What is Political Stability?

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?

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.

"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

"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.

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.

Africa and the Power of the Pivot By Ian Bremmer (NYT)

'Developing countries must avoid depending on one ally for security and prosperity. Africa shows the power of such resilience'. Go here to read the article: Africa and the Power of the Pivot

Higher Education : A System of Competitive Burden

Receiving a degree in higher education is the lime light in anyone's life. We acheive this recognition so not only that we may be known as an expert in a field of study we love, but to be looked on proudly by those we for and to be accepted by our external social circle. We strive to become the best, take on a load on loans to claim prestige. Is the prestige society has drilled in us to believe that comes with a degree, worth it? of course. However, this system of influence, will never end, but something must be done about the unending rise of student loans.

As my title mentioned I coined the financial aspect of the education system "competitive burden". Why? well let us look at it. We ultimately live in a competitive world. Darwin saw it and so we must acknowledge this as well. In the higher education system, the more we desire to beat the competition, the more our burden increase. The burden would be the loan, so we can see the correlation between the the increase of debt in relations to the persons academic degree. I agree this looks simple, but the complexity of it is not transparent.

(To be completed)

Urban-Development Legends by Mario Polèse, City Journal Autumn 2011

I read this article quite a while ago. It had help me to understand the building forces in a city and the creation of urban policy and the affect or influence businesses have on the creation of such policies. Check it Out: Urban-Development Legends by Mario Polèse, City Journal Autumn 2011

Does Having a Deterrent Strategy Make The Major Causes of War Less Likely?

Chapter 1 of "The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons"


In Chapter one of the book, we are introduced to a series of topics that make it possible for us to further both our thinkng and logic on the question of nuclear weapon use. Chapter one rather than raises, notes a lot of important information.A few of the topics in this chapter consists of, Part I: The Military Logic of Self-Help Systems, Part II: What Will The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons Do To The World?, and Part III: Nuclear Weapons and Domestic Stability.

Part I made an inquiry into the management of nuclear weapons by states that has nuclear weapons and those who has the ability. What I liked about the chapter was that it introduced us to the weighing techniques that explains militry and war logic; does the cost of going to war exceed the benefits? If so the probability of going to war decreases substantially. Thus, in weighing the possibility in going to war"one must first ask about the ends for which states use force and about the strategies and weapons they employ". One thing we are assured of is that states will not take an active step to war if the stakes are high. The book mentions that "how nuclear weapons affect the chances for peace is seen by examining the different implications of defense and deterrence". Now, I forgot to explain the differences between deterrence and defence. The author describes defense as "building fortifications and to muster forces that look forbidingly strong". Meaning that one tries to build their defense that is close to impossible to breach or overcome. To "deter means to stop people from doing something by frightening them". Disuasion by deterrence " operates by scaring a state out of attacking, not because of difficulty of launching an attack and carrying it home, but because the expected reaction of the opponent may result in one's own severe punishment".  I like how they tried to place a line between the two words. However, I felt a vagueness... as if he was trying to hide the link between the two terms. I can't seem to persuade myself into thinking that you can have one without the other. What state would build a formidable army if it cannot use it as a deterrence. You can claim physical strength as a defense, since your opponent is more likely to share that type of force (despite the difference in force) and one can claim military weapons as a deterrence. Rather deterrence can be seen as something that is not readily used but places fear in themind of the opponent. I gues that's what he was getting at? defense is imminent, but deterrence are not since the stakes are to high.

A Few Things To Note About The Worlds Nuclear Weapon History

Fact 1. The 5 nulcear weapon power states are: United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France

 Fact 2. Nuclear weapons spread instead of proliferate because so far nuclear weapons have proliferated only vertically as the major nuclear powers have added to their arsenals, says Kenneth N. Waltz. Is this so? Only a few countries contain the technology to create nuclear arsenals. If he was trying to distinct between spreading and proliferation, I would say they are one and the same. Countries that seem to have the technology bargain with it and yes! who would have thought that they would lay in the hands on those least expected to have arms of the sort. Take for example Iran finding an America missile head lost by America some months ago and they never realized this until the news was made public. (I'll do some research on the spread indicator)

 Fact 3. (Historical) "Membership grew to Twelve in the first fifty years of the nuclear age, and that number included three countries that suddenly found themselves in the nuclear military business as successor states to the Soviet Union".... Interesting

 Fact 4. (Historical) South Africa, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine liquidated their weapons. On this I read and you'll find that in 1968 close to 150 countries or more signed the Non-proliferation treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This treaty was extended in 1995.

Fact 5. "Four non-parties to the treaty are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty in 1985, but never came into compliance, and announced its withdrawal in 2003" WiKi

Though, the book is not much old, they do not have Iran as part of this list. The dispute over whether Iran have nuclear weapon ability is unclear. They have never outright claim to not having any, but they also have falsely led the community into believing they do.... its a play on words or lack thereof.


Something you guys should be aware of is that the NPT is considered a bargain treaty. Meaning that the NPT non-nuclear states agree not to acquire weapons, the NPT nuclear states would provide them with the technology. Their aim is to non-proliferate, disarm, and the right to peaceful use.

Unions Versus the Poor by Christian Schneider - City Journal

I found this article worth reading. Innovation is the key! If we can afford to cut on public pension, to provide for the poor, why shouldn't we? At times I feel we are living in this era of total awareness, I feel as if our leaders are understanding. We are amidst a transition and it's about time! Our values change as Americans, since the recession. Read and comment of course. Unions Versus the Poor by Christian Schneider - City Journal

A Slight Welcome and an Intro to Our First Book!

Hi: My name is Faye and I really dislike writing a "welcome to my blog spot" post. I find it limiting and irritating, so all I'll say for now is stop by often. We can expect debates since I am very opinionated and expressive on my views (especially when I'm writing). I want you guys to help me facilitate this blog as an arena for social debate and generally anything that bothers you (has to fall under one of the topics I call my blog after of course!). You have values and opinions, so do the rest of the population, and so do I. Share, create, imagine, but please stay in the real world... oh and please be logical! Hope we have a Great summer with each other.

Now, to introduce my first topic,"Nuclear Weapons". I am currently reading "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons" (a debate renewed) by Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz. I expect this book to be interesting. The question this book tries to bring to the fore front is "if the nuclear balance of terror helped maintain the "long peace" between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war, will the spread of nuclear weapons to new states also help stabilize international relations in the future?"

What I learned in Middle East Politics this year was that all relations call for a certain degree of trust. The spread of nuclear weapons as this book mentions is "spreading" rather "proliferating".Thus, trust is a necessity, I expect the world leaders to see how important a council on this matter will be ( they have one now). The thing is with the apparent spread of nuclear weapons, states will try to play safer. The danger and implications the spread presents forces social awareness. Well, this is as far as I'll go. I will read a few chapter and write a brief (mixed with my opinion). See you then!