Conquest Is for Losers

[gigantes]

neat article. brief, easy to read... ties together a lot of different topics.

[quote]Plunder isn

[Swaggin916]

It should just be as simple as, let's make this good for you and good for us... and it should work that way for the whole world.

I don't know if those thoughts are relevant to this article but that's kind of how I feel about foreign policy. Don't rip people off when you know they are sitting on a gold mine and don't invade people if they figure out you are ripping them off. I don't really know the story of Crimea that well so I'm not relating that statement to that... just kind of spouting.

[gigantes]

It should just be as simple as, let's make this good for you and good for us... and it should work that way for the whole world.

I don't know if those thoughts are relevant to this article but that's kind of how I feel about foreign policy. Don't rip people off when you know they are sitting on a gold mine and don't invade people if they figure out you are ripping them off. I don't really know the story of Crimea that well so I'm not relating that statement to that... just kind of spouting.
well, life is also a competition and an arms race. compromises happen moreso when there's a standoff than because of goodwill. values are also very different amongst different peoples, so people are always going to not give a shit about certain things others hold dear... and the offended parties will take it personally more often than not. i think quite a lot of all this applies to relations between states in addition to relations between peoples.

[Dresta]

Yeah, Adam Smith made the same argument in 1776, but not in such a simple and dogmatic and idiotic way. Childish and unqualified anti-war rhetoric is for losers tbh. It's ahistorical and weak and stupid to pretend we have transcended the era of military necessity. Need i remind you that Obama & co. are on track to start another bloodbath in Europe, only 70 years after a European war that cost the lives of tens of millions. That was preceded by a collapse in the German currency too - see any parallels. Putin isn't the leader you need to be worried about; if America succeeds in collapsing the Russian currency, and manages to expel Putin, the vacuum created and whoever fills that will be the danger. Desperate people do desperate things and we are pushing the Russians into a corner right now.

Just noticed the article is by Krugman :banghead:. The man is the biggest kind of idiot and demagogue, and not worth listening to, about anything. His piece doesn't make any sense because it seems to think power only comes in military form, but what are NATO and the EU if not international expressions of power, and joint agreements between nations to protect their own interests to their own mutual benefit?

NATO and EU expansion has little to do with 'neo-cons' or Putin (obviously the people Krugman needs to dismiss as evil), and yet it is a form of imperial domination, as all nations act in their self interest, and this forms itself as external assertions of power, frequently through trans and supranational institutions. Just because you aren't using military force doesn't mean you aren't being imperialistic, or an aggressor.

Krugman, as usual, has no understanding of the history and dynamics of the region he is discussing. Again, without knowing anything about the history of Ukraine and Soviet Union, he pontificates like an idiot about the region. A rank economist becomes expert in the dynamics of international power! He lays the blame entirely at Putin's feet, yet the Russian people support him. The Russian people desire a strong and decisive leader because misery was heaped upon them by the Western puppeteer and drunk. Putin is a symbol of Russian resurgence, and WE are provoking war here, no matter how many ridiculous distortions have been made by Krugman and his man-crush Obama.

The black and white world of Paul Krugman (it must be quite the ego boost to be so sure and certain you are doing the right thing, the moral paragon that he is).

[gigantes]

dresta, may i ask how old you are (roughly), your academic accomplishments and profession?

[Budadiiii]

dresta, may i ask how old you are (roughly), your academic accomplishments and profession?
He's 23, unemployed, working on his bachelors in philosophy.

[GimmeThat]

Thats like saying you arent interested in a raise, even with the same title and responsibilities

[gigantes]

He's 23, unemployed, working on his bachelors in philosophy.
thanks. sounds like he and rambo would be a glorious match.

[Dresta]

ACTUALLY, I graduated with a BSc in Politics & Economics from Birmingham, and then an MSc in Economics and Philosophy from LSE.

My emphasis was largely on the epistemological foundations of various economic methodologies, most of which i found to be rather spurious. Questions of rationality, et cetera - for me there is no such thing as the irrational. Being able to rationalise is what makes people human. What economic policy makers consider 'irrational' is rationalised quite clearly by the individual (i.e just because one person sees one thing as irrational, doesn't mean that same thing is irrational to someone else - therefore the term 'irrational' is arbitrary and unscientific - i.e. it has no place in an economics that claims it is a science). The distinction between rationality and irrationality is therefore pointless, and the word irrationality itself is only a prejudicial pejorative.

Right now i'm working for a public policy think tank in the Netherlands and do some teaching whenever i can for extra cash. I'm supposed to discern possible 'unintended consequences' and come up with solutions for them. Tis only temporary though, as i'm living with my girlfriend in Amsterdam atm as she is studying a research masters in neuroscience at uva, and it gives me time to get together some money, have a pretty decent time, and get my personal work done. Intend to move to the States and do something there when she's finished (lucky enough to have citizenship).

Oh, and i'm pretty much slap bang in the middle of my 20s.

[triangleoffense]

ACTUALLY, I graduated with a BSc in Politics & Economics from Birmingham, and then an MSc in Economics and Philosophy from LSE.

My emphasis was largely on the epistemological foundations of various economic methodologies, most of which i found to be rather spurious. Questions of rationality, et cetera - for me there is no such thing as the irrational. Being able to rationalise is what makes people human. What economic policy makers consider 'irrational' is rationalised quite clearly by the individual (i.e just because one person sees one thing as irrational, doesn't mean that same thing is irrational to someone else - therefore the term 'irrational' is arbitrary and unscientific - i.e. it has no place in an economics that claims it is a science). The distinction between rationality and irrationality is therefore pointless, and the word irrationality itself is only a prejudicial pejorative.

Right now i'm working for a public policy think tank in the Netherlands and do some teaching whenever i can for extra cash. I'm supposed to discern possible 'unintended consequences' and come up with solutions for them. Tis only temporary though, as i'm living with my girlfriend in Amsterdam atm as she is studying a research masters in neuroscience at uva, and it gives me time to get together some money, have a pretty decent time, and get my personal work done. Intend to move to the States and do something there when she's finished (lucky enough to have citizenship).

Oh, and i'm pretty much slap bang in the middle of my 20s.

so in laymen terms... all Keynesian economics is bullshit and we should revert to full marxism?

on a serious note a more interesting question would be what a post-imperial society would even look like. inb4 we already live in one

[KyrieTheFuture]

As much as I disagree with Dresta and find a lot of his views unsettling, at least he actually ****ing does research and knows what he's talking about (most of the time) I'm not entirely sure why he's backing Putin here but he knows more about political history than 90% of the board.

[IamRAMBO24]

thanks. sounds like he and rambo would be a glorious match.

Ya we are both highly successful intelligent men. If we think like everybody else, we would still be in the same sh*tty rut like Russwest. Admit it, you hate me because I don't pamper your ******** and give you reps to reaffirm your worth because you can't find it on your own.

[gigantes]

ACTUALLY, I graduated with a BSc in Politics & Economics from Birmingham, and then an MSc in Economics and Philosophy from LSE.

My emphasis was largely on the epistemological foundations of various economic methodologies, most of which i found to be rather spurious. Questions of rationality, et cetera - for me there is no such thing as the irrational. Being able to rationalise is what makes people human. What economic policy makers consider 'irrational' is rationalised quite clearly by the individual (i.e just because one person sees one thing as irrational, doesn't mean that same thing is irrational to someone else - therefore the term 'irrational' is arbitrary and unscientific - i.e. it has no place in an economics that claims it is a science). The distinction between rationality and irrationality is therefore pointless, and the word irrationality itself is only a prejudicial pejorative.

Right now i'm working for a public policy think tank in the Netherlands and do some teaching whenever i can for extra cash. I'm supposed to discern possible 'unintended consequences' and come up with solutions for them. Tis only temporary though, as i'm living with my girlfriend in Amsterdam atm as she is studying a research masters in neuroscience at uva, and it gives me time to get together some money, have a pretty decent time, and get my personal work done. Intend to move to the States and do something there when she's finished (lucky enough to have citizenship).

Oh, and i'm pretty much slap bang in the middle of my 20s.
thank you for explaining, brother. perhaps buddah should not be my go-to source for information in future.

it often takes me a while to untangle what you're saying, but all good. you sound pretty angry and a bit conflating at times, but... what the hell... so did i in my mid-20's, hell yeah.

[GimmeThat]

so in laymen terms... all Keynesian economics is bullshit and we should revert to full marxism?

on a serious note a more interesting question would be what a post-imperial society would even look like. inb4 we already live in one


a post-imperial society?

I suspect instead of the hierarchy system of it all, you'll see one plane of lateral structure, built to help contain the structure of the society. (picture it something similar to the pentagon)


and how does one post-imperial society re-enter an imperial society?

when one bypasses the plane without friction.
in which, it is friction that once again re-create the next

chapter




as for Keynesian economics is bullshit and full marxism.

if I am not mistaken, the growth/birth of Keynesian economics had a lot to do with the after effect of the world war.

when you consider foreign business investors as apart of your "country"

I suppose one could argue such as "full marxism"


in which, one may, or may not revert back to keynesian economics.

because countries love fighting over territories.
even that of the ocean.

[triangleoffense]

a post-imperial society?

I suspect instead of the hierarchy system of it all, you'll see one plane of lateral structure, built to help contain the structure of the society. (picture it something similar to the pentagon)


and how does one post-imperial society re-enter an imperial society?

when one bypasses the plane without friction.
in which, it is friction that once again re-create the next

chapter




as for Keynesian economics is bullshit and full marxism.

if I am not mistaken, the growth/birth of Keynesian economics had a lot to do with the after effect of the world war.

when you consider foreign business investors as apart of your "country"

I suppose one could argue such as "full marxism"


in which, one may, or may not revert back to keynesian economics.

because countries love fighting over territories.
even that of the ocean.
It was a joke

[GimmeThat]

It was a joke


it IS a joke.

[triangleoffense]

it IS a joke.
sarcasm and the internets... not a good combo

[GimmeThat]

sarcasm and the internets... not a good combo


talking about millennials being losers?

[gigantes]

It was a joke
everyone here was in stitches.

[Dresta]

As much as I disagree with Dresta and find a lot of his views unsettling, at least he actually ****ing does research and knows what he's talking about (most of the time) I'm not entirely sure why he's backing Putin here but he knows more about political history than 90% of the board.
I'm not backing Putin as an individual at all (pretty close to conclusive that he is a bastard), just putting forward how things are seen from the Russian perspective. They like Putin quite justifiably, because he is a strong leader, who stands up to the West, whereas Yeltsin allowed the nation's wealth to be expropriated, plunging a nation of misery into yet more misery. Russia has been humiliated, but it is still a proud nation, and doesn't like to be pushed around (nor should it accept being pushed around). Russia had guarantees against NATO expansion to their borders, these guarantees have been forgotten or ignored by Western politicians, but not by Russians. Moreover, the EU is dominated by Germany (a German imperialistic project in many respects) - do you really think the Russians want a German-controlled quasi-federation camped on their borders? Ukraine is a borderline failed state. Wanting it in the EU is ludicrous, which makes me think this is only being done to antagonise Russia. People will ally against the Russians! Because they've already had it drilled into their heads that Russians are bad. The fact is, Russia is a far more conservative country than the United States is right now - it poses no radical threat to the world, and we have forced a military conflict over nothing.

Russia should be our ally. This isn't the Cold War anymore, and Russia was on the mend before this disgraceful economic collusion and sabotage. Putin was sensible enough (and had enough experience with Islamic terrorists) to know backing the rebels in Syria was an idiotic idea. He should be a key ally in trying to eradicate this lunacy, but we are alienating Russia from the rest of the world for no reason other than to assert our own power.

I suggest you look up Peter Hitchens on the topic. I disagree with the man on most things, but he is smart and informative, and particularly good on Russia & Ukraine (spent considerable time in both, under Communist rule too) and placing these events in their historical context, rather than viewing them in a bubble (like most).


so in laymen terms... all Keynesian economics is bullshit and we should revert to full marxism?

on a serious note a more interesting question would be what a post-imperial society would even look like. inb4 we already live in one
Academic economics needs to be torn down and started from scratch. Start with teaching the history of economic thought, then students can start to make their own decisions as to what methodologies make the most sense and adopt them, rather than simply accepting the current consensus (which is wrong, and admitted to be wrong - they'll get there some day though, they claim).

What we have now is a disgusting hybrid between Keynesianism and Freidmanite monetarism - you have these two schools of economic thinking to blame for the mess most of the world is currently in.

Freidman = dogmatic bellend
Keynes = conniving bellend