Chilean thread y wea

[Ares Land]

Structures like those in game theory are universal because they are defined recursively like numbers.

Hmm... Maybe? It's an interesting hypothesis but it would need proof -- and more details.. What patterns could we expect to reoccur? And why is that?

If I'm not mistaken your initial point is that democracies aren't good at imposing democratic regimes on other countries.... And I do agree the track records isn't excellent.
Getting back to Chile, it's worth keeping in mind that democracy wasn't the US end goal at the time at all... They were helping a military dictatorship;

The relevant fact to consider is not whether these minerals are found outside the Third World. The relevant fact to consider is how expensive they would be if supply fell significantly. Even in this case, I already said:

Trying to become self-reliant on those could temporarily wreck the West's quality of life, at least until alternatives saturate the market. ... In the long run, I agree that your local quality of life is not the fault of foreign countries.

Just thought of something... as it happens, we have a shortage of raw materials -- and a number of manufactured products; that's one of the causes of our current bout of inflation. So far it barely makes the news.

[rotting bones]

Hmm... Maybe? It's an interesting hypothesis but it would need proof -- and more details.. What patterns could we expect to reoccur? And why is that?

This may not sound very impressive, but they are all modifications of games of chicken: https://www.youtube.com/c/Gametheory101 ... l%20course"

PS. Going through historical analyses helps identify where games of chicken form and what characteristics they exhibit in different locations.

[Ares Land]

I'm taking your word for it... How is it relevant to comparisons between Athenian puppet states and US foreign policy, and what is it going to predict?
Zompist's point -- which I think is a valid objection -- is that there are really very few points of comparison between ancient Athens and the US except for the use of the word 'democracy.' (I'd add this is equally valid for Rome, which despite the US reusing the words 'Senate' and 'Republic' isn't really comparable either.)

[rotting bones]

I'm taking your word for it... How is it relevant to comparisons between Athenian puppet states and US foreign policy, and what is it going to predict?
Zompist's point -- which I think is a valid objection -- is that there are really very few points of comparison between ancient Athens and the US except for the use of the word 'democracy.' (I'd add this is equally valid for Rome, which despite the US reusing the words 'Senate' and 'Republic' isn't really comparable either.)

The math is very simple. Thucydides explains how the math applies to realpolitik. So your question is basically asking how going through word problems is going to make you better at math. I don't know the answer to that question. All I know is neuronal connections... something something.

Thucydides was recommended to me by a West Point scholar. I found reading him helpful, so I'm recommending him to you too.

Just thought of something... as it happens, we have a shortage of raw materials -- and a number of manufactured products; that's one of the causes of our current bout of inflation. So far it barely makes the news.

I hope you're not trying to compare existing shortages to a fall in the quality of life.

[Ares Land]

Just thought of something... as it happens, we have a shortage of raw materials -- and a number of manufactured products; that's one of the causes of our current bout of inflation. So far it barely makes the news.

I hope you're not trying to compare existing shortages to a fall in the quality of life.

I think I lost you somewhere. Let's go over this again. I heard you claim that a) Western country depend on the Third World for raw supplies and manufactured goods b) the supply will be cut off at some point, gravely disturbing internal politics

What I'm saying is that a) We don't depend on Third World countries that much b) the West has the capacity to adjust just fine.

Case in point: we have currently a shortage of raw materials and manufactured goods, and we manage.

[rotting bones]

I think I lost you somewhere. Let's go over this again. I heard you claim that a) Western country depend on the Third World for raw supplies and manufactured goods b) the supply will be cut off at some point, gravely disturbing internal politics

What I'm saying is that a) We don't depend on Third World countries that much b) the West has the capacity to adjust just fine.

Case in point: we have currently a shortage of raw materials and manufactured goods, and we manage.

So what you're saying is that the current strain in the supply line is comparable to cutting it off totally?

Pardon me if I don't understand your point. I've been up all night.

[Ares Land]

So what you're saying is that the current strain in the supply line is comparable to cutting it off totally?

Pardon me if I don't understand your point. I've been up all night.

No, but I think the worst-case scenario is a strain, not cutting off the supply line completely.
There's no single supply line -- any given Western country imports various materials and manufacturing products from very diverse countries. Not everything is going to be shut down completely.

If, for some reason, we couldn't import Uranium from Niger or phosphate from Morocco, it'll be an inconvenience, but that's all.

[rotting bones]

No, but I think the worst-case scenario is a strain, not cutting off the supply line completely.
There's no single supply line -- any given Western country imports various materials and manufacturing products from very diverse countries. Not everything is going to be shut down completely.

If, for some reason, we couldn't import Uranium from Niger or phosphate from Morocco, it'll be an inconvenience, but that's all.

This is semantic quibbling. Compared to the current strain, if the Third World became democratic, that situation would be comparable to cutting it off totally. There's no mystery to this. Just think quantitatively, not qualitatively. The natives will establish hegemonic control and strictly sell it to the highest bidder. Prices will skyrocket as a result. So you will still get some of it, but you will still be basically cut off.

PS. Again, the headline-making mineral is Tantalum IIRC.

PPS. IIRC a lot of China's manufacturing is being offshored to Africa. I mentioned manufactured products so that you wouldn't be thinking of the materials entering the West via Chinese manufacturing.

[zompist]

Compared to the current strain, if the Third World became democratic, that situation would be comparable to cutting it off totally. There's no mystery to this. Just think quantitatively, not qualitatively. The natives will establish hegemonic control and strictly sell it to the highest bidder. Prices will skyrocket as a result. So you will still get some of it, but you will still be basically cut off.

This doesn't exactly hold together. The closest RW case is OPEC, a consortium of mostly dictatorships. How did that hold up? If you look at inflation-adjusted crude oil prices, there was certainly a shock: $30 a barrel in 1973, $128 in 1980. But the average was $34 in the '90s, $64 in the '00s, $58 in the '10s. In 2020 it was $35.

OPEC was unable to keep its own members together, it was unable to police its members' production, it was unable to compel non-OPEC members, and it could do nothing about advancing technology. The Arabian states have not really benefited either, largely because they allowed huge population increases that ate up the increased revenues. Also note that the oil crisis hurt the Third World hard.

Also note that OPEC got higher prices simply by producing less. For a few years it was able to enforce quotas, but the temptation is always to raise production— hey, why sell 100 million barrels when you could sell 150? At times the Saudi practice was to allow some cheating by limiting its own production— but that fell apart when the Saudis needed money.

("Selling it to the highest bidder" is basically capitalism and it's what happens today, so I'm not sure why you think prices would skyrocket. More realistic is the idea that the locals could run production themselves, and thus take a greater cut. This happened in Arabia starting in 1950, when the Saudis forced 50% profitsharing. Since the 1970s the Saudis have owned Aramco outright.)

Also, as a little matter that may be relevant: fossil fuel use is heating up the planet and may destroy human civilization. So if your model is "let's all be like Saudi Arabia and destroy the planet," you might want to rethink some things. Rare earth mining is also pretty toxic for the environment. Again, having plentiful raw materials is a long-term curse.

[Ares Land]

This is semantic quibbling. Compared to the current strain, if the Third World became democratic, that situation would be comparable to cutting it off totally. There's no mystery to this. Just think quantitatively, not qualitatively. The natives will establish hegemonic control and strictly sell it to the highest bidder. Prices will skyrocket as a result. So you will still get some of it, but you will still be basically cut off.

PS. Again, the headline-making mineral is Tantalum IIRC.

PPS. IIRC a lot of China's manufacturing is being offshored to Africa. I mentioned manufactured products so that you wouldn't be thinking of the materials entering the West via Chinese manufacturing.

That doesn't make any sense.

1) The third world isn't a unitary thing that will go democratic or not all at once;
2) Raw materials are imported from developped, democratic countries too -- as a matter of fact, the chief exporter of Tantalum is the United States. Japan and Germany also make the list.
3) A fair amount of our imports (Tantalum again, for instance) is from China which is decidedly not democratic, but where 'the natives' are certainly in control and are selling to the highest bidder. Ditto for Russia.

I should point out that Tantalum represents a $813 million business, or .0045% of total world trade. We could afford a price hike.

Again, the one import that is sizable enough to break an economy is oil. Been there, done that, broke our economy, the West managed.

[rotting bones]

1) The third world isn't a unitary thing that will go democratic or not all at once;

If you are saying we don't have to worry about this problem because democracy will never come to all Third World countries, then I never said it will. I'm saying the system relies on a lack of democracy.

2) Raw materials are imported from developped, democratic countries too -- as a matter of fact, the chief exporter of Tantalum is the United States. Japan and Germany also make the list.

These sources say the US doesn't produce any Tantalum: https://www.rembar.com/global-tantalum- ... ould-know/ https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/m ... or%20years.

The point is that Tantalum is a globally scarce resource, and without the Third World, at least half the Tantalum production disappears, making it expensive.

3) A fair amount of our imports (Tantalum again, for instance) is from China which is decidedly not democratic, but where 'the natives' are certainly in control and are selling to the highest bidder. Ditto for Russia.

I don't understand where you are seeing the contradiction. The PRC stays in power by appealing to Chinese nationalism and saying, "Look at how we are protecting Chinese interests against the world." But that is propaganda. Since the PRC is undemocratic, the people can't actually hold their leadership to the same standard that democratic governments are held to.

I should point out that Tantalum represents a $813 million business, or .0045% of total world trade. We could afford a price hike.

I feel those numbers can be misleading here. If Tantalum and similar minerals become the bottleneck in your system, then the percentage of trade is not what matters. The question then becomes: What's the next cheapest way to make smartphones, etc?

Again, the one import that is sizable enough to break an economy is oil. Been there, done that, broke our economy, the West managed.

I feel like you are using certain kinds of reasonings in the wrong places. You have to use economic reasoning for things like the supply chain. But once you have a supply, you can't use reasoning like "percentage of the economy" to decide the effects on society. At that point, you have turn to things like input-output tables, i.e. what resources you need to manufacture what products.

[rotting bones]

This doesn't exactly hold together. The closest RW case is OPEC, a consortium of mostly dictatorships. How did that hold up? If you look at inflation-adjusted crude oil prices, there was certainly a shock: $30 a barrel in 1973, $128 in 1980. But the average was $34 in the '90s, $64 in the '00s, $58 in the '10s. In 2020 it was $35.

To me, the closest parallel obviously seems to be the Iranian revolution to oust the Shah. Again, I feel like this reasoning misses the mark because oil is not a scarce resource globally.

OPEC was unable to keep its own members together, it was unable to police its members' production, it was unable to compel non-OPEC members, and it could do nothing about advancing technology. The Arabian states have not really benefited either, largely because they allowed huge population increases that ate up the increased revenues. Also note that the oil crisis hurt the Third World hard.

Like you said, OPEC is "a consortium of mostly dictatorships." If you don't understand how democratic pressures differ from the functioning of a dictatorial regime, I can only keep recommending authors like Thucydides and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita forever.

("Selling it to the highest bidder" is basically capitalism and it's what happens today, so I'm not sure why you think prices would skyrocket. More realistic is the idea that the locals could run production themselves, and thus take a greater cut. This happened in Arabia starting in 1950, when the Saudis forced 50% profitsharing. Since the 1970s the Saudis have owned Aramco outright.)

No, it's not. What happens today is that the buyers use a number of undemocratic means to lower prices. I think capitalist's biggest propaganda coup may be convincing humanity that it is compatible with democracy. Capitalist democratic societies try to do away with elites who sell national resources for low prices in order to enrich themselves. These societies demand higher prices, thus frustrating the capitalists. All this is well-documented, so I don't understand what this argument is about.

Also, as a little matter that may be relevant: fossil fuel use is heating up the planet and may destroy human civilization. So if your model is "let's all be like Saudi Arabia and destroy the planet," you might want to rethink some things. Rare earth mining is also pretty toxic for the environment. Again, having plentiful raw materials is a long-term curse.

I'm not making any value judgments. Personally, I don't think raw materials for essential goods and services should be privately owned at all. As far as I'm concerned, national ownership constitutes private ownership. I think the Congolese should consider handing any Coltan they are not using to Elon Musk for free, though they should try and find a co-op instead. In return, no one in the Congo should want for food, housing, medicine, sanitation or training on how to use the Coltan themselves.

[Travis B.]

Also, as a little matter that may be relevant: fossil fuel use is heating up the planet and may destroy human civilization. So if your model is "let's all be like Saudi Arabia and destroy the planet," you might want to rethink some things. Rare earth mining is also pretty toxic for the environment. Again, having plentiful raw materials is a long-term curse.

I'm not making any value judgments. Personally, I don't think raw materials for essential goods and services should be privately owned at all. As far as I'm concerned, national ownership constitutes private ownership. I think the Congolese should consider handing any Coltan they are not using to Elon Musk for free, though they should try and find a co-op instead. In return, no one in the Congo should want for food, housing, medicine, sanitation or training on how to use the Coltan themselves.

To me a big question is how do we handle ownership of the natural environment. We cannot let the capitalists own it, because they will exploit it to no end for their own profit and leave everyone else with all the externalities and no profit of their own. If we replace the capitalists with the state, they will probably do the same, i.e. state capitalism. Probably the best approach is to have the natural environment collectively owned by those in its immediate environs, as they are the ones who will have to deal with any externalities of exploiting it. In the case of things such as rivers and lakes, this should extend to everyone in the entire watershed. In practice it should probably be owned by local democratic governing bodies, e.g. workers' councils, which delegate the will (with immediately and arbitrarily recallable delegates) of those who would be impacted by exploiting said resources.

[zompist]

To me, the closest parallel obviously seems to be the Iranian revolution to oust the Shah.

You mean, a theocracy that can't provide for its people and is pointlessly hostile to the rest of the world?

The Iranian revolution was an improvement on the Shah, but that's saying very little. Surely you can find better non-aligned heroes?

Like you said, OPEC is "a consortium of mostly dictatorships." If you don't understand how democratic pressures differ from the functioning of a dictatorial regime, I can only keep recommending authors like Thucydides and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita forever.

It would be fun to work out an alt history where OPEC consisted of democracies. I'm not convinced that it would have worked better; democratic coalitions tend to be pretty fractious. Democracy alone would not solve problems like conflicts of interest between members, the importance of technology and non-members, and the effect on poor non-member countries.

Again, I don't see any gain in pretending that ancient Athens was a modern democracy or that the ancient economy is the same as the modern economy. Bueno de Mesquita is new to me, however, I'll see if I can find him.

I think capitalist's biggest propaganda coup may be convincing humanity that it is compatible with democracy. Capitalist democratic societies try to do away with elites who sell national resources for low prices in order to enrich themselves.

I find absolutist statements like this to be the opposite of convincing. I'm sympathetic to denunciations of capitalism, but not to dogma.

I don't understand the bit about Elon Musk... you're solidly democratic and anticapitalist except you happen to worship a techbro libertarian capitalist?

[zompist]

To me a big question is how do we handle ownership of the natural environment. We cannot let the capitalists own it, because they will exploit it to no end for their own profit and leave everyone else with all the externalities and no profit of their own. If we replace the capitalists with the state, they will probably do the same, i.e. state capitalism. Probably the best approach is to have the natural environment collectively owned by those in its immediate environs, as they are the ones who will have to deal with any externalities of exploiting it. In the case of things such as rivers and lakes, this should extend to everyone in the entire watershed. In practice it should probably be owned by local democratic governing bodies, e.g. workers' councils, which delegate the will (with immediately and arbitrarily recallable delegates) of those who would be impacted by exploiting said resources.

Unfortunately subsidiarity is not going to solve this one. The modern problem is that externalities-- global warming, overexploitation, deforestation, pollution-- are global. It directly affects everyone on the planet if China amps up coal production, or Brazil burns down its forests, or the US continues its car culture.

[rotting bones]

It would be fun to work out an alt history where OPEC consisted of democracies. I'm not convinced that it would have worked better; democratic coalitions tend to be pretty fractious. Democracy alone would not solve problems like conflicts of interest between members, the importance of technology and non-members, and the effect on poor non-member countries.

Yes. Once again, I'm not putting forward any value judgments. If you have a democratic capitalist government, a system that I don't support, then the people will expect you to provide opportunities for them. If it's a very small country, you can get away with turning yourself into a tax haven (again, notice that this is a system I don't support). Otherwise, you have to do something else, whether create jobs in numbers and quality found in the West or nationalize local resources, hike the prices and share the proceeds. If you convince the people of those countries that nationalizing resources makes them starve, then those starving people will replace that system with a fascist dictatorship to put down the fictional minorities they will invent to shift the blame onto. (Just in case, I don't support fascism either.)

Again, I don't see any gain in pretending that ancient Athens was a modern democracy or that the ancient economy is the same as the modern economy. Bueno de Mesquita is new to me, however, I'll see if I can find him.

Serious scholars of military history beg to differ. Just in case: I don't agree with Bruce Bueno de Mesquita either. The guy has crazy libertarian leanings. What you should learn from him is the structure that he himself fails to fully deploy.

I find absolutist statements like this to be the opposite of convincing. I'm sympathetic to denunciations of capitalism, but not to dogma.

If there is a respected leftist intellectual you trust, and you ask them, then they will tell you what buyers normally do is install local elites who sell those resources at a discount in exchange for keeping most of the money for themselves. Your freedom from dogma is factually incorrect.

I don't understand the bit about Elon Musk... you're solidly democratic and anticapitalist except you happen to worship a techbro libertarian capitalist?

Do you like Satya Nadella better? I don't know how to make you understand that while you are trying to figure out what I worship, I'm talking about what the world is actually like without any rose-tinted glasses of worship, whether yours or mine. If you don't like any of these guys, give it me. Anyone who would be making use of it.

[zompist]

I find absolutist statements like this to be the opposite of convincing. I'm sympathetic to denunciations of capitalism, but not to dogma.

If there is a respected leftist intellectual you trust, and you ask them, then they will tell you what buyers normally do is install local elites who sell those resources at a discount in exchange for keeping most of the money for themselves. Your freedom from dogma is factually incorrect.

[...] I'm talking about what the world is actually like without any rose-tinted glasses of worship

Then the problem is that you read "leftist intellectuals" and take their pronouncements as "fact". I guess you're in a manic phase or something and think you've figured out everything, but there is no savior out there. Not me, not you, not Žižek, not Elon Musk, not "leftist intellectuals."

I'll try to illustrate with a hopefully less inflammatory example. I've said a few times that AKAB-- all kings are bastards. Monarchy is a terrible system, which was mostly devised to solve one problem (the succession) and often fails at that. Kings are socialized to be sociopaths, and it works-- they are out-of-touch narcissists who do much evil and little good, even if (unusually) they are personally benign or hard-working. I expect you don't disagree much.

So, getting rid of monarchy is a good thing. But does it solve all our problems? Do we get good leadership, a more equitable society, a society that does good rather than evil? Not even close. Getting rid of kings is good, but we get new problems, or we discover that a lot of what we blamed on kings is really due to hierarchy itself, or corruption, or human cussedness, or whatever.

Well, same thing with capitalism. Your dogmas about capitalism are more or less true, only they ignore all nuance (some capitalist societies are better than non-capitalist ones, just as some kings are not entirely horrible) and ignore the fact that many evils are not due to capitalism at all.

"Leftist intellectuals" are mostly in the business of reinforcing leftism and attacking capitalism. Which for the most part is a good thing! But by their nature they're not necessarily going to be good at identifying the good parts of capitalism, or what evils are not due to capitalism, or recognizing what problems leftism is prone to.

[Travis B.]

To me a big question is how do we handle ownership of the natural environment. We cannot let the capitalists own it, because they will exploit it to no end for their own profit and leave everyone else with all the externalities and no profit of their own. If we replace the capitalists with the state, they will probably do the same, i.e. state capitalism. Probably the best approach is to have the natural environment collectively owned by those in its immediate environs, as they are the ones who will have to deal with any externalities of exploiting it. In the case of things such as rivers and lakes, this should extend to everyone in the entire watershed. In practice it should probably be owned by local democratic governing bodies, e.g. workers' councils, which delegate the will (with immediately and arbitrarily recallable delegates) of those who would be impacted by exploiting said resources.

Unfortunately subsidiarity is not going to solve this one. The modern problem is that externalities-- global warming, overexploitation, deforestation, pollution-- are global. It directly affects everyone on the planet if China amps up coal production, or Brazil burns down its forests, or the US continues its car culture.

Regulation from above is also needed, of course; if anything, the natural environment needs regulation at every level because externalities exist at every level. (This is kind of thing is part of why I am no longer an anarchist, because anarchism does not provide for a good means of handling large-scale externalities.)

[Travis B.]

Well, same thing with capitalism. Your dogmas about capitalism are more or less true, only they ignore all nuance (some capitalist societies are better than non-capitalist ones, just as some kings are not entirely horrible) and ignore the fact that many evils are not due to capitalism at all.

"Leftist intellectuals" are mostly in the business of reinforcing leftism and attacking capitalism. Which for the most part is a good thing! But by their nature they're not necessarily going to be good at identifying the good parts of capitalism, or what evils are not due to capitalism, or recognizing what problems leftism is prone to.

Depends on what kind of "leftist intellectuals" who one is talking about. Many leftists recognized even before Communism with a big C was a thing that the whole idea of the vanguard party was going to be terrible disaster.

[Ares Land]

No, it's not. What happens today is that the buyers use a number of undemocratic means to lower prices. I think capitalist's biggest propaganda coup may be convincing humanity that it is compatible with democracy. Capitalist democratic societies try to do away with elites who sell national resources for low prices in order to enrich themselves. These societies demand higher prices, thus frustrating the capitalists. All this is well-documented, so I don't understand what this argument is about.

What the argument is about is that almost all of this is counterfactual.

We've had democratic, capitalist societies for more than a century now. They obviously work. Many countries got more democratic, post-WWII (roughly) and worked even better.
There are capitalist, democratic societies with large, national resources (Norway, Canada, the United States, Australia.) They work just fine.

I really don't think that the present capitalist arrangement is the best way to run things -- quite the contrary -- but you can't claim that it doesn't work when it clearly does.