Lots of post ideas stacked up, so time to clear them by just publishing my notes:
Lessons from the Argentinean crisis and default, with applications to the current state of the US economy(this could be part of a series including “Lessons from the UK experience, Lessons from the Asian crisis, the Mexican crisis etc etc etc)
Thoughts on current developments in LebanonThat’ll do for the minute, cheers.
If you posit that France and the US, acting together, could have deposed Saddam Hussein without war, I think that puts the onus of failure on France for not playing along.
George:
How would you test that? Some type of limited dependent variable model with the dependent variable being “Saddam Hussein is deposed (yes/no)” and the RHS variables including dummy variables for “War/No War” and “France and the US co-operate (yes/no)”? What is the distribution of the error terms? How big is your sample?
As long as the WH has seized the unliateralism lesson, that wuld be something.
Massive devaluations work
Yep. And US debts being denominated in dollars, we get the default thrown in for free.
I’ve thought for some time that fear-mongering over the US current-account deficit was massively overblown, at least from the parochial American standpoint. The losers from a dollar crisis would be almost entirely abroad. And the accompanying inflation, by reducing the debt-service burden (of households especially, but businesses too) would be highly stimualtive.
The downside of course would be the possibility of a new international financial architecture not based on the dollar, meaning we probably would not get to pull the same trick again.
Massive devaluations work
Yep. And US debts being denominated in dollars, we get the default thrown in for free.
I’ve thought for some time that fear-mongering over the US current-account deficit was massively overblown, at least from the parochial American standpoint. The losers from a dollar crisis would be almost entirely abroad. And the accompanying inflation, by reducing the debt-service burden (of households especially, but businesses too) would be highly stimulative.
The downside of course would be the possibility of a new international financial architecture not based on the dollar, meaning we probably would not get to pull the same trick again.
Sorry for the double post.
Except you know what? I’m not. Properly functioning comment software is kind of a solved problem.
Lots of comments come to mind, so time to clear them by just noting that D’D is consistent, and not unduly biased in small samples.
“Thoughts on current developments in Lebanon
The important thing to note is that when the USA acts alone, a hundred thousand people die. When it stands together with France, putting the rogue state on notice that it can’t depend on its historic friends, we win without firing a shot. “
In Haiti, however, we have a less-well-publicised Iraq, courtesy of the US and France both.
Paul: say what?
In any event, upon further review I can spot where my reasoning is not quite on point, but then again the comparison between Iraq and Lebanon is not quite on point, so what’s the point?
Lemuel,
If US lenders have to pay a risk premium, or borrow in hard currency, then it gets a lot harder to borrow to invest.
This has a major impact over time.
Ian Whitchurch
>> Massive devaluations work
Not the kind of finding one mentions in any institution in which the French have an active role.
Last night I served up “Christians and Moors” before the Lenten Wednesday lesson. The recipe is loosely cribbed from an alumna of Sacred Heart in Rio de Janiero, and has none of the traditionally forbidden fats or animal parts.
2l Black Beans
2l Diced Tomatoes
1l White Rice, cooked
While you eat, you might reflect upon all the people whose lives were destroyed in December of 2001.
“The important thing to note is that when the USA acts alone, a hundred thousand people die. When it stands together with France, putting the rogue state on notice that it can’t depend on its historic friends, we win without firing a shot. And this is a victory for unilateralism in foreign policy?”
Sounds like a pretty ugly indictment of France if that is all there is to it. Apparently if France would stand up against dictators, they would fall. That is what you are implying right?
If France (…and the rest of the world) didn’t intervene, there were many good reasons. Check out the news. Multilateralism doesn’t mean forcing other countries into stupid projects, just to be stronger. It entails forgetting about restricted national interests (or psychoses) and (trying to) act for the common interest.
But Daniel, Iraq was a one-off, and the ad-hoc (ex-post-facto!) justifications are not seriously meant to apply to anything else. Shall we hope things are back to normal now?
Some more exciting repercussions of the Iraq invasion:
‘Largely unnoticed with the focus on the war and insurgency in Iraq, and overshadowed by an upsurge in violence in Saudi Arabia, terrorist violence is also on the increase in neighboring Kuwait. The Kuwaiti government had been concerned that the preparations for the invasion of Iraq that began in late 2002 would spur an increase in violent attacks directed at either U.S. or coalition troops. During the run up to the invasion in March 2003 the Kuwaiti government ordered a large area along its border with Iraq vacated, and worked with Americans and others to keep the visibility of foreigners at a low level. In spite of this, there were several violent altercations between locals and individuals associated with military preparations for attacking Iraq. Several persons were injured and at least two died….’
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1148/Terrorist_Violence_in_Kuwait
Etc. etc.
And yes isn’t it funny how those who trumped the US’ new commitment to democracy never mention the exciting tale of Haiti?
‘Tuesday marked one year since Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide fled to exile in South Africa, and the world still doesn’t know the truth of what happened, insists U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee.
Lee, D-Oakland, and a few others in Congress believe the United States at least passively aided the coup that ousted Haiti’s democratically elected leader. They want answers.
“We would oppose the overthrow of our own government, and there must be no doubt that we would oppose the overthrow of other democratically elected governments,” she said in a news release. “Yet today, grave doubts remain about the role the Bush administration played in the removal of President Aristide. This is a fundamental issue of democracy, and the American people deserve to know the truth about just what happened.”
Lee two weeks ago reintroduced The Responsibility To Uncover The Truth about Haiti Act to create an independent commission to probe the coup.
Haiti remains wracked by strife….’
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2592551
Or Venezuela?
‘The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the ‘dirty wars’ of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time. Washington’s involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.
It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.
The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.
Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success….’
http://www.lovearth.net/venezuelacouplinkedtobushteam.htm
On the subject of devaluation I have two questions. First is to wonder how a devaluation would affect those countries whose currencies are pegged to the dollar — I assume that devaluing the dollar would cause their currencies to be equivalently devalued like it or no; but if the US is a country’s major trading partner to the near-exclusion of others then the effect might not be so strong. Is this thinking accurate?
And: I’m reading The Economist’s Tale now, great book! Griffiths explains how the overvalued Leone acted as a hidden tax on exports and hidden subsidy of imports. Is it correct to think that an overvalued dollar has the same effect, and that this is part of the reason for the US trade imbalance?
The important thing to note is that when the USA acts alone, a hundred thousand people die. When it stands together with France, putting the rogue state on notice that it can’t depend on its historic friends, we win without firing a shot. And this is a victory for unilateralism in foreign policy?
LOL. What a dumb statement. Countries aren’t assembled in a factory, all 100% alike. If unilaterlism caused “100 thousand deaths” (pretending for a moment the farcical Lancet study is true) then multilaterlism doesn’t necessarily mean the opposite. Witness Afghanistan. Witness North Korea.
“The important thing to note is that when the USA acts alone, a hundred thousand people die. When it stands together with France, putting the rogue state on notice that it can’t depend on its historic friends, we win without firing a shot. And this is a victory for unilateralism in foreign policy?”
You must be pretending to be humorously post-modern a la John Stewart. This statement is clearly idiotic.
Steve
Apparently if France would stand up against dictators, they would fall. That is what you are implying right?
No, I’m suggesting that plans which emerge from international co-operation are both more sensible and more effective than plans forced through unilaterally. For example, The Police made better records together than Sting has managed alone, but you couldn’t therefore conclude that “Dream of the Blue Turtles” would have been a better record if it had Stuart Copeland drumming on it.
No, I’m suggesting that plans which emerge from international co-operation are both more sensible and more effective than plans forced through unilaterally.
Multilateral action is always preferable, but one could also argue that not doing anything in lieu of international co-operation can also be less sensible than doing something unilaterally.
Under the Defense of Marriage Act, (X’X)^(-1)X’X will be illegal.
Why does econometrics use such awful notation? X’X for a sum of squares? If the concensus is that you really do not want to use the notation mathematicians have invented as a means of preserving clarity, could you at least consider Einstein’s summation notation?
Notation should make ideas clearer, not obfuscate them.
Omeros: X is usually an nx1 vector in econometrics contexts. Postmultiplying by its transpose gives you the sum of squares and saves ink.
…thus helping to avert or at least postpone the impending ink crisis.
…plans which emerge from international co-operation are both more sensible and more effective than plans forced through unilaterally.
How is it ‘more sensible and more effective’? I don’t see any US military bases being built in Lebanon, or large US based companies getting billions of dollars worth no-bid contracts, or any demand for more US-built weapons coming out of this pathetic Lebanon circus.
Trying to be funny, huh?
‘pretending for a moment the farcical Lancet study is true’
Way hay! Another statistically illiteroid! Let’s get them all together and…….. i don’t know……don’t let them out until they tell whether some corrolations in a dataset are statistically significant or not.
Or is that too cruel?
“No, I’m suggesting that plans which emerge from international co-operation are both more sensible and more effective than plans forced through unilaterally.”
And when plans fail to emerge? You get North Korea. Or Nuclear Iran, right? At the minimum there are five possibilities:
Strong Multilateral Action
Strong Unilateral Action
Weak Multilateral Action
Weak Unilateral Action
No Action
Suggesting that strong multilateral action is better than strong unilateral action does nothing to prove that non-action is better than unilateral action.
For instance was it have better to let the Sudan genocide continue unabated for two years while waiting for multilateral action (what actually happened) rather than unilateral action on the part of France, the UK, or the US? I don’t think so.
Based on what? Are you that sure a rebellion the US couldn’t keep under control with its understaffed military, like in Iraq, wouldn’t have broken out?
‘rather than unilateral action on the part of France, the UK, or the US’.
Or what about Jamaica? Or Brazil? Or India or Saudi Arabia, or South Africa?
Ipso facto, when the United States was denying African Americans the vote, surely it would have been better for an external power (Jamaica, say, or Haiti) to take ‘unilateral action’ and invade the US? Or what about when the UK ran the slave trade? Surely that was asking for ‘unilateral action’ from, say, France? Or to move onto more modern times, surely British actions in Northern Ireland in the 1970s were asking for an invasion of the province by Dublin (which is not, in fact, such a far fetched idea). Or what about when the Americans were in Vietnam? Surely another state (say, the Soviet Union) should have been justified in taking ‘unilateral action’?
“Or to move onto more modern times, surely British actions in Northern Ireland in the 1970s were asking for an invasion of the province by Dublin (which is not, in fact, such a far fetched idea).”
Speaking from London I’m sure I’m not alone in saying “if only”.
More on Argentina! Is this the first successful real life application of the Norman Strong template (http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/HowToDefault.html)?
Michael
Lebanon […] And this is a victory for unilateralism in foreign policy?
You can read it as such. No rational US President would invade Syria. But Bush has shown in Iraq that he’s a nutter who is quite prepared to disregard such niceties as a dispassionate analysis of costs and benefits. This gives his arguments with Syria - and others - greater weight.
This kind of over-reaction can actually work out as costing you less over time, too. Deeply morally dubious, but funnily enough not in an Enlightenment-style greatest-good summation.
Mr Mouse, I think that kind of tactic is actually not all that rare… my anecdotal understanding is thar prior to negotiations with China Nixon attempted to shift his public persona more towards “crazy” so that the nuclear weapons thing might actually carry some bargaining power. I’ve heard similar theories as regards Kim Jong Il’s “nutty” behavior. North Korea is an almost archetypal example of a state whose bargaining power lies at an inverse to the percieved rationality of its leaders.
Is that a polynomial curve, or are you just smirking at me?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review