers below is which group has "deep leverage" with Pence -- the Murdochian party masters or Trump himself. If it is the former, then Pence is likely to betray Trump, either before the election... if they are losing badly... or after, if (GF!) they win.<br /><br />As a writer of thrillers and sci fi, I would envision DT asking his finalists "are you willing to tell me something embarrassingly scandalous that I could then hold over you, to guarantee your good behavior?" (Or go into the next room for pictures.) Do you find that "sensationalist"? Really? Knowing how eager Pence was, for the pick... and how determined Trump is, to avoid betrayal? ....<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53519297470722053352016-07-15T16:50:24.481-07:002016-07-15T16:50:24.481-07:00Sorry Duncan, that's wrong. I will grant you ...Sorry Duncan, that's wrong. I will grant you that Napoleon took several wrong turns. The biggest being to put on a crown and the second biggest being Russia. But had he coerced the Czar to free the Poles and then join in a thrust south... we'd all be speaking French today! And the REVOLUTION that Napoleon helped push would have changed the world almost as much as ours has. <br /><br />The others? Nope. It took a radical mind set to refuse imperial trappings, as the US did when it owned the planet in 45. The counter mercantilist trade cycles established by Marshall, Acheson, Truman, Ike, were NOT intuitive and took real guts, pulling diametrically in the opposite direction than the mercantilist policies of every other empire, that spread poverty and resentment outside the capital. (Envision Hunger Games.) <br /><br /> There were many other good things about the American Pax -- e.g. cultural memes of tolerance, diversity, equality and suspicion of authority. Along with some of the usual imperial nastinesses...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81395911812025318982016-07-15T15:55:32.934-07:002016-07-15T15:55:32.934-07:00Pax Americana made the world vastly richer
This i...Pax Americana made the world vastly richer<br /><br />This is one of Dr Brin's favorite memes<br />And I agree completely!<br /><br />BUT<br />I am not at all sure that it is anything to do with some sort of superiority of the US system<br />If we look back in history we see a large change from the 1600's onwards<br />Alfred has commented that we don't really know why we suddenly started becoming richer then<br /><br />If we look at the changes that were going on we see a continual change in the nature of the leading "empires"<br />If the British Empire had not handed the baton onto the Americans I believe that we would have seen the same sort of changes<br />If Napoleon had not been overthrown we could have been 50 years further down that path<br /><br />Even if the Germans or Russians had taken the lead we would only have seen a couple of decades or so of delay duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4543019514720469902016-07-14T23:42:31.562-07:002016-07-14T23:42:31.562-07:00>Annabelle let’s bet on the fiscal responsibili...>Annabelle let’s bet on the fiscal responsibility and rate of rate of change of deficits that >I charted at http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2014/06/so-do-outcomes-matter-more-than-rhetoric.html<br /><br />That's what I was saying. Just trying to make it specific.<br /><br />>Like I would trust you with a burnt match.<br /><br />Was that addressed to me or Alfred?Annabellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3129515215569751422016-07-14T23:27:33.622-07:002016-07-14T23:27:33.622-07:00@Dr. Brin - I noted no "onward, onward" ...@Dr. Brin - I noted no "onward, onward" despite my extremely lengthy trio of posts here, and so guessed this conversation isn't closed. You're quite welcome. I'm not yet an expert on the subject, but have studied it and other trade treaties for many years, they have cropped up in my field of practice, and I can offer something.<br /><br />Pax Americana made the world vastly richer precisely because we are CRITICAL of our imperialist propensities. We're not angels; we err, often as anyone else. But people like you will not stop calling attention to error. That makes us less dangerous than previous empires, which perceived "others" as prey or threat. <br /><br />Some suggest "others" could also be "partners." This is one of the great gifts of science fiction (though I wonder if Gingrich's contribution to the literature had any merit).donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60428757622673087852016-07-14T21:41:40.283-07:002016-07-14T21:41:40.283-07:00donzelion, thank you, in fact because I know less ...donzelion, thank you, in fact because I know less about the details of TPP than many other subjects… only a whole lot more than most of its critics. Your stepping up with details is appreciated.<br /><br />AD: “Empires didn't make the world richer.”<br /><br />Wrong. CORRUPT and rapacious empires impoverish. Pax American made the world vastly vastly immensely-vastly richer.<br /><br /><br />Annabelle let’s bet on the fiscal responsibility and rate of rate of change of deficits that I charted at http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2014/06/so-do-outcomes-matter-more-than-rhetoric.html<br /><br />Like I would trust you with a burnt match.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52108848782007288892016-07-14T20:19:54.177-07:002016-07-14T20:19:54.177-07:00@LarryHart - In terms of the "threat of the t...@LarryHart - In terms of the "threat of the tribunals" - pretty much all of it is anti-vaccer/climate denier sort of hype: same technique, different topic.<br /><br />Now of course, there are risks from any new process. But on the whole, (1) the current process sucks for many Americans, (2) it rocks for billionaires and their cronies, both in the U.S. and China, and (3) changing it by reverting to a "glorious past" is untenable.<br /><br />Obama's rhetoric has tended to be "the genie is out of the bottle" and "let's do the best we can with the world as it is, and push to make it a little more like it ought to be." Which is argumentation that annoys "outsiders" (the sorts of people in the Rauch article that Dr. Brin disliked so much - but which I thought offers several interesting insights - then again, I find insight from conservatives, liberals, and myriad radicals).donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50077769017633294712016-07-14T18:29:31.010-07:002016-07-14T18:29:31.010-07:00@donzelion
Good to hear a cooler view of the TPP....@donzelion<br /><br />Good to hear a cooler view of the TPP. There has to be <b>some</b> reason President Obama is for it, after all.<br /><br />Is it all hype then, the idea that local municipalities will be unable to control pollution or establish fair labor practices without having to reimburse corporations for the profits that such restrictions "cost" them?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43150264792518961042016-07-14T16:45:39.704-07:002016-07-14T16:45:39.704-07:00@Laurent - ah, you're raising the Melian debat...@Laurent - ah, you're raising the Melian debate, a la Thucydides. <br /><br />My argument starts with the assumption that "right makes might" - not necessarily at first, but over time. No continental empire ever became an empire without first making provisions for its own insiders that make it more advantageous for them to fight with the empire, than against it. Continental empires might treat independent states as prey, but if the cost of 'capturing' that prey exhausted the empire, then the empire itself collapsed, it's expansion a series of Pyrrhic victories. <br /> <br />But that's the real world before GATT/WTO era: imperial aspirations mattered, and all others were a pipe dream. Now? We the alternatives are apparent: one can thrive as a city-state, or one can thrive as a small nation-state, and sometimes, as a large nation-state. Actually, we always did have those options, but the cost-benefit dimension wasn't so apparent.<br /><br /><i>"Then again, you could say that to pretty much every european colonial endeavors: A few thousands people profiteered from the colonial empires and became filthy rich, while millions of European commoners got scraps at best."</i><br /><br />I could and I will say that about every colonial (and imperial) enterprise: it has never enriched the public. But this is why oligarchy and empire go hand-in-hand, why they persist for so many millennia, and why I'm actually so interested in this board, because I've yet to hear many others outside this space raise that as the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity. It always was. It always has been.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73826515091494790512016-07-14T16:43:43.137-07:002016-07-14T16:43:43.137-07:00I would be happy to play the role of bookie, but o...I would be happy to play the role of bookie, but only for questions that can be definitively resolved. Money might have to pass through some of my Nevada relatives, though. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48223407899811063042016-07-14T16:40:58.947-07:002016-07-14T16:40:58.947-07:00@Laurent Weppe: Yes. We could say that about all t...@Laurent Weppe: Yes. We could say that about all the colonial empires. I think it is a valuable lesson to teach. Empires didn't make the world richer. They made a few people richer. Then the student asks 'What made us rich, then?' We respond with 'I am SO glad you asked!' because that question implies they already understand the average person IS far better off than she was 300 years ago.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46004427859387114062016-07-14T16:33:30.565-07:002016-07-14T16:33:30.565-07:00LOL, I've published this critique elsewhere in...LOL, I've published this critique elsewhere in legal journals, which is why it's so verbose. ;-)donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20034685858867210652016-07-14T16:32:33.241-07:002016-07-14T16:32:33.241-07:00@Deuxglass - last post for now on the TPP, an issu...@Deuxglass - last post for now on the TPP, an issue near my heart: how to avoid hype. Most of what you'll hear if you Google the TPP is from the activist crowd, and none of the claims I've seen hold much water when reviewed closely - it's sort of like the anti-vaccers or climate deniers getting undue treatment from current media structures (but in this case, it's from a different cluster of users).<br /><br />The lead case for this was a funeral parlor case in America, which a group of lawyers in Mississippi deemed to be a "foreign conspiracy to monopolize funeral homes and oppress black people" - and levied a $500 million judgment against a Japanese-financed Canadian firm - in a contract dispute which had been for less than $1 million (but unlike the McDonalds coffee burn victim and her $6 million judgment, this one survived appeal - and bankrupted the parent). Japanese refused to invest in Mississippi for 20 years; so did just about everybody else.<br /><br />The activists who hate these trade deals learned a lesson from that: never tell the truth, but fabricate (and Trump & Murdoch learned the same lesson, and have a much bigger fabrication budget). <br /><br />Example 1: dolphin fisheries. Activists claimed that Japanese/Mexicans were trying to use the WTO to force America to adopt rules on tuna fishing that threatened dolphins. However, what was really happening was the U.S. rules discriminated against Pacific tuna, and exempted Atlantic tuna (all to make things easier for struggling tuna fleets on the East Coast) - in effect, we were targeting foreigners while pretending to save dolphins.<br /><br />Example 2: worker rights. Activists claimed that French tried to use arbitration processes to bypass wage increases mandated in parts of Egypt for certain companies. Turns out the Egyptian rules were designed to only apply wage increases to foreign companies, and only those who had entered long-term fixed wage agreements (e.g., garbage collection). <br /><br />The environmental cases (Canada) similarly show a lot more complexity than the activists like to air - as do the cigarette stories from Australia. In each case, they point to something partially true, then leap to conclusions which make no sense (exactly like an anti-vaccer or a climate denier) - and finally, assert a conspiracy from "the other side" to deny what is actually happening.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65554844515373386642016-07-14T16:13:56.010-07:002016-07-14T16:13:56.010-07:00@Deuxglass - continuing on TPP tribunals. The las...@Deuxglass - continuing on TPP tribunals. The last post set out the positive case. Here's responses to your questions:<br /><br /><i>"The Tribunals remove government oversight."</i><br />Not at all: government will still function as it always does. Think of it this way: does the mere fact that one can sue the Federal Government mean that courts conduct all executive functions in America? Hardly. The mere fact one can bring a claim does not change government action, but simply means the government is held accountable for those actions (and cannot cross certain lines). Same here.<br /><br /><i>"How will the arbitrators be chosen?"</i><br />It's a lengthy process, with some measures in place to prevent one side from objecting to any panel (and effectively preventing it from ever being seated). <br /><br /><i>"Can arbitrators pass to private business with little delay?"</i><br />Doubtless some of them will come from private business, others will be retired judges, and others may be government officials from other countries. The mechanism doesn't guarantee fairness - the parties have to do that themselves - but without a one-world government, there's no other, faster means of doing this.<br /><br /><i>"How will it prevent horse-trading between companies? (the capture issues)"</i><br />Private judges and public judges are both subject to the same horse trading, and in both cases, we try to prevent it. However, the advantage in this case is that a Mexican judge may be in a better position to judge a fair outcome in a trade dispute between a Canadian and a Japanese company than a Canadian or a Japanese judge would be (and those are two countries that surely wouldn't punish a judge for an unpopular decision).<br /><br /><i>"There is no checks or balances."</i><br />Countries are free to ignore the tribunal rulings, and to ignore judgments. They just have to say why, and cite a legitimate reason (which other countries and companies can judge) - it casts light on what really happens.<br /><br /><i>"If a government passes a law to protect the public and a company challenges that law before the arbitration panel and wins, the government has to pay within a short period of time"</i><br />This gets handled on a case-by-case basis, as it must. The problem is that judges may see something as "discriminating" that others see as "protecting the public" (e.g., rules that require Malayan ownership obviously discriminate, but since Malayans are the majority in Malaysia, they tend to like those sorts of 'protections').<br /><br /><i>"The governments would be out of the loop."</i><br />Not at all. They'll still have control, BUT they'll have to defend themselves legally (e.g., if a Canadian government bans a certain type of foreign product, they need to say why they didn't likewise ban the similar one that is made in Canada and just as harmful).<br />donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83800215668446285792016-07-14T15:56:44.632-07:002016-07-14T15:56:44.632-07:00@Deuxglass - on arbitration tribunals generally,
...@Deuxglass - on arbitration tribunals generally,<br /><br />The alternative to the proposed tribunals (which require public hearings) is closed-door internal political jockeying among international elites. Typically, the executives from Company A try to meet their counterparts in Country B, and "resolve" disputes quietly. Often, their counterparts in Country B are acting for the interest of local elites in Country B, and pretending to act for the "public good." That creates expenses for Company A (and in many cases, billionaires in Country B). Unless Company A is huge, those expenses flow in the form of large cash payouts (if Company A is huge enough, then smaller initial payments, followed by longer term extortion).<br /><br />This is the way trade works in much of the world, and why 'cost avoidance' and labor abuses are so rampant. It's MUCH better than the old-fashioned way of handling such problems (conquer the territory, kill the elites, and resolve it all directly). But it sucks, UNLESS you're an elite and benefit from the resolution (on either side).<br /><br />Now, this is less common internally in certain developed countries where companies can sue their own government without much problem. It's a much bigger problem is less developed countries, where the judges are political officers beholden to those same local elites.<br /><br />So one trick is to bring in disinterested outsiders. In a dispute between a Japanese and a Canadian company, bring in Mexicans and Chileans, etc. So long as both the Japanese and the Canadians get to vet the panel members and review conflicts of interest, it can work. So long as the hearings are public (which is provided for, in one of the bigger tweaks in the TPP model), these do not become backroom trades and extortionate.<br /><br />And suddenly, you don't have to be a $10 billion corporation to play the international trade game - you could do it with "only" $20-50 million, as long as you have a viable business model. While that's out of reach of most folks, it opens the door immensely: a thousand $20-50 million companies generates much better employment prospects than a dozen super-billion dollar goliaths.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41172723540736235292016-07-14T15:28:50.334-07:002016-07-14T15:28:50.334-07:00It seems to me that some of the discussion of the ...It seems to me that some of the discussion of the UK is simplistic. While I am no expert, I think that many people (particularly Americans) don't realize just how badly off the UK (and Europe as a whole) were in the years following WWII. As the war ended, GDP in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands was something like one-half of what it had been ten years earlier.<br /><br />The UK did not suffer as badly, but had the problem that it had been producing munitions, and could not easily retool (as the US did) because it was effectively bankrupt. In addition to the debts incurred fight that war, there was still a large debt overhang from WWI (interesting trivia: the UK only paid off its WWII debt in 2006, and finally paid its last WWI debt in 2015). Rationing ended in the UK only in 1954, and lasted that long because of shortages of foreign exchange to pay for imports. And for a major world state, the UK in particularly remained extremely poor through the 1950s and most of the 1960s. Then just as things were finally improving, the UK (along with the rest of the world) suffered from the 1973 oil embargo and the economic effects therefrom.<br /><br />Both Thatcher and Reagan rode to success by finding someone to blame. To be sure, poorly-drafted regulations and union overreach were a <i>part</i> of the problem, but they were hardly the root cause, and the Thatcher/Reagan "solution" (knock it all down) has proven to be destructive (even to most of those who didn't see it at the time). But, as seen by the Trump candidacy and the 'Brexit' vote (and the same pattern going back a very long time), finding someone else to blame is often a successful strategy.greg byshenknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18783579879475129032016-07-14T15:22:47.058-07:002016-07-14T15:22:47.058-07:00Okay I could probably find a middle-person for a b...Okay I could probably find a middle-person for a bet. But before I go through all this work what terms do you want?<br /><br />Proposed terms:<br /><br />According to whitehouse.gov, The U.S. deficit in dollars per year has gone up during A Democratic administration or down during a Republican one at least 5 times since 1940.Annabellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58837453680004190122016-07-14T15:10:44.933-07:002016-07-14T15:10:44.933-07:00* ""No rules" trade = only the most...<b>*</b> "<i><b>"No rules" trade</b> = only the most powerful players can benefit, and no single individual is as powerful as a nation-state.</i>"<br /><br />No: the most powerful players are the continental empires: the nation states which do not belong to that club are preys, not powerful players: they can be destroyed by a superior military power, starved by a superior economic power, bullied by the threat of using said military or economic power, or they simply can have their local demagogues bribed by imperial money and turned into convenient figureheads once they've conquered power.<br /><br />***<br /><br /><b>*</b> "<i>The distinction is important to retain, though, because most of the British did not gain anything from this immoral trade. A few people became rich, but the British people did not.</i>"<br /><br />Then again, you could say that to pretty much every european colonial endeavors: A few thousands people profiteered from the colonial empires and became filthy rich, while millions of European commoners got scraps at best.Laurent Weppenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44091085105653834852016-07-14T14:44:31.663-07:002016-07-14T14:44:31.663-07:00Bernie was effusive and utterly clear. Good on Be...Bernie was effusive and utterly clear. Good on Bern.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68969267458988845202016-07-14T14:24:21.064-07:002016-07-14T14:24:21.064-07:00donzelion,
Yes we don't agree on this. I have...donzelion,<br /><br />Yes we don't agree on this. I have learned a few things about arbitration over the years but I am hardly an expert. You are welcome to come up with arguments and suggestions about Chapter 28. Would you keep it as it is or would you modify it?Deuxglassnoreply@blogger.com