AMA (YYW)

Author: coal

Posts

Total: 664
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@coal
What news sources do you like the best, for news about the US and international news?

Thoughts on the Belt and Road Initiative, and China's role as a geopolitical power more generally?

Do you think Israel should remain a Jewish state?

Thoughts on Roger Waters, both as a musician and with regard to his political involvement?

Thoughts on Stephen Walt?

I think FT's asked you this in an AMA before, but I don't remember your answer and can't find the DDO thread, so: thoughts on Alan Dershowitz?

Do you read any blogs frequently? If there are any, what are they?

You've mentioned before that, if you could choose any person to be President of the United States, it would be Robert Gates. Why?

Also, as an aside from all this, how've you been? It's been a while since we talked. 

Sorry for the bunch of questions, I've been super-interested in economics and foreign policy recently, much more than I used to be. 
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,313
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
-->
@coal
Why exactly do you like Jordan Peterson?
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@coal
What is your greatest intellectual ideological accomplishment (that is, what unique idea, theory, argument, or whatever are you particularly proud of)?
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>Books on Foreign Policy

Yes.

John Lewis Gaddis wrote a book called "The Great Delusion" that I highly recommend.  

coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>To reiterate an earlier question: thoughts on Jerome Powell, and the Fed more generally?

I am at a loss for words as to the level of stupidity involved in raising interest rates with the market as volatile as it is, and while we are only assessing the short term impact at this precise moment (note: worst day on the Dow since 1929, smh) we have every indication to believe that Powell is out of touch with reality.

That is not to say that I endorse Trump's general criticisms of the fed, or specific criticisms of their decisions to raise interest rates to the extent that they have.  


coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>Failed States

Chomsky's point is that America is the world's greatest threat to democracy.  This argument is made to reverse the rhetorical narrative of neoliberals who believe that an interventionist foreign policy and Bush-era style military adventurism is not only conducive to, but a necessary and appropriate instrument of support for, the proliferation of "democracy" in the world.

This argument comes in the context of previous arguments he has made in other books and articles published over the course of his academic life to the effect that the America has repeatedly abused appeals to human rights' preservation (e.g., Chile, Nicaragua, and the rest of South and Central America in the 1980s) to justify advancing its own interests; and speciously labeled its allies "democracies" (again, Chile) and its enemies "totalitarian dictatorships" as a pretext for or against military intervention.

On a psychological level, what we as people do is tell stories.  We try to fit pieces of the puzzle together together to make sense of it all and that's what Chomsky is doing here.  The problem is in what he chooses to talk about.  For example, a savvy reader encountering Failed States will wonder why, if Chomsky was going to initiate his analysis with wars with the Native Americans, he has not considered some of the things that the United States has done to facilitate democracy in the world (such as shepherding Europe out of totalitarianism after World War II).  That glaring omission being immediately obvious to a critical reader, one might have thought Chomsky would have bothered to anticipate the counterpoint to his position drawn from that set of historical events.  So, there are weaknesses in his analysis.  This is not the only one, but it's a weakness. 

As I've said before, where I appreciate Chomsky is in his tendency to discuss things that are often ignored by the media and which would not even enter the consciousness of most Westerners because we are not in a position to receive that kind of information.  But, he and I disagree about what all of these things mean even if I agree with him about what the world is -- in many cases.  That is not, however, to say that it is enough that Chomsky said something to accept it uncritically.

Here's an illustration of that point, that has appeared in multiple Chomsky publications:

Nuclear Winter.  There is absolutely no science backing the conclusion that nuclear war would bring about nuclear winter in the world, despite the fact that various "scientists" have published "papers" suggesting this as nothing less than an inevitable consequence of nuclear engagement.  Those papers were published by "useful idiots" and actual KGB agents of disinformation, and were uncritically published resulting in a popular phenomenon.  This falls into the category of what people in the intel world call "active measures".  Chomsky, not knowing the science -- or lack of it -- picked this up from others and began to use it as a concept illustrating some of the moral stakes in the Reagan administration's actions (or, provocations, to hear Chomsky tell the tale) in relation to getting Gorbachev to capitulate in any number of ways.  

CIA Activity.  At least four prominent examples of Soviet or Russian disinformation have found their way into Chomsky's analysis of various Middle Eastern affairs, and the actions (terrorist and otherwise) of certain Middle Eastern groups.  For example, Chomsky cited an item of Soviet disinformation as a piece of evidence in rebuttal to the Reagan Administration's military actions against Libya in 1986.   Chomsky claims that Libyan terrorists were not behind a bombing in Berlin preceding the Reagan Administration's air strikes against Tripoli, based on the lack of a finding by the West German police.  He alludes to it being a CIA False Flag.  It was not a false flag.  West German investigators were fed false information by Soviet illegals (not immigrants, spies) in West Berlin and outside which led to their failure to attribute.  Even still, a failure to attribute is a far cry from a false flag.  Soviets later planted the claim in foreign newspapers -- which Chomsky later received and based his analysis on.  To the extent Chomsky relied on foreign media uncritically, especially coming out of India, Pakistan, and other hotbeds for Soviet disinformation in the 1980s and 90s, he made these same sorts of mistakes with regular consistency.

So, to read or not to read... 

Failed States is worth reading, so long as the reader accepts and understands that one has to actually think about what Chomsky is saying and why.  Again, I agree with him on most of the facts (except in instances like those discussed above), though I strongly disagree with him on the big picture.   

Why I disagree with Chomsky on the big picture is not obvious, though it should be.  What Chomsky's grand narrative of American imperialism and aggression fails to account for how much worse the world would be in the absence of the very actions he laments.  The deficit is likewise present among all the "isolationists" on both the left and the right (that is not to imply that Chomsky is an isolationist per se). 







coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
While this is a point I will elaborate more on in later posts, the basic idea is this: 

In the absence of unipolar American hegemony, the world would be a much nastier, brutish, war torn place.  The only reason the world exists in the state of relative peace as it does now is because there is something approximating universal acceptance that the US or NATO will reign hell down upon those who create undue trouble.  Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Iraq, Afghanistan, or anything else that the US or NATO has done since the end of WWII, to would-be troublemakers of the world it is irrevocably clear that the US will reign hell down upon those who defy the United States, even to the point of destroying a government without regard to the implications.  This phenomenon results in deterrence to all but the most injudicious actors.  That is not to say that some won't tempt fate (Putin, in Georgia in 2008 or in Donbass and Crimea in 2014), but those who do (Saddam, in Kurdistan, preceding Desert Storm, and in falsely representing to the world that he had WMDs in 2002-2003) have the uncanny tendency to die and their countries ruined. 


coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>Have you come across the foreign policy views of economist Scott Sumner? General thoughts?

I have no idea who he is. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>You've described yourself as a "libertarian socialist" on DDO. How do you think countries should achieve libertarian socialism? 

Modeling Denmark.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>You've also called yourself a "hawk" on DDO. While I understand this is a really broad question, what arguments convince you to be a foreign policy hawk? This one might be overbroad, so feel free to not answer if you think this'll take up too much of your time, or make it short. 

I am a hawk, and so unapologetically.  The reasons, as alluded to in a prior post, are because of how violent and intolerable the world would be in the absence of American hegemony.  

If there is one lesson from the 19th and 20th centuries, it is that concepts like "great power" balancing within "spheres of influence" (it is comical to hear Putin use that term) is a recipe for absolute disaster on the scale witnessed in WWI and WWII.  That is unacceptable.  The new world order ushered in by the Marshall Plan and the end of the Second World War, which was codified in 1991 with the USSR's implosion, has proven to be the only means by which anything approximating world peace can ever be achieved.  It is to preserve this state of relative peace that I support an aggressive US foreign policy.

Note: that is not to say that I buy into provably false absurdities (read: delusions) like: (1) Democratic Peace Theory (Germany was a democracy pre-WWI to a considerable degree, we know how that turned out); (2) the notion that democracy can be "exported" after a foreign imposed regime change (e.g., Iraq); or (3) that "international law" can serve as a guarantor of human rights. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>What news sources do you like the best, for news about the US and international news?

I think most news sources are reasonably ok, except Fox, Breitbart, or anything in that line of propaganda.  



coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>Thoughts on the Belt and Road Initiative, and China's role as a geopolitical power more generally?

The Belt and Road initative, and Chinese investment in extraterritorial infrastructure in general, is deeply alarming to me because it represents a substantial means to increasing China's geopolitical power relative to that of the United States while laying the foundation for a cooperative Sino-Russian relationship approximating the level of cooperation between the US and Canada -- which is something that should make every American's blood run cold. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
>Thoughts on Roger Waters, both as a musician and with regard to his political involvement?

Was never the lead talent in Pink Floyd.  Is a complete anti-Semite. 

>I think FT's asked you this in an AMA before, but I don't remember your answer and can't find the DDO thread, so: thoughts on Alan Dershowitz?

He has lost all legitimacy to speak on any issue of consequence.  Example: he claimed that lying to the FBI wasn't a crime.  

>Do you read any blogs frequently? If there are any, what are they?

To the extent that they are blogs.... I follow some podcasts.  Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris.  There are others. Johns Hopkins has a foreign affairs related podcast that periodically posts things worth listening to. 

>You've mentioned before that, if you could choose any person to be President of the United States, it would be Robert Gates. Why?

I have changed my mind.  I don't know who I'd want now.  

>Also, as an aside from all this, how've you been? It's been a while since we talked. 

Cheers :) I'm good.  How are you?

>Sorry for the bunch of questions, I've been super-interested in economics and foreign policy recently, much more than I used to be. 

No worries. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Earth
>Why exactly do you like Jordan Peterson?

Jordan Peterson and I have so much in common, it's nearly impossible that I couldn't like him.  Let's review:

1. Raised in a conservative Christian (protestant) church from childhood
2. Parents were religious but not wildly so
3. Had doubts about the church and what it meant
4. Got involved in left wing causes as he was an adolescent
5. Majored in political science, but became disillusioned with that very quickly
6. Was skeptical of the far left for reasons that related to their honesty and integrity 
7. Wanted to be a lawyer from a young age
8.  Had something approximating an existential crisis from a young age over political and moral issues, in sorting out who he was and his place in the world
9.   Had early interest in philosophy, and specifically Nietzsche
10.  Correctly read Nietzsche 
11.  Was disillusioned by contemporary interpretations of Nietzsche and their rampant inaccuracies
12.  Went on to find Russian Literature, and specifically Dostoevsky as an antidote to Nietzsche's doubt 
13.  Thereafter sorted himself out. 

I could go on for... about five pages.     
TheHammer
TheHammer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 211
1
2
4
TheHammer's avatar
TheHammer
1
2
4
What is airmax1227's full name?
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
Keep it up...  these are good questions.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Swagnarok
>What is your greatest intellectual ideological accomplishment (that is, what unique idea, theory, argument, or whatever are you particularly proud of)?

I've been passively thinking about how I want to answer this question since you first asked it a few days ago, and I'm still not sure how to answer it.  

What you very obviously are asking is what idea, theory, or argument would be my greatest intellectual ideological accomplishment, but I'm still not sure what that would be. 

I haven't come up with my own ideology, written or published a book or article that significantly advanced ideological thought, or anything like that.  

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,003
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@coal
Alright. Fair enough.
Here's a few more questions that you probably should be able to answer:

-Is chronic inflation the single greatest economic problem in America today?
-Though Saudi Arabia be under the rule of an odious government, is it a probable threat to the United States and the world?
-Thoughts on Trump's scheduled withdrawal from Syria? Afghanistan?
-Does eastern philosophy have anything of value to offer the west?
-You've said that the US has more power than several of our most viable rivals combined. Can you justify this claim, considering that China's GDP is now considerably larger than ours (and the gap is growing)?
-Can you summarize the philosophy of Dostoevsky? How does it compare to that of Nietzsche?
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
-->
@coal
How do you feel now that you no longer have the most posts on the site?

How have you been? We need to catch up some time :3
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Swagnarok
These are great questions.  Keep them up.  I'll answer them gradually, but meaningfully. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Swagnarok
>-Is chronic inflation the single greatest economic problem in America today?

No.  Chronic unemployment and underemployment, and the economic preconditions which have led to that state of affairs, is the single greatest economic problem in America today.  

coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Swagnarok
>Though Saudi Arabia be under the rule of an odious government, is it a probable threat to the United States and the world?

Saudi Arabia has the potential to be a tremendous threat to both the United States and the world.  The Trump Administration's willingness to arm the Saudis has amplified that potential to a considerable degree, as has their recalcitrant irrationality as it pertains to the Iran deal Obama set in motion. 

To explain, Saudi provocation in Yemen has actively created more regional and dynamic instability such that an increasing number of African refugees may well find their way into Europe.  This is a problem for countries like Italy and Greece, who have already had to deal with the collateral of American refusal to engage meaningfully in Syria.  Given Russian demonstrated military incompetence in the way of creating regional stability in Syria, the refugee problem is likely to not only exacerbate on that front but may well increase from Africa as well.   

Moreover, Trump's bad faith as it relates to the Iran deal is a necessary precondition to Saudi nuclear armament, which I think is the end goal.  In this way, a nuclear arms race is likely to result in the next 5 to 10 years (not merely possible, but likely, though not yet probable) with the predictable second and third order effects.  Oil prices will rise (which will strengthen Russia, and drive together Russian and Chinese trade on at least fossil fuels) while the Middle East may well be producing less and less.  On the one hand, OPEC will be weakened, but on the other, nuclear war in the region (with civilizationally catastrophic implications) will become increasingly more likely in a region whose economic prosperity is limited to the degree that there exists a global demand for oil.

From this it should be reasonably obvious to conclude that Saudi Arabia does not exist in a vacuum.  These are only some of the implications that come to mind, considered on very limited levels of analysis.  Yet, the scope of their interconnection presents very real short (refugees) and long (nuclear arms races in the middle east) term risks. 

-Thoughts on Trump's scheduled withdrawal from Syria? Afghanistan?

I strongly disapprove.  There is not only no strategic benefit to be had from his widrawal but there are overbearing reasons not to withdraw, not the least of which pertain to the commitments we have made to our allies.  Trump's incompetence and lack of regard for the responsibilities of the office once more place the United States' its direct and indirect interests, and US allies, as well as their interests, at increasingly greater risk without anything even vaguely resembling a justification for exposure to those risks.  Nonetheless, this level of abstraction is probably dissatisfying.  If you want me to go into more detail, I'll be happy to do so.  

-Does eastern philosophy have anything of value to offer the west?

Sure.  




Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,313
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
-->
@coal
Thoughts on the shutdown? Would Hillary have more luck in 2020, or is it likely a democrat Trump would seize the day, so to speak?
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Earth
>Thoughts on the shutdown?

Starting at the reason why we even have a shutdown is prudent.  Without exception, the only reason we have government shutdowns is because of Republican intransigence related to the fact that they cannot maintain electoral majorities but desire a political weapon they can use when they can't otherwise get their way.  Shutdowns happen because Republicans are bad politicians and worse people.

The usual nonsense aside, this particular shutdown is the result of Trump's bad faith in the form of his stated position that he "would be happy to shutdown the government over border security" in the now infamous conference he had with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.  There, he made clear that funding specifically appropriated for his wall at the level of about 5 billion dollars was what would prevent him from vetoing any continuing resolution to prevent a shutdown.   While Trump obviously didn't plan to make that claim, that is now his administration's "policy".

We all know that Trump knows that he is putting his foot in his mouth, but the fact remains that he is now committed to that policy position and has to make at least some credible effort not to go back on his word.  Doing otherwise would make him look incredibly weak, and incompetent, in his mind.   On the other hand, he also knows that with each day the government shuts down his credibility before his  fellow Republicans in the House and Senate dissipates; with the implication that in the absence of a deal and to the extent that continues, his probability of being successfully impeached and removed from office increases. 

In political terms, Trump is playing chicken in every sense of the word.  He has tried to take the steering wheel off his vehicle and throw it out the window, but Republicans in the legislature know he's faking.  For this reason, they are likely to call his bluff and force him to capitulate.  This may have already happened.  By no later than Wednesday, we will have a deal. 




coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Earth
>Would Hillary have more luck in 2020, or is it likely a democrat Trump would seize the day, so to speak?

We should be clear that there are more options than "a democrat Trump" and Hillary Clinton, and we should also be clear that now it is not obvious who the 2020 DNC candidates will be.  We have some possible contenders (Harris, Booker, Sanders, etc.) and some delusional loudmouths (Gillibrand, Ellison), as well as some young and dumb prospects (O'Rourke, Joe Kennedy, and Jason Kander).  There is also Hillary Clinton.  Given the lack of clarity as to who will even be running, analyzing the relative probability of any individual candidate's success seems relatively premature. 

Nonetheless, I think there are three sort of "archetypes" of candidates that will be final contenders. 

The first will be the establishment democrat nominee, though that person is not necessarily Hillary Clinton.  It could easily be Joe Biden, or any number of other potential candidates.  The candidate who fills this slot will probably be a person who brings a great deal of personal political experience to the table, as well as someone who is generally liked by at least half of the country.  So, unless there is a significant change in the status quo that places Clinton largely off the table.  This person will have wide appeal with upper-middle America, and may or may not have appeal with working-class Americans.  This person's platform will largely focus on mainline democrat ideas, like increasing economic opportunity for working Americans and expanding Medicaid.  This person will be viewed with some suspicion by millenials and the working class, and will have difficulty mobilizing the black vote.  This person is the most likely nominee, and the most likely to lose to Trump's primary challenger or Mike Pence, depending on what happens with the Russia investigation.  

The second will be a populist progressive democrat nominee, though that person will not necessarily be Bernie Sanders.  It could be Beto O'Rourke, or someone else known or relatively unknown at this point in time.  This candidate who fills this slot will probably be a person who brings little or no political experience to the table, but someone who is generally liked by the majority of only the progressives in the party but who is reluctantly accepted by the establishment as someone who "can win".  This candidate will have wide appeal with left-coast voters (North East, West Coast) and cities (Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia) but whose tone and demeanor will alienate the majority of rural Americans and have difficulty appealing to constituents outside of densely populated areas.  Millenials will be this candidate's most solid voting bloc, as older demographic members will be concerned that the amount of spending involved in this candidate's platform would hurt the economy.  Specifically, this candidate will advocate for what were previously understood to be far-left ideas, like Medicare for All and student loan forgiveness.  This person will be the strongest rhetorical counterpoint to Trump, but will likely resort to identity politics arguments from the vantages of race and gender which will weaken their electoral prospects.

The third will be a compromise establishment-populist democrat nominee, who most probably will be someone like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker, though will not necessarily be either.   The candidate who fills this slot will probably be a person who brings some political experience to the table, and who may have achieved some national prominence for one purpose or another who is simultaneously well regarded by both the establishment and the progressives in the party leadership.  The establishment will approve because this person knows how to play ball and is willing to do it, but the progressives will approve because this person is either (1) female, (2) black, or (3) latino.  This person will likely approximate Barack Obama more than anyone else, but who will have difficulty getting working class white voters.  This person will have the least difficulty with minority voters, because of the identity politics factors in play.   This candidate will advocate for strategically ambiguous goals (healthcare for all) rather than specific policies (single payer system) so as to keep open legislative options in the future while avoiding alienating either the progressives or the establishment.  This person will not be the strongest counterpoint to Trump, but will have the highest probability of winning the election so long as the candidate is not latino or female.  






Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@coal
Cheers :) I'm good.  How are you?
I'm pretty good too. I've mostly been busy with school and college applications (which are only due next year, I'm a junior in high school, but I took the ACT, etc.). 

Edit for clarity: I intend to apply to universities in the US and the UK. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
How'd the ACT go?
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@coal
I got a composite 35 and a writing score of 11.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Tejretics
I presume that's good, but I never took the ACT.  
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@coal
@Tejretics
The highest score is 36.  Your family must be estatic, Congradulations!  I know someone who got a 35, and while he couldn't (or wouldn't) afford some of the most prestigious options, he was able to choose pretty much any place he wanted to go, and managed to land a free ride which he took full advantage of.  Don't take your testing as a grant though.  You will have all sorts of opportunities if you apply yourself and all the work put into those scholarships is definitely worth it.  It's not just money, but freedom to carve out the next stage in your life.