tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post6905579698872661271..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: What am I optimistic and pessimistic about?Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-34603193330118802182011-09-21T13:43:40.959-04:002011-09-21T13:43:40.959-04:00All I can say, Prateek, is that it's shameful ...All I can say, Prateek, is that it's shameful that our secret got out in the first place and I'm glad Brad had the thoughtfulness to sweep it back under the rug.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-21700559855605654482011-09-21T13:35:29.991-04:002011-09-21T13:35:29.991-04:00One more thing about your cosmopolitanism.
Baron ...One more thing about your cosmopolitanism.<br /><br />Baron Skidelsky believes that American conspiring caused the fall of the British Empire. J. Bradford DeLong disagrees and has written blog posts giving his counterpoints.<br /><br />Do you think that, with even some British still suspecting Americans of having worked to undermine their economy and power during and between the World Wars, there will be some suspicion that an American wanting cosmopolitan government is just a Trojan horse for American hegemony in the world?Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-35393980665908559712011-09-21T12:43:55.913-04:002011-09-21T12:43:55.913-04:00"Gary you've sufficiently convinced me yo..."Gary you've sufficiently convinced me you have no idea of what I think about social change and why states form."<br /><br />I just see what you write, and what you write is comments like this:<br /><br />"The reason why we are seeing supranational and international coordination is the same as why we've had community, regional, and national coordination in the past: our decisions have broad consequences..."<br /><br />Not, one of the reasons why, or partly why, or anything like that. Just, the reason why. When your language lacks qualifiers like that I take you at your word. I don't make other assumptions about what you may think. I try to look at what is in black and white on my computer screen and I react to it. That seems to be most fair IMO.<br /><br />"When has that leap of faith ever served you well in talking with others?"<br /><br />I don't really have to deal with this issue from others; most other people say, hey, yeah, my language was too strong. Well, your language is too strong and it really doesn't hold up to analysis. <br /><br />This gets back to my main criticism of economists generally - the lack of thick description.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-48270939566679842482011-09-21T12:23:48.549-04:002011-09-21T12:23:48.549-04:00Gary you've sufficiently convinced me you have...Gary you've sufficiently convinced me you have no idea of what I think about social change and why states form. You've done what you do repeatedly - take one process I identify and assume I'm saying that's a totalizing explanation of all factors involved. When has that leap of faith <i>ever</i> served you well in talking with others? When has it <i>ever</i> been a fair interpretation? When have I <i>ever</i> expressed the opinion on here that social processes are unidimensional? When did I say that in this particular blog post?<br /><br />I don't understand why you continue to do this. It's the same argument over and over and over again. You are much less intelligent than you first appear to people if you think that is reading me right. And if you're intelligent enough to know that that's not reading me right, then you're just being bothersome and combative. Either way, it's not a particularly positive contribution to the comment thread.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-2588532523326054892011-09-21T12:19:21.654-04:002011-09-21T12:19:21.654-04:00Daniel,
The point of the question is that your de...Daniel,<br /><br />The point of the question is that your description of social change, why states form, etc. is quite naive. <br /><br />"I really don't know where you're getting these points about the Romans, people telling you to pollute, etc."<br /><br />From the language that you use obviously.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-46428476669208761722011-09-21T12:15:33.475-04:002011-09-21T12:15:33.475-04:00re: "Not really. The evidence that it is the ...re: <i>"Not really. The evidence that it is the case comes from broad surveys of "experts" from across numerous fields"</i><br /><br />Right. And I am telling you that those surveys have been criticized and while the results apparently have something to them they are sensitive to exactly what you're looking at.<br /><br />re: <i>"So the reason the Roman Empire invaded Britain under Claudius was due to the "broad consequences" of the decisions of whom exactly?"</i><br /><br />Are you under the impression there is a simple linear causal mechanism determining the construction of supranational entities? If you are saying that, I think you're wrong. If you're not saying that, then what is the point of this question?<br /><br />re: <i>"Last time I checked, I was never told by a multi-national to pollute the air"</i><br /><br />Right. Nobody said you were.<br /><br />Do you read my posts before you respond? I really don't know where you're getting these points about the Romans, people telling you to pollute, etc.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-18747742062638179612011-09-21T11:34:01.208-04:002011-09-21T11:34:01.208-04:00"This is a claim that needs to be severely qu..."This is a claim that needs to be severely qualified."<br /><br />Not really. The evidence that it is the case comes from broad surveys of "experts" from across numerous fields. And it isn't specifically about politics; we're talking about wide ranging fields of human life here. <br /><br />"The reason why we are seeing supranational and international coordination is the same as why we've had community, regional, and national coordination in the past: our decisions have broad consequences..."<br /><br />So the reason the Roman Empire invaded Britain under Claudius was due to the "broad consequences" of the decisions of whom exactly? The process (and genesis) of state formation is far, far more complex than the way you describe it. Indeed, the very way that the U.N. works illustrates my point - why are notoriously bad actors put on human rights related councils? Because there is a lot more going on than some concern over externalities. <br /><br />"...it's not clear to me that getting told by multinationals that my air will be polluted is 'less centralized' a world than the world where international governance bodies say that multinationals aren't allowed to pollute my air."<br /><br />Last time I checked, I was never told by a multi-national to pollute the air. Now I do make all kinds of choices to pollute the air, and so do lots and lots of other people. And they do so because it increases the quality of their lives in significant ways (and the lives of their children, their extended family, their friends, etc.). Thus it isn't the least bit surprising that when that quality of life seems threatened by environmental legislation, people react negatively. So if anyone is "imposing" anything on you re: air pollution, it really isn't multi-nationals per se.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-76762353271087581352011-09-21T07:40:43.103-04:002011-09-21T07:40:43.103-04:00Prateek -
Probably a little of both, right? There ...Prateek -<br />Probably a little of both, right? There are clearly people who react like this because they are just suspicious of their fellow man and completely detached from the real world, preferring their own fantasies. Some people see cooperation as centralization, though. While I think that equation can be very misleading, obviously the two do go hand in hand sometimes, in which case I suppose the instinctual reaction against <i>"global elites"</i> (whoever "they" are) is rooted in something healthy.<br /><br />The reason why we are seeing supranational and international coordination is the same as why we've had community, regional, and national coordination in the past: our decisions have broad consequences, and since we have the ability to deliberate and plan some of these decisions would benefit from social governance (whether that requires <i>government</i> or not obviously depends on the case). I see nothing inherently centralizing about that. Pollution is always the easy example to go back to, and I'm sure it gets old, but I'll still reference it: it's not clear to me that getting told by multinationals that my air will be polluted is "less centralized" a world than the world where international governance bodies say that multinationals aren't allowed to pollute my air. Decisions are imposed on me in either case. If I'm substantially impacted then I (and everyone else) ought to feel some right to deliberate over it.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-28911590096279994452011-09-21T07:06:00.310-04:002011-09-21T07:06:00.310-04:00re: "which explains why experts are basically...re: <i>"which explains why experts are basically as good at predicting the future as non-experts"</i><br /><br />This is a claim that needs to be severely qualified. The winter 2010 issue of Critical Review has criticisms of this thesis (as well as arguments in support). It seems to me the evidence that this is true: (1.) is primarily about political eventualities, like you state - it's unsurprising that we aren't good at predicting those, and (2.) required the "experts" to predict without statistical models... which seems strange to me. That's an important tool of experts.<br /><br />Anyway - in certain cases I'm sure that's true (for example, predicting the unification or dissolution of specific countries far into the future), but I wouldn't just accept it as a general statement.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-45678803943395761722011-09-21T06:18:21.444-04:002011-09-21T06:18:21.444-04:00By the way, about your cosmopolitanism, how do you...By the way, about your cosmopolitanism, how do you feel about certain people who see a nasty, elitist agenda in global government?<br /><br />Misguided, or concerned about the right flaws for wrong reasons?Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-77113354279253541992011-09-21T02:22:08.736-04:002011-09-21T02:22:08.736-04:00I'm optimistic that 99.9% of the stuff people ...I'm optimistic that 99.9% of the stuff people worry about is overblown and will not come to pass.<br /><br />I'm optimistic that most of what we think of as enlightened approaches today will be thought of as barbarisms a hundred years from now.<br /><br />I'm optimistic that most of the predictions I make are dead wrong.<br /><br />One should always treat the future with a great deal of humility; very few people do - including experts (which explains why experts are basically as good at predicting the future as non-experts). In the year 1,000 CE if you had looked at Europe you would have thought that the folks running the Kingdom of Germany were going to be the future of Europe, whereas the Kingdom of France (which had splintered into tiny pieces) was headed toward oblivion. Of course, that's not what happened; France didn't disentegrate, in fact, by the 1200s CE it had recovered and was dominate.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.com