I have often heard globalizers say that increased integration between economies will lead to less war.
I think the argument goes something like, if two economies are integrated then they will lose more by aggressive political relations and their respective leaders will will be less likely to choose that course.
I have on occaion, believed that myself, but now I wonder. Hasn't war, other than the dramatically exceptional exception that is World War II's effect on the U.S., always had a dubious effect on economies?
Aren't leaders, even in democracies quite insulated from the ill effects of such decisions?
So awhile back I found out that the more globalization = less war thesis has been around for a while, and it has taken some licks. Below is an article from John Quiggin. I've included links to intelligent commentary from Matthew Iglesias and Brad Delong.
Brad Delong comments on Matt Yglesias's comments.
John Quiggin » Merom reviewThe classic refutation of international realism was put forward in Norman Angell's The Great Illusion. Angell argued that in a modern economy no economic benefit could be generated even by successful wars of conquest. Writing for a British audience, Angell's basic point was that, even if Germany succeeded in establishing political mastery in Europe, workers in the newly subjected countries would still have to be paid, goods would have to be purchased at market prices and so on. Hence, individual Germans would gain nothing from being part of a larger country.
Angell's argument works even better for social democracies, where territorial expansion or even extension of hegemony produces an unpalatable choice. If the benefits and obligations that go with citizenship welfare state are extended to those under the control of the expanded state, existing citizens will almost certainly be worse off. On the other hand, any attempt to maintain a distinction between citizens and noncitizens is bound to be highly problematic.
Angell's argument showed, beyond reasonable doubt, that war and territorial expansion are not, in general sensible policies. His views have often been derided on the basis that they were falsified by the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, which was pursued to the bitter end even though it destroyed the global market economy that had formed the backdrop to his analysis. But in reality the outcome proved him right. Of course, Germany, the power most influenced by the arguments of Clausewitz and his successors, reaped nothing but grief from the war. But the attempts of the victorious allies to exact reparations, extend their colonial influence and so on were also entirely futile, exactly as Angell had predicted.
You grow up and you calm down
working for the clampdown
The presidency, like nothing else in the world, matters. That is inarguable, and that is why many of you will find what I am about to say to be vain rationalizations, or worse comfort to the enemies of right government.
I, like many, do not hold a high opinion of the Bush presidency. I find his policies to be poor ones in most areas and I do not look to four more years of him being the most powerful man in the world.
Social Security
Okay, so Bush's social security plan still makes no sense. If their intention is to privatize the program, it will certainly be ugly. Kerry's plan for Social Security was essentially no plan at all but I still think that's a mite better than promising the same money to two different groups of people. Maybe, maybe Martin Feldstein has some sort secret plan to provide us with a working, sustainable system. If so, it must be very secret indeed.
Foreign Policy
I'm normally inclined to give a president a free pass on foreign policy. Even the most well informed president with the best of intentions is going to seem to be fucking up foreign policy most of the time. America is simply too powerful, everything it does hurts somebody and that somebody gets pissed off.
That being said, Iraq seems to be of higher pitch and longer duration on the fuck-up scale than is normal. Our security rationale for going there has evaporated but now we're stuck taking care of the place because, well, it will look even worse if we bail now. In terms of geopolitical strategy this one is total dead end. How this colossal failure did not result in the American people firing the guy responsible totally astonishes me.
The trouble is much the election we're already in Iraq. There really isn't much Kerry could have done to make the place any better. People complain that the administration of Iraq's rebuilding seems difficult. Of course it is. It's an occupation. Those are difficult. But, the Iraqis will still be occupied whether there's a Democrat or a Republican in the white house (just a guess, but they probably don't give a shit about the difference between the two). Worse, I'm not sure if Kerry's cry for more troops would have helped that much either. Might that not be seen as an escalation? A crackdown?
Then there's North Korea, probably even more dangerous than Iraq. I'm not sure why Kerry thought bilateral negotiations without the Chinese was such a good idea in the debates. China has a number of carrots and sticks for use on Korea that we just don't have. Of course China doesn't take orders from us, but it seems that in this matter, our interests converge nicely. I'm not sure why Kerry broke from his otherwise sound attacks on bilateralism for this issue but I can figure out why Bush is not sticking to his normal "we don't need your help" attitude with Korea. When this administration says we need someone on our side of the table, we need someone on our side of the table.
Taxation
It really, really sucks as a liberal to say this but we're really going to have to go through some tax reform in the United States. The details are messy, but taxing labor more and capital less is more efficient at raising money without distorting the economy. It's regressive and ugly, but a change must be made eventually.
It is essentially what they do in those European welfare states. But, of course the Swedes and their kin couple their regressive taxation with very progressive spending. We're not going to get that from Bush, Secretary Snow and company. To echo Daniel Davies on the Iraq war, I'm in favor in tax reform but I really do wish someone else were doing it. The problem is: would someone else do it?
The Deficit
Shit.
Bush plans to do nothing about the deficit. He thinks that increased growth will take care of it. Meanwhile more tax cuts and more spending as far as the eye can see (sounds like a pretty South American solution to the problem if you ask me).
Kerry at least acknowledged that the deficit was going to be a problem. His revocation of some of the tax cuts would have helped some. When it came to spending, it sounded like Kerry was hoping that a bunch of spending increases would end up equaling a spending cut. It was my hope that the smart democratic economists would talk some sense into him by inauguration.
By parity we've been waiting a long time for the smart republican economists to make themselves influential in the Bush administration. There is some small hope for this. Republican economists are a dour, no free lunch bunch. They are not very good at getting you reelected. Now that there's no reelection to be had they will influence policy some.
Environment and Civil Liberties
Okay, so flat out I just feel less comfortable discussing these things. I'm not an expert on either and I'm totally willing to cede the floor to anyone who is. I will observe that damage done in either of these areas is not unfixable. Just wait, take notes and do something when you have the chance.
I do not think that Bush will bring ruin to our republic. The country can withstand bad policies and misguided leadership. Furthermore there are several areas where the choices offered to a sitting president are so limited that vastly different personalities and ideologies would be forced to make the same choice.
I've done my calculations and the polls should be about done returning at 1 pm on wednesday for us. That's dead smack in the middle of my workday.
Since I have to hang around 5 year olds in the afternoon, my long standing tradition of not being sober when national election polls come in will cease. The last time that I was not drunk on an election night was in 2000, when I had run a fever and was hallucinating about giant lizard men. That epsiode did fulfill the function that is normally delegated to whisky, namely making the process and consequences of democracy much more tolerable. The whole recount debacle was downright pleasant compared to a world filled with giant lizard men.
Over at Crooked Timber John Quiggin gets something right:
State capacity tends to rise with income, so in wealthy countries the state can achieve more, with less obtrusive use of power, than in poor countries. It is strong and not weak states that produce economic freedom.
I have long believed that it is no paradox to insist that freedom requires a strong state. I do think that it is far from proven that this is the case, but certainly isn't one of those assertions that is false out of the gate.
Arguing against some libertarian organization with the standard libertarian tendentious handout of an economic freedom chart, Quiggan attacks the notion that less government is identical to more freedom. I'm sure all uncrazy libertarians agree that a sound, sensible and well-enforced system of laws is required for economic and political freedom. However, the idea that with less government the more freedom is one of those reflexive beliefs that many people have precisely because they have not quite examined it. It is a cliche, defended by no one and yet many, with accompanying silly Thoreau quote and everything. It is not just a straw man set up by some foreign socialist to snipe at the American Way of Things.
The difference between the size of a state and its capacity to do curtail freedom is easily illustrated. I once asked a teacher of mine, Scott Rozelle, which was more bureaucratic; the Chinese government or the Universities of California? Professor Rozelle had experienced both of these institutions in their fullness, and he wasted no time answering the question. "The UCs," he said.
The UC system is silly and time wasting and keeps files it doesn't need. It also doesn't give a crap about your political views, sexual orientation or what you do with your degree. It is bureaucratic and non-oppressive. You can figure out the rest of the analogy for yourself.
Let me just bring up a point that should be very clear to you and that you should remember for the rest of your life when thinking about politics. Big government versus small government, weak states versus strong states and more freedom versus less freedom are separate but related issues.
The debate over the size of government is one worth having on its own terms. The size of government may may be good or bad for long term growth (or if large government spending isn't bad for long term growth, then it is probably for reasons that most socialists would find very depressing). Heck, it could just make voters feel like a lot of their money is being wasted and turn them off to the civic process. But I don't think that the size of the government in dollars has all that much to do with the intrusiveness or power of the government.
Research remains to be done on what kinds of government are compatible with economic growth. This would help us to illuminate what kind of trade-offs that the developed and developing world face with their public choices. Let's hope it isn't just done by libertarian institutes making lists.
So we've all had a few days to calm down.
The president in his estimable wisdom has decided to shore up support on the right by picking on the gays. Maybe he was scared of the prospect of Ralph Nader stealing up the votes of disaffected conservatives.
While I doubt that the Musgrave Amendment is going to be ratified any time soon, I do not advise complacency. This is one issue where I side unabashedly with those that oppose the amendment. Those who support it are choosing to divide the country for political gain.
I am usually delighted at the relatively peaceful coexistence of America's two strange halves, our liberal cosmopolitan coasts and our far more rural, conservative midsection. But we can be driven apart by angry rhetoric, and this is an issue that may do so.
Seriously, is there any particular reason why the rest of the country can't just let San Francisco issue marriage licenses to whomever they want to and politely pretend that it isn't happening? Legal minds point out that it would be problematic, that other states would be forced to recognize a practice that the population finds abhorrent.
I find that line of reasoning troubling. It turns on an argument which would undermine the very concept of our Liberal Democracy. I do not think that being forced to accept the legal validity of contracts between people that you don't like is a reasonable harm in the practice of a Liberal Democracy. (Hey you know who I don't approve of? People from Idaho. They all drive like senior citizens. We shouldn't be forced to recognize any license or law that Idaho implements). To embrace such reasoning is to embrace a kind of crude, illiberal utilitarianism.
Even if you care about the hardships of people forced to (gasp!) recognize gay marriage without approving of it, it is still dubious as to whether the hassle resulting from being forced to recognize San Francisco marriages is less than the hassle that's going to result from the cultural clash we are about to endure? Does any one think that? Aloud and to other people? Reasoning ones that argue back? I suspect not, on that last count.
Yes, San Francisco should have waited until the courts decided that the states anti discrimination clause permitted gay marriage. Gavin Newsome's political genius I think overrode his legal sensibilities in this case. But, the proper response to that is to let the courts hash it out. Why it becomes necessary to amend the constitution to prevent any states from acting out independently
is something that is obvious only to someone who is surely not me.
Fortunately we have prohibitively time-consuming process of actually amending the constitution on our side. The president needs two thirds in the house (probably doable), two thirds in the senate (getting two thirds on anything is tough in the senate these days) and ratification in three-quarters of the states. That last one is the toughest to estimate the chances of. Dahlia Lithwick claims that this exact number of states already have laws banning gay marriage on the books. Still, there is a difference between opposing gay marriage and thinking it should be a constitutional issue (ask Edwards and Kerry), and I suspect at least one state in that group will find this reasoning persuasive.
Still, it is a possibility and one to be feared. We live in a strange place, and the plates hift unpredictably, even in the sanest of times. I counsel patience and resilient opposition.
Nobody I really know likes George W. Bush that much. This should surprise no one. I live in Northern California, near Berkeley and amongst any particular gathering of my friends I'm usually the most conservative one in the room.
You can count me amongst those who think that, largely the Bush administration has dropped the ball. They have made poor economic decisions and questionable foreign policy decisions. Of course I feel much more comfortable talking about the economic decisions. The badness of the steel tariff and the dangers of not having a plan to deal with a long run budget deficit are easily demonstrable.
Personally I don't hold it too much against any president when they fuck up in relation to the Middle East. They all do that. I think it's delineated in a section of the constitution. "The President shall use the power of his office to promote instability in The Orient, through the use of fickle policy goals, casual and intemperate use of force and a foolish eagerness to do business with tyrants and fanatics." Not that it is particularly the fault of the executive branch, the Middle East been screwed up since it was dominated by the Ottomans. As P.J. O'Rourke puts it, "That's a place where not only do two wrongs not make a right, but where two rights don't make a right."
Nonetheless, the president has provided enough reasons to be unhappy with him, even given the difficulty of his job. Still, I am rather frustrated with his critics.
What is the problem with GW? Is it that he's too ideological? Is it that he has no ideology at all and is only beholden to special interests? Is it a mixture of both? Or is he just incompetent? Can we decide this, please, before we begin campaigning against him?
In the interest of harmonization, I plan on producing a small sample of Bush critics, and what they think is precisely wrong with administration. Apart from being an inherently interesting little project, it might help crystallize my vague feelings about what is wrong with our chief executive. I'll put it up in a few days. Any commentators who feel like being helpful should, well, comment on this post.
It's pretty neat to get link from a mortal human.
Professor Delong seems to be trying to nudge my reading habits as well as using this as a chance to take a (thoroughly deserved) shot at historian Robert Skidelsky.
Skidelsky has written a few cranky ideas about the USA tricking England into forgetting where her colonies were and why she needed them into his biography of Keynes. He has then cynically retitled the biography to include the word "freedom" because the yanks gobble that sort of thing right up.
None of which to say that Skidelsky hasn't written a fine biography. It's the dog's bollocks, it is. It's just one has to mistrust the man's sympathies. He might up and give them to, say, Oswald Mosley, another man who was, shall we say, overly sympathetic.
Kylee has shown me Moe's books in Berkeley.
It's several stories of fantastic used book store.
It had been so long since I had seen an economics section full of books that I really wanted to read.
I talked myself out of Mankiw & Co. seminal work on Macroeconomics . . .and Bhagwati's slim pamphlet on protectionism. I did pick up some cheaper fare; Capitalism and Freedom, David Warsh's book on economic complexity, part Skidelsky's (mysteriously retitled) Keynes biography and Fareed Zakaria' s book on American empire.
Maybe I'll start enjoying doing economics again.
We'll see.
At the very least it should keep me from bugging elex about when he's going to be done with Quicksilver.
So far, I'm halfway through Zakaria's book, which is largely an attack on something called "Defensive Realism" in foriegn policy. Defensive Realists think that expansion and empire is due to insecurity, that states typically only expand as a response to outside pressure. It's an idea that seems quite reasonable and then falls apart after a few good pokes.
Zakaria maintains the Classical Realist position that empires were acts of conscious positive choice and not simply reacting to another state's ambitions.
It's weird to read a history of the presidential attitude towards expansionism where the author seems to be rooting for the expansionists.
Okay, so a few days ago former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill is featured in a book that drops all sorts of damaging bombshells and reveals all manner of unnerving facts about the Bush administration. He is, of course now backing off of some of them and certainly not because Karl Rove has put a horse's head in his bed. No, no.
The book seems to get to the heart of what a certain class of Bush critic dislikes about this administration. The squabbles between departments, the steel tariff pander and the still strange rush to war in Iraq. These all seem to me like the symptoms of a poor, indirect style of leading.
But you should read Brad Delong's take on the O'Neill issue because Delong used to work in Treasury and he's supernaturally qualified to speak about what makes for a good Treasury Secretary and what makes a poor one. The man has also been bloggin like a madman on this and everyone he says should be considered.
He's also very Wrath of Khan on GW. In an instructive way.
Joshua Micah Marshall has already pointed a finger at Ralph Nader's exploratory poll toward 2004 run, and invited his many readers to give their opinions of another Nader run.
Obviously I can't match TPM's influence but I can match his snarkiness. I invite my fellow readers to help Mr. Nader make up his mind as to whether he's done enough damage or not. But I also want you to think of clever things to put in the comment box. Then I want you to tell me what they were, either via email (v_arouet AT hotmail.com) or by commenting on this post. Exceptionally clever comments will be reposted for posterity's sake.
This is what I wrote:
Much fun as having Bush around has been, I'm happier with our two party system wherein both parties win occasionally than I would be with a three party system where the Republicans win all the time.
Thank you very, very much.
ps. this idea is as much Slackbastard's as mine. He may have been intending to post something like this later. I already know what he wrote in the poll's comments section. It was hilarious.
pps. If you are into Nader, and wish to defend him, please feel free to. I consider you to be on our side, despite our tactical differences. But, then again, I consider most Republicans to be on my side as well. My only request is that you keep a sense of humor. If you find yourself taking me seriously you must remember that this blog has the word "monkey" in the title. End transmission.
I'm fighting with blogger about my archives and publishing.
I wonder if Movable Type is easy for someone who doesn't know PERL.
This is a test.
Woo Me
I'm registering as a Democrat this year. I realize that this is because I tend
to register with which ever party is going to have the most interesting primary.
That was why I registered Republican last time around (I saw little to lose in
the Bradley v. Gore contest).
But. . . I have not yet decided on a candidate. I know that when I do, this year I plan on getting involved and pitching in with a campaign, but in order to do that I must pick somebody.
I have four favorites, Dean, Clark, Lieberman and Kerry.
My first criterion is whether or not I would want them to win, and my second is whether or not they can.
Gephart is out because I'm no fan of big labor and he's the one candidate I'm certain is honest about his protectionism. Sharpton is out because I've read Bonfire of the Vanities. Kucinich is out because I have this thing about not voting for catholic-pantheist-vegan-socialist elves.
Edwards, and Mosley Braun I simply don't know enough about. They aren't the top of my list, but they aren't crossed off it, either.
I like Dean's grumpy dad persona (I keep waiting for him to call Bush "a
dumbass" and smack him over the head), and I have to admit his steely opposition to the Iraq war looks better now, then it did to me a year ago. But I don't
care for his anti-free trade rhetoric and doubly don't care for his using it to cover up his (relatively good) record on trade. You get no points for lying to cover up policies I like.
I realize he's doing this to fend of attacks from inside the keebler tree, but it is relatively simple to fend off attacks on support of NAFTA. Take what NAFTA opponents were saying about it when it was under consideration. Reprint
that. Then print what has actually happened. Admit that NAFTA has not been as stunning a success as some (idiotic) proponents said it would, but it has been
by no means a dismal failure.
Then watch everyone get bored and change the subject.
Kerry has some appealing policy proposals, is charming and funny but in an opportunistic crapweasel sort of way.
Most of Lieberman ideas are close to mine in ideology, and I like his cojones when it comes to telling Democratic audiences things they don't want to hear. His stances on civil liberties and church and state are a little worrying, but not awful. I don't agree with the charge that he is Bush Lite. I think he is Bush Honest, he's the center right uniter that Bush claimed to be.
Clark I like, but am nervous about. Sometimes he seems confused about why he
should be president. He is judicious about the ways he differs from Bush and
does not come off as knee jerk. He did pretty well against Tim Russert (a tough
interviewer) on Sunday.
Watching this exchange was like watching a good running back break a tackle and go for the end zone.
MR. RUSSERT: After the war was commenced in April, you did write an article for The London Times and you said, “Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. ... President Bush, Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”GEN. CLARK: But, Tim, do you have the rest of the article with you?
MR. RUSSERT: I’ve read...
GEN. CLARK: The rest of the article you should show because what it says is: “You can have your victory parade. You can have the soldiers parade up and down. You can be proud of the fact that you commanded these troops and they crushed this Army, but you must recognize that the job isn’t done. It may be only beginning. You haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction. And you’ve got a long way to go to put anything in place in the postwar.”I’m writing as a commentator. I’m fair, and I respect the men and women in the armed forces. I love them, I’ve spent my life there, and I’m proud of them. And they did, in their military duties, a fabulous job in following the orders of the commander in chief. I simply wouldn’t have given those orders at that time. Those weren’t the right orders. Diplomacy hadn’t been exhausted, we hadn’t brought our allies on board, and we didn’t have an adequate plan for what would happen next. You cannot go to war in those circumstances and be successful. In Kosovo, we had exhausted diplomacy. We had our allies on board and we had a plan for what we would do when the fighting stopped. It was exactly the opposite situation
Not bad, but I'm still not convinced. Tell me, who's your favorite and why should I vote for him?
The Poor Man: Quagmire Watch, and More! A Big Fucking Mess For You, The Reader!
A sprawling, untidy post from The Poor Man that makes several excellant points.
I like how he doesn't really directly go after Ann Coulter, just kinda quotes her and lets what she says make fun of itself.
Micheal Kinsley Hits a Nail on the Head
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031013-493326,00.html
Lenny Bruce is Not Afraid
sigh . . .
a little post-recall hangover here.
I responded to california's political crisis the only way I know how. Drinking and bellowing karoake at La Carniceria.
I heard the song "Gimme Shelter" on the way over and . . . It seemed appropriate.
but I don't know the song well enough to butcher it karoake style. Too bad.
But it served its purpose. I acted as foreground dancer to "Bust a Move" and Treated everyone to a bloodcurdling parody of "Creep." I was too drunk to drive back to Sac safely, so I ended up doing that wandering around downtown hungover looking for my car thing.
I was reconciled to Schwarzenegger being governor a few weeks ago. He was going to be able to say no to certain interest groups that Democrats can not. He might be able to lessen the budget crisis, although he'll have to raise taxes, I'm sure of it. All the other candidates had given me reason not to vote him. Ueberroth oversaw (or failed to oversee) gross violations of antitrust law during his tenure as baseball commissioner. Bustamonte wanted to put a price cap on gasoline, which is the dumbest idea anyone espoused in the election who wasn't Arianna Huffington. McClintock was a social conservative and therefore a prick. Arianna Huffington is a confirmed nutcase who radically changes her mind about everything every three or four years. And then there's Camejo, whom I rather liked. But he is a member of the Green party of California and therefore represents a group of very silly people even if he was not in fact all that silly.
But all those charges that popped up disturbed. Remember Clinton? Now I personally thought the Clinton administration did a pretty good job and yes his personal life was irrelevant blah blah blah. But tell me were you happy to learn that your president was a liar, adulterer and kind of a creepy fucker? I wasn't. I am similarly not charmed by the Gropinator.
"It was the seventies. I've been on my best behavior for the last twenty years. Make that fifteen. I mean ten. Three years? Would you believe a couple months?"
-not an actual Arnold Quote.
Some interesting name calling in the NYT today.
MORE than 60 years ago, the columnist Westbrook Pegler, noting California's penchant for political experimentation and social turmoil, proposed that a guardian should be appointed and the state declared incompetent to manage it's own affairs. Last week, California's recall election drama led the columnist George F. Will to call it "the sick man of the Republic."Personally I like Pegler's quote better.
According to the article California seems so wacky because we are so innovative. We are willing to try new things first, like running absurd deficets and having horrible stock market bubbles and governments that are seriously out of sync with voters.
Allow me to be the first to say "Whoo! Cali!"
The article wobbles a bit as to whether its because California voters are so
fantasy prone or because California politicians are so venal.
And Californians — like the rest of the country, only maybe a little bit more so — want it all, all the time: lower taxes and smaller classrooms; tighter pollution controls and bigger S.U.V.'s; cheap labor and fresh produce but tighter limits on immigration and provision of social services. Under Republican and Democratic governors alike over the past 50 years, they have grown used to getting such bounty, especially during the dot-com boom of the late 1990's. Now, the state budget faces a steadily growing deficit that Republicans accused Mr. Davis of failing to acknowledge as he campaigned. Mr. Davis won re-election by just five percentage points last fall, in an election that drew just over 35 percent of eligible voters — the lowest turnout ever in a California general election.But with its particularly broad powers of referendum, California provides the rest of the country with examples of what can happen when voters get their way, unfiltered by politicians or legislators.
"Voters aren't provided real choices," said Alan Ehrenhalt, the executive editor of Governing magazine. "They are asked, would you like ice cream one year, and then the next year, would you like cake? It doesn't ask of voters to make responsible choices from limited alternatives."
Ice cream? I want ice cream.