How does one define political stability? In all truths the political process is unhinged and chaotic; created to lead the various public intrerest into a cyclical sate of equilibrium, Does in fact this stability we always try to resurrect in old and new constitution is false bravado or something we see ourselves walking into? What are the characteristics of political stability?
Democracy?
Public concordance?
Equal opportunity
How do we measure it and to what standard should it live up to?
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
What I Have To Say
I realize that what an utter failure our global economy is. I do not want to bash it without preserving some of its good sides. So I will say only what really bothers me.
Lately or rather for a few years now, we have heard of the champion developing states. We call them the tigers, the elephants, the bull, the monkey? (no offense.. just mockery). Economic journal and artilces tell stories of their superceding growth and the eminite demise of the Western countries, but under what empircal analysis. I am not saying that these countries cannot beat America & Europe. I'll be honest not only would it take years it take a lot of resources! who said building a legacy was easy? did Alexander the Great conquer region after region land after land without recompense? no! he paid dearly and the same time left a legacy! a history. I don't take these things lightly, but these news article of rising tigers are playing politcs. If I were to ever read another of those article it would be to put a temporart smile on my face. Aristotle once said that it takes a smart man to entertain even that he does not believe.
Basically, I want to read something matrial. Why is Brazail growing, why is China surpassing America at such a high speed and what keeping them from knocking us down. We can learn from eachother, but we are always interested in the next winner of the unoffiical campaign. Was anyone ever running? we need to take the state of our economies and the lives of the people seriously.
Lately or rather for a few years now, we have heard of the champion developing states. We call them the tigers, the elephants, the bull, the monkey? (no offense.. just mockery). Economic journal and artilces tell stories of their superceding growth and the eminite demise of the Western countries, but under what empircal analysis. I am not saying that these countries cannot beat America & Europe. I'll be honest not only would it take years it take a lot of resources! who said building a legacy was easy? did Alexander the Great conquer region after region land after land without recompense? no! he paid dearly and the same time left a legacy! a history. I don't take these things lightly, but these news article of rising tigers are playing politcs. If I were to ever read another of those article it would be to put a temporart smile on my face. Aristotle once said that it takes a smart man to entertain even that he does not believe.
Basically, I want to read something matrial. Why is Brazail growing, why is China surpassing America at such a high speed and what keeping them from knocking us down. We can learn from eachother, but we are always interested in the next winner of the unoffiical campaign. Was anyone ever running? we need to take the state of our economies and the lives of the people seriously.
"The Endangered Public Company" (Economist)
As I read this article, I asked myself on the risks and the benefits (tangible or otherwise) the virtual market offers, especially now that they are entering into a more regulated arena, as their profits seems to grow and their services expands more than 5x's their size. Is having virtual companies such as Google, Facebook, etc a risk in the market that will only extend our current state, will it lead this economy out of rehab quicker; surely we can all admit that current remedies has yet to proved effective (in speed and time), OR is it offering the economy a temporary relief. Quite frankly, I have never taken my mind down that field of thought. We can say that Capitalism has given our society and economy a structure and function that is irreversible, we can only move forward (a claim made once my Marx... I am not claiming socialism) and hope that current and future innovation, technology, and science we lead us to a more advanced capital society. Will the virrtual market lead us out of exploitation of people by multinational corporations, does the existence of the new market present the birth of reliability on science, thus is that not where we should invest in?
Truthfully, we have never stop relying on science. The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the internet era. Our aim has always been in finding way in which science can serve us?
What I say here is not the same route the link to the article I have left below elaborates on, but that is the route my mind is turning into. We are giving life.... no birth to an internet era that we have allowed the current benefits to supersede the future costs. Than again, can you blame us? society runs on a short-term cycle. We are limited in many ways, thus we can only try to profit from what is successful today, hoping tomorrow it will not fail us.
I'm currently reading "The Next Convergence" by Michael Spencer. I will not keep an updated post on this, until I'm done with the reading.
Thanks!
Something else to read. Click here to read: The Economist
Truthfully, we have never stop relying on science. The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the internet era. Our aim has always been in finding way in which science can serve us?
What I say here is not the same route the link to the article I have left below elaborates on, but that is the route my mind is turning into. We are giving life.... no birth to an internet era that we have allowed the current benefits to supersede the future costs. Than again, can you blame us? society runs on a short-term cycle. We are limited in many ways, thus we can only try to profit from what is successful today, hoping tomorrow it will not fail us.
I'm currently reading "The Next Convergence" by Michael Spencer. I will not keep an updated post on this, until I'm done with the reading.
Thanks!
Something else to read. Click here to read: The Economist
Friday, May 18, 2012
"Maybe teen motherhood isn't so bad" The Economist
At first I planned on not giving this article credit. It was my fault for asuming I knew the answer after reading the title. After further reading I found out I was dead wrong out my pants. The students who wrote this article, did a tremendous job empirically and in explaining. I was shocked to see the logic and correlation bewteen to obvious variables, but my reasoning to the situation was way off. Read this article on teen pregnancy: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/economics-and-culture
On Terrorism: A Unifying Physical Force and Identity
I created a theory on the causal relationship of grouping of like-minded people and want to apply it to the middle east. It'll will be short... I'll mostly be philosophizing. It will take a while for me to write this particular piece of news, because I have to gather my notes.
Another Book On Deck!
Ello!
I'll be adding "Analyzing Politics" to the list of books I will be reading this summer. I also want to read "The Federalist Papers". I started reading the latter this school semeter and I was very impressed and at the same time despondent, because if i had read that earlier in my school years I probably would have done "++". So I will be shifting in between
1. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons
2. Analyzing Politics by Kenneth A. Shepsle
3. The Federalsit Papers
Whatever floats my boat.
You'd be surprised to see what all three books have in common. Game theory is present in all of them and of course that helps tremendously with foresight.
The Fed talks about the strength of a nation combined even when it is entangled in international disputes and claims and the weakness of a state that is confederated. Basically, independence states --> high dependence and dependence --> strategic interdependence.
Recall, that in the nuclear weapons book the author mentions that without domestic stability states are less likely to invest time and resources on nuclear development, beacuse they either lack the technology and the knowledge, civil war, etc.
I'll be adding "Analyzing Politics" to the list of books I will be reading this summer. I also want to read "The Federalist Papers". I started reading the latter this school semeter and I was very impressed and at the same time despondent, because if i had read that earlier in my school years I probably would have done "++". So I will be shifting in between
1. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons
2. Analyzing Politics by Kenneth A. Shepsle
3. The Federalsit Papers
Whatever floats my boat.
You'd be surprised to see what all three books have in common. Game theory is present in all of them and of course that helps tremendously with foresight.
The Fed talks about the strength of a nation combined even when it is entangled in international disputes and claims and the weakness of a state that is confederated. Basically, independence states --> high dependence and dependence --> strategic interdependence.
Recall, that in the nuclear weapons book the author mentions that without domestic stability states are less likely to invest time and resources on nuclear development, beacuse they either lack the technology and the knowledge, civil war, etc.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Nuclear Weapons and Domestic Stability/ Five deterrents to War
"Nuclear Weapons and Domestic Stability" chapter 1 of " The Spread of Nuclear Weapons"
1. Possession of nuclear weapons may slow arms races down, rather than speed them up
2. For less developed countries to build nuclear arsenals requires long lead time. Nuclear weapons require administrative and technical teams able to formulate and sustain programs of considerable cost that pay off only in the long run.
3. Although highly unstable states are unlikely to initiate nuclear projects, such projects, begun in stable times, any continue through periods of political turmoil and succeed in producing nuclear weapons.
4. The possibility of one side in a civil war firing a nuclear warhead at its opponent's stronghold nevertheless remains.
So the use of nuclear weapons is not likely to be developed domestically, because the country would not be able to sustain it during political turmoil. If these weapons were to be used domestically (unlikely), development of these weapons for international protection would not be a priority for devloping countries. As the author mentioned, a minmum of continuity must be susatined... a nulcear country must have a certain social-political equilibrium.
1. Possession of nuclear weapons may slow arms races down, rather than speed them up
2. For less developed countries to build nuclear arsenals requires long lead time. Nuclear weapons require administrative and technical teams able to formulate and sustain programs of considerable cost that pay off only in the long run.
3. Although highly unstable states are unlikely to initiate nuclear projects, such projects, begun in stable times, any continue through periods of political turmoil and succeed in producing nuclear weapons.
4. The possibility of one side in a civil war firing a nuclear warhead at its opponent's stronghold nevertheless remains.
So the use of nuclear weapons is not likely to be developed domestically, because the country would not be able to sustain it during political turmoil. If these weapons were to be used domestically (unlikely), development of these weapons for international protection would not be a priority for devloping countries. As the author mentioned, a minmum of continuity must be susatined... a nulcear country must have a certain social-political equilibrium.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)