• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OldGimletEye

  • Rank
    Assistant To The Assistant Manager

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Straight Outta Flea Bottom

Recent Profile Visitors

13,422 profile views
  1. Well yes it was. The shift I mean. As to their "modern movement", I think that pretty much solidified at least by the late 1970s or early 1980s. As I understand them, many of them began on the anti-Stalinist left. And they pretty much consolidated their rather hawkish and interventionist views in the late 1960s or 1970s. With the Democratic Party increasingly having a bad taste in its mouth over Vietnam, many of them who were Democrats went over to the Republican Party, where their worldview didn't quite take over the Republican Party establishment overnight, where the realist camp still held sway. It would seem to me, that they did come to prominence under Dubya, though they had joined the Republican Party establishment say around the 1970s or 1980s. When they did come to prominence under Dubya, I think their views were rather well developed. Interestingly enough, many of them didn't care for Trump, and actually preferred Hillary. I hope they don't try to come back into the Democratic Party, because, in my view, they shouldn't be welcomed back. And that is a reason why I don't have much kind to say about people like Samantha Powers, who just seems a little too neo-conish for my taste.
  2. No worries. Yeah that letter certainly helps to make the case that a lot of this stuff started in the 1990s. And I think there is other stuff out there if you really look for it. Also, too, just consider basic Neocon ideology. I forget who said it, maybe it was Michael Lind, but it was basically the necons took the idea of "Permanent Revolution" and turned it into "Permanent War". Before, the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't like their intellectual history and outlook was a secret.
  3. Now, conservative sorts of people. I’m going to suggest here that one’s alleged awesomey awesomest bestest ever bidness experience may not always be the the best guide to having economic opinions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/12/trump-just-broke-with-two-more-presidential-norms/ Now conservative sorts of people, I’m going to suggest that the reason to have a “low interest rate policy” isn’t so real estate guys like Trump can get low interest loans on awesomey awesome real estate deals. It’s cause if you kind of ball park accept a Wicksellian framework, you want to make sure the real rate of interest equals the natural rate of interest in order to restore full employment, which might be something you care about if, you know, your kinda of an old school full employment Democrat. Also, conservative sorts of people, if any thing, there is worry that the future interest rates might be too low, as that might bring as too close to ZLB episodes, not that conservative sorts of people would worry about that thing. Low interest rates for the sake of low interest rates isn't the point. Well, that's interesting. I remember back in the day when he accused her of just playing team Democrat, rather than being a competent technocrat that she is. Now conservative sorts of people, lets recall the interest rate parity condition. And do you know, what causes interest rates to rise? Deficit financed tax cuts for the wealthy that’s what. Now how many pro-Trumpsters realized that? But see that was different. He was trying to win an election!!! Because, you know, his "awesome" real estate experience is what matters here. Now conservative sorts of people, it may just be the case, that, that, pre-tax income isn’t independent of tax rates. I’ll just throw that out there. http://voxeu.org/article/tax-reforms-and-top-incomes Other things I need to save to the hard disk in the old brain housing group: http://cdn.equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/10103750/04112017-WP-effects-of-income-tax-changes-on-economic-activity.pdf
  4. I'm not sure if Dubya did that. I'm pretty sure though of a few things 1) the Neocons got the upper hand in his administration over the more realist bunch, 2) they did in fact use the "war on terror" as justification to invade Iraq, 3) the real reason for invading Iraq was because of neocon aims, but the justification got sold as something else to the public, 4) various statements made by them in the 1990s would seem to lend credence to statements 1,2,3. Before, incurious George became president, I'm not sure if he had strong foreign policy views. He wasn't exactly known as an intellectual sort. But, it would appear he did fall under the spell of the neocons. Not saying that excuses him in any way shape or form. When lives are the line, being willfully ignorant isn't an excuse.
  5. To Republican sorts of people that I know, I've often referred to Dubya as Karl Marx Dubya. Why? Well, cause for one it annoyed them. And that in itself was a worthy goal. LOL. But, it was to make the point of the entire irony of the situation: The Party that is always crying about Marxism or looking for a commie in their closet or underneath their bed, elected a guy that thought he could affect a big societal change, in a short period of time, through armed force. Now go figure that one.
  6. I think in Neo Con circles there was always a desire for regime change in Iraq, even in the 1990s, before Dubya ever ran for President or let anyone know he wanted to be President. I believe after the first Gulf War, many of the Neo Cons were upset with Bush I over not going into Iraq and removing Saddam. At that time, it would seem that Bush I was more influenced by the realist camp of thinking, people like Scowcroft and Powell, than the Neocons. It would seem to me that under Dubya's administration, the Neo Cons* were able to get the upper hand in foreign policy disputes. When Paul Wolfowitz et al. pushed for the invasion of Iraq, just as we were sending in troops into Afghanistan, I think he was probably very much fulfilling a Neocon dream that goes back to the early or mid 1990s.
  7. Well it seems we may have to put the gloves back on, as we are headed for round 2 of the healthcare brawl: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/12/trump-changes-course-again-says-health-care-repeal-must-happen-before-tax-overhaul/
  8. Differences between team Democrat and team Republican, Syria intervention edition: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/syria-reflexive-partisanship-doesnt-apply-both-parties
  9. Internet and social media completely responsible for political polarization. Uh, maybe not completely. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15259438/social-media-political-polarization
  10. Perhaps I will send the following: A state that manages to elect an orange swamp thing as its leader.
  11. Dumb & Dumber just might be the problem here: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/11/15223460/trump-staff-shakeup What happens when people think Refer Madness is a real documentary about marijuana. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/12/the-new-white-house-drug-czar-has-quite-an-idea-for-where-to-put-nonviolent-drug-users/ China Trade: http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/04/the-end-of-chinas-export-juggernaut.html Interesting. File away for future reference. Won't get my hopes up to much. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/upshot/a-republican-wins-in-kansas-its-still-a-loss-of-sorts-for-the-gop.html So the Republican Party really digs the Swabian Housewife. So, how did she do? http://voxeu.org/article/austerity-aftermath-great-recession
  12. When I was a younger man, that seems to have been my philosophy towards beer selection.
  13. And I think neither of you are really getting what I'm saying. Again, you can be great at the tactical stuff and you can be awesome at the operational level. But, if you don't achieve a desirable political outcome, then what is the point? There isn't any. Also, it's true when studying military conflicts a distinction is often made between 1) The tactical level, 2) the operational level, 3) strategic level, and the 4) the political level of war. Even though we have made these conceptual distinction in studying war fighting, the truth is that they often can't be cleanly separated. Tactical and strategic realities may influence what policy you come up with. And your political goals may influence your strategy and tactics. I'm not suggesting here that generals run the country. I have not done that. Actually, what is needed is close integration between military professionals and political leaders, in the cases where military conflict may be necessary. Also, war planning requires ethical considerations to be factored in as well. It would seem that our political leaders have been very bad at achieving desirable political outcomes when deciding to invoke military force. They have been very bad at coming up with realistic military/political outcomes where interventionism is concerned. And the fact that we are often successful at the tactical and operational level doesn't change matters much. Also, I'll add, that I'm not a great fan of the concept of nation building. That requires a great deal of military/political coordination that we just don't seem proficient at. Plus the cost just seem to high.
  14. I don't think I ever asserted that Generals should be the only one responsible. But, see here is the thing: Most wars today are fought to achieve desirable political outcomes. It's fine to say, we did great on the tactical stuff and great on the operational level. But, if you don't achieve the stated political outcome or a desirable on, then what's the point? Your "pure" military operations have to be well integrated with your political strategy and diplomatic strategy, unless your just doing the total war thingy.
  15. I think your argument is only correct if you have some kind of Ludendorffian view that espouses total war. Other wise, I'd say political and diplomatic considerations are very much of the military planning process, particularly at the strategic level.