User Tag List

First 32404142434452 Last

Results 411 to 420 of 798

  1. #411
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    This is a great article from The American Conservative about the costs of foreign bases.

    Conservatives originally were on the side of military restraint, where not absolutely necessary.

    This article about military spending may help to explain why.

    The Hidden Costs of Empire

    “Are you monitoring the construction?” asked the middle-aged man on a bike accompanied by his dog.

    “Ah, sì,” I replied in my barely passable Italian.

    “Bene,” he answered. Good.

    In front of us, a backhoe’s guttural engine whined into action and empty dump trucks rattled along a dirt track. The shouts of men vied for attention with the metallic whirring of drills and saws ringing in the distance. Nineteen immense cranes spread across the landscape, with the foothills of Italy’s Southern Alps in the background. More than 100 pieces of earthmoving equipment, 250 workers, and grids of scaffolding wrapped around what soon would be 34 new buildings.

    We were standing in front of a massive 145-acre construction site for a “little America” rising in Vicenza, an architecturally renowned Italian city and UNESCO world heritage site near Venice. This was Dal Molin, the new military base the U.S. Army has been readying for the relocation of as many as 2,000 soldiers from Germany in 2013.

    Since 1955, Vicenza has also been home to another major U.S. base, Camp Ederle. They’re among the more than 1,000 bases the United States uses to ring the globe (with about 4,000 more in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.). This complex of military installations, unprecedented in history, has been a major, if little noticed, aspect of U.S. power since World War II.

    During the Cold War, such bases became the foundation for a “forward strategy” meant to surround the Soviet Union and push U.S. military power as close to its borders as possible. These days, despite the absence of a superpower rival, the Pentagon has been intent on dotting the globe with scores of relatively small “lily pad” bases, while continuing to build and maintain some large bases like Dal Molin.

    Americans rarely think about these bases, let alone how much of their tax money–and debt–is going to build and maintain them. For Dal Molin and related construction nearby, including a brigade headquarters, two sets of barracks, a natural-gas-powered energy plant, a hospital, two schools, a fitness center, dining facilities, and a mini-mall, taxpayers are likely to shell out at least half a billion dollars. (All the while, a majority of locals passionately and vocally oppose the new base.)

    How much does the United States spend each year occupying the planet with its bases and troops? How much does it spend on its global presence? Forced by Congress to account for its spending overseas, the Pentagon has put that figure at $22.1 billion a year. It turns out that even a conservative estimate of the true costs of garrisoning the globe comes to an annual total of about $170 billion. In fact, it may be considerably higher. Since the onset of “the Global War on Terror” in 2001, the total cost for our garrisoning policies, for our presence abroad, has probably reached $1.8 trillion to $2.1 trillion.
    How Much Do We Spend?

    By law, the Pentagon must produce an annual “Overseas Cost Summary” (OCS) putting a price on the military’s activities abroad, from bases to embassies and beyond. This means calculating all the costs of military construction, regular facility repairs, and maintenance, plus the costs of maintaining one million U.S. military and Defense Department personnel and their families abroad–the pay checks, housing, schools, vehicles, equipment, and the transportation of personnel and materials overseas and back, and far, far more.

    The latest OCS, for the 2012 fiscal year ending September 30th, documented $22.1 billion in spending, although, at Congress’s direction, this doesn’t include any of the more than $118 billion spent that year on the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe.

    While $22.1 billion is a considerable sum, representing about as much as the budgets for the Departments of Justice and Agriculture and about half the State Department’s 2012 budget, it contrasts sharply with economist Anita Dancs’s estimate of $250 billion. She included war spending in her total, but even without it, her figure comes to around $140 billion–still $120 billion more than the Pentagon suggests.

    Wanting to figure out the real costs of garrisoning the planet myself, for more than three years, as part of a global investigation of bases abroad, I’ve talked to budget experts, current and former Pentagon officials, and base budget officers. Many politely suggested that this was a fool’s errand given the number of bases involved, the complexity of distinguishing overseas from domestic spending, the secrecy of Pentagon budgets, and the “frequently fictional” nature of Pentagon figures. (The Department of Defense remains the only federal agency unable to pass a financial audit.)

    Ever the fool and armed only with the power of searchable PDFs, I nonetheless plunged into the bizarro world of Pentagon accounting, where ledgers are sometimes still handwritten and $1 billion can be a rounding error. I reviewed thousands of pages of budget documents, government and independent reports, and hundreds of line items for everything from shopping malls to military intelligence to postal subsidies.

    Wanting to err on the conservative side, I decided to follow the methodology Congress mandated for the OCS, while also looking for overseas costs the Pentagon or Congress might have ignored. It hardly made sense to exclude, for example, the health-care costs the Department of Defense pays for troops on overseas bases, spending for personnel in Kosovo, or the price tag for supporting the 550 bases we have in Afghanistan.

    In the spirit of “monitoring the construction,” let me lead you on an abbreviated account of my quest to come up with the real costs of occupying planet Earth.
    Missing Costs

    Although the Overseas Cost Summary initially might seem quite thorough, you’ll soon notice that countries well known to host U.S. bases have gone missing-in-action. In fact, at least 18 countries and foreign territories on the Pentagon’s own list of overseas bases go unnamed.

    Particularly surprising is the absence of Kosovo and Bosnia. The military has had large bases and hundreds of troops there for more than a decade, with another Pentagon report showing 2012 costs of $313.8 million. According to that report, the OCS also understates costs for bases in Honduras and Guantánamo Bay by about a third or $85 million.

    And then other oddities appear: in places like Australia and Qatar, the Pentagon says it has funds to pay troops but no money for “operations and maintenance” to turn the lights on, feed people, or do regular repairs. Adjusting for these costs adds an estimated $36 million. As a start, I found:

    $436 million for missing countries and costs.

    That’s not much compared to $22 billion and chump change in the context of the whole Pentagon budget, but it’s just a beginning.

    At Congress’s direction, the Pentagon also omits the costs of bases in the oft-forgotten U.S. territories–Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This is strange because the Pentagon considers them “overseas.” More important, as economist Dancs says, “The United States retains territories … primarily for the purposes of the military and projecting military power.” Plus, they are, well, literally overseas.

    Conservatively, this adds $3 billion in total military spending to the OCS.

    However, there are more quasi-U.S. territories in the form of truly forgotten Pacific Ocean island nations in “compacts of free association” with the United States–the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. Ever since it controlled these islands as “strategic trust territories” after World War II, the U.S. has enjoyed the right to establish military facilities on them, including the nuclear test site on the Bikini Atoll and the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site elsewhere in the Marshalls.

    This comes in exchange for yearly aid payments from the Office of Insular Affairs, adding another $571 million and yielding total costs of:

    $3.6 billion for territories and Pacific island nations.

    Speaking of the oceans, at Congress’s instruction, the Pentagon excludes the cost of maintaining naval vessels overseas. But Navy and Marine Corps vessels are essentially floating (and submersible) bases used to maintain a powerful military presence on (and under) the seas. A very conservative estimate for these costs adds another $3.8 billion.

    Then there are the costs of Navy prepositioned ships at anchor around the world. Think of them as warehouse-bases at sea, stocked with weaponry, war materiel, and other supplies. And don’t forget Army prepositioned stocks. Together, they come to an estimated $604 million a year. In addition, the Pentagon appears to omit some $861 million for overseas “sealift” and “airlift” and “other mobilization” expenses. All told, the bill grows by:

    $5.3 billion for Navy vessels and personnel plus seaborne and airborne assets.

    Also strangely missing from the Cost Summary is that little matter of health-care costs. Overseas costs for the Defense Health Program and other benefits for personnel abroad add an estimated $11.7 billion yearly. And then there’s $538 million in military and family housing construction that the Pentagon also appears to overlook in its tally.

    So too, we can’t forget about shopping on base, because we the taxpayers are subsidizing those iconic Walmart-like PX (Post Exchange) shopping malls on bases worldwide. Although the military is fond of saying that the PX system pays for itself because it helps fund on-base recreation programs, Pentagon leaders neglect to mention that the PXs get free buildings and land, free utilities, and free transportation of goods to overseas locations. They also operate tax-free.

    While there’s no estimate for the value of the buildings, land, and utilities that taxpayers provide, the exchanges reported $267 million in various subsidies for 2011. (Foregone federal taxes might add $30 million or more to that figure.) Add in as well postal subsidies of at least $71 million and you have:

    $12.6 billion for health care, military and family housing, shopping and postalsubsidies.

    Another Pentagon exclusion is rent paid to other countries for the land we garrison. Although a few countries like Japan, Kuwait, and South Korea actually pay the United States to subsidize our garrisons–to the tune of $1.1 billion in 2012–far more common, according to base expert Kent Calder, “are the cases where the United States pays nations to host bases.”

    Given the secretive nature of basing agreements and the complex economic and political trade-offs involved in base negotiations, precise figures are impossible to find. However, Pentagon-funded research indicates that 18% of total foreign military and economic aid goes toward buying base access. That swells our invoice by around $6.3 billion. Payments to NATO of $1.7 billion “for the acquisition and construction of military facilities and installations” and other purposes, brings us to:

    $6.9 billion in net “rent” payments and NATO contributions.

    Although the OCS must report the costs of all military operations abroad, the Pentagon omits $550 million for counternarcotics operations and $108 million for humanitarian and civic aid. Both have, as a budget document explains about humanitarian aid, helped “maintain a robust overseas presence,” while the military “obtains access to regions important to U.S. interests.” The Pentagon also spent $24 million on environmental projects abroad to monitor and reduce on-base pollution, dispose of hazardous and other waste, and for “initiatives…in support of global basing/operations.” So the bill now grows by:

    $682 million for counternarcotics, humanitarian, and environmental programs.

    The Pentagon tally of the price of occupying the planet also ignores the costs of secret bases and classified programs overseas. Out of a total Pentagon classified budget of $51 billion for 2012, I conservatively use only the estimated overseas portion of operations and maintenance spending, which adds $2.4 billion. Then there’s the $15.7 billion Military Intelligence Program. Given that U.S. law generally bars the military from engaging in domestic spying, I estimate that half this spending, $7.9 billion, took place overseas.

    Next, we have to add in the CIA’s paramilitary budget, funding activities including secret bases in places like Somalia, Libya, and elsewhere in the Middle East, and its drone assassination program, which has grown precipitously since the onset of the war on terror. With thousands dead (including hundreds of civilians), how can we not consider these military costs? In an email, John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, told me that “possibly a third” of the CIA’s estimated budget of $10 billion may now go to paramilitary costs, yielding:

    $13.6 billion for classified programs, military intelligence, and CIA paramilitary activities.

    Last but certainly not least comes the real biggie: the costs of the 550 bases the U.S. built in Afghanistan, as well as the last three months of life for our bases in Iraq, which once numbered 505 before the U.S. pullout from that country (that is, the first three months of fiscal year 2012). While the Pentagon and Congress exclude these costs, that’s like calculating the New York Yankees’ payroll while excluding salaries for each year’s huge free agent signings.

    Conservatively following the OCS methodology used for other countries, but including costs for health care, military pay in the base budget, rent, and “other programs,” we add an estimated:

    $104.9 billion for bases and military presence in Afghanistan and other war zones.

    Having started with the OCS figure of $22.1 billion, the grand total now has reached:

    $168 billion ($169,963,153,283 to be exact).

    That’s nearly an extra $150 billion. Even if you exclude war costs–and I think the Yankees show why that’s a bad idea–the total still reaches $65.1 billion, or nearly three times the Pentagon’s calculation.

    But don’t for a second think that that’s the end of our garrisoning costs. In addition to spending likely hidden in the nooks and crannies of its budget, there are other irregularities in the Pentagon’s accounting. Costs for 16 countries hosting U.S. bases but left out of the OCS entirely, including Colombia, El Salvador, and Norway, may total more than $350 million. The costs of the military presence in Colombia alone could reach into the tens of millions in the context of more than $8.5 billion in Plan Colombia funding since 2000. The Pentagon also reports costs of less than $5 million each for Yemen, Israel, Uganda, and the Seychelles Islands, which seems unlikely and could add millions more.

    When it comes to the general U.S. presence abroad, other costs are too difficult to estimate reliably, including the price of Pentagon offices in the United States, embassies, and other government agencies that support bases and troops overseas. So, too, U.S. training facilities, depots, hospitals, and even cemeteries allow overseas bases to function. Other spending includes currency-exchange costs, attorneys’ fees and damages won in lawsuits against military personnel abroad, short-term “temporary duty assignments,” U.S.-based troops participating in exercises overseas, and perhaps even some of NASA’s military functions, space-based weapons, a percentage of recruiting costs required to staff bases abroad, interest paid on the debt attributable to the past costs of overseas bases, and Veterans Administration costs and other retirement spending for military personnel who served abroad.

    Beyond my conservative estimate, the true bill for garrisoning the planet might be closer to $200 billion a year.
    “Spillover Costs”

    Those, by the way, are just the costs in the U.S. government’s budget. The total economic costs to the U.S. economy are higher still. Consider where the taxpayer-funded salaries of the troops at those bases go when they eat or drink at a local restaurant or bar, shop for clothing, rent a local home, or pay local sales taxes in Germany, Italy, or Japan. These are what economists call “spillover” or “multiplier effects.” When I visited Okinawa in 2010, for example, Marine Corps representatives bragged about how their presence contributes $1.9 billion annually to the local economy through base contracts, jobs, local purchases, and other spending. Although the figures may be overstated, it’s no wonder members of Congress like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison have called for a new “Build in America” policy to protect “the fiscal health of our nation.”

    And the costs are still broader when one considers the trade-offs, or opportunity costs, involved. Military spending creates fewer jobs per million dollars expended than the same million invested in education, health care, or energy efficiency–barely half as many as investing in schools. Even worse, while military spending clearly provides direct benefits to the Lockheed Martins and KBRs of the military-industrial complex, these investments don’t, as economist James Heintz says, boost the “long-run productivity of the rest of the private sector” the way infrastructure investments do.

    To adapt a famous line from President Dwight Eisenhower: every base that is built signifies in the final sense a theft. Indeed, think about what Dal Molin’s half a billion dollars in infrastructure could have done if put to civilian uses. Again echoing Ike, the cost of one modern base is this: 260,000 low-income children getting health care for one year or 65,000 going to a year of Head Start or 65,000 veterans receiving VA care for a year.
    A Different Kind of “Spillover”

    Bases also create a different “spillover” in the financial and non-financial costs host countries bear. In 2004, for example, on top of direct “burden sharing” payments, host countries made in-kind contributions of $4.3 billion to support U.S. bases. In addition to agreeing to spend billions of dollars to move thousands of U.S. Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam, the Japanese government has paid nearly $1 billion to soundproof civilian homes near U.S. air bases on Okinawa and millions in damages for successful noise pollution lawsuits. Similarly, as base expert Mark Gillem reports, between 1992 and 2003, the Korean and U.S. governments paid $27.3 million in damages because of crimes committed by U.S. troops stationed in Korea. In a single three-year period, U.S. personnel “committed 1,246 criminal acts, from misdemeanors to felonies.”

    As these crimes indicate, costs for local communities extend far beyond the economic. Okinawans have recently been outraged by what appears to beanother in a long series of rapes committed by U.S. troops. Which is just one example of how, from Japan to Italy, there are what Anita Dancs calls the “costs of rising hostility” over bases. Environmental damage pushes the financial and non-financial toll even higher. The creation of a base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean sent all of the local Chagossian people into exile.

    So, too, U.S. troops and their families bear some of those nonfinancial costs due to frequent moves and separation during unaccompanied tours abroad, along with attendant high rates of divorce, domesticviolence, substance abuse,sexual assault, and suicide.

    “No one, no one likes it,” a stubbly-faced old man told me as I was leaving the construction site. He remembered the Americans arriving in 1955 and now lives within sight of the Dal Molin base. “If it were for the good of the people, okay, but it’s not for the good of the people.”

    “Who pays? Who pays?” he asked. “Noi,” he said. We do.

    Indeed, from that $170 billion to the costs we can’t quantify, we all do.

    David Vine is assistant professor of anthropology at American University, in Washington, DC. He is the author of Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter. Copyright 2012 David Vine
    I've spoken before about my preference for force projection through naval activities, while our Armies remain here to help us rebuild domestically(while also combating the Mexican cartels). Military support staff like engineers, who were previously occupied abroad, can help with infrastructure projects like bridge maintenance. Obviously, the overall size of our force would need to shrink as well with the Iraq and Stan wars winding down. If we could put a serious effort into thinking about how our military dollars would be most well spend, I think we can easily remain many car lengths ahead of the competition while greatly easing the financial burden currently felt.

  2. #412
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What ideas are you talking about? Do you even know?

    Do you understand the difference between restrained conservative policy and the neo-con corporate statism that has arisen on the right?

    Do you understand the tight rope that every representative must walk between largesse and austerity?

    Do you understand the problem of "double dipping" within benefit qualifications, or the finesse needed to take a firm stance in Near East negotiations while trying to act in the best interests of regional stability?

    Can you reconcile the delegate vs. representative problem?
    You're a reformer. You want to change the system from the inside or whatever. That's cool. I see very little possibility of that, so basically I am working at the problem from a completely different angle. I'm not sure if you'd be interested or not, but I view it as more of an evolutionary/biological problem to do with culture and how it evolved. I wonder if this view would appeal to you or not, because I would say you have some tendencies that are more "community-oriented" than just being motivated by selfish considerations. David Sloan Wilson wrote an interesting book about creating prosocial communities and "rules" that allow this to emerge spontaneously. The rules are:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosocial_behavior <-- that is a handy reference to become familiar with the topic as well

    I think the only viable solution is engineering prosocial behavior through use of technology (physical creation of the patterns of altruism). That's why I am studying what I am studying and why I want to to work in the industry that interests me (or at least, that is part of it).
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  3. #413
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Has the Boehner purge of fiscal conservatives from committees been brought up yet?

    Here is the latest...

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/13/th...t-about-policy

    The GOP Committee Purge: Not About Policy, But the "Asshole Factor"?
    Brian Doherty

    The GOP leadership in the House is selling a counterstory to the "brave anti-spending Republicans smacked down by craven leadership" story connected to the loss of committee assignments by four Republicans known for bucking leadership in a more small-government, small-spending direction. (They are Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) from the House Budget Committee, Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) from Financial Services Committee.)*I have blogged about one of the purged, Rep. Justin Amash, fighting back publicly yesterday and last week.

    ...

    This story says that, spending aside, actually trying to be a public voice pushing the party in a better direction on spending compounds the problem and makes you more worthy of being punished. It's not that "these are unpleasant people and bad colleagues and we don't want them around"; it's that they aren't just content to vote against bad stuff and then be quiet about it.

    If the leadership thinks that this explanation is going to mollify the ideal Tea Party type who seriously see themselves as dedicated to making sure the Republican Party is good on spending issues, that seems highly unlikely. Such activists want their congressional champions to not only vote right, but to pressure their colleagues to do so as well. For those likely to care at all about the purged, the asshole factor is a feature, not a bug, as the kids on their computers say.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #414
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Has the Boehner purge of fiscal conservatives from committees been brought up yet?

    Here is the latest...

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/13/th...t-about-policy
    Been reading about that for a little bit. Thought about bringing it up here but I guess I forgot about it.

  5. #415
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    We got some optimistic conservative opinions here. This could use a dose of pessimism from a thoroughly liberal source.

    Former Republican: 6 Reasons the GOP Is Doomed

    The formerly Grand Old Party needs to change to survive. But all we're seeing are botox solutions.


    Mitt Romney had hardly conceded before Republicans started fighting over where to head next. Some Republicans -- and many Democrats -- now claim that the writing is on the wall: demography is destiny, which means the GOP is going the way of the Whigs and the Dodo. Across the country, they see an aging white majority shrinking as the U.S. heads for the future as a majority-minority country and the Grand Old Party becomes the Gray Old Party. Others say: not so fast.

    In the month since 51% of the electorate chose to keep Barack Obama in the White House, I’ve spent my time listening to GOP pundits, operators, and voters. While the Party busily analyzes the results, its leaders and factions are already out front, pushing their own long-held opinions and calling for calm in the face of onrushing problems.

    Do any of their proposals exhibit a willingness to make the kind of changes the GOP will need to attract members of the growing groups that the GOP has spent years antagonizing like Hispanics, Asian Americans, unmarried women, secular whites, and others? In a word: no.

    Instead, from my informal survey, it looks to this observer (and former Republican ) as if the party is betting all its money on cosmetic change. Think of it as the Botox Solution. It wants to tweak its talking points slightly and put more minority and female Republicans on stage as spokespeople. Many in the GOP seem to believe that this will do the trick in 2014 and beyond. Are they deluded?

    You’ve heard the expression “putting lipstick on a pig,” haven’t you?
    Of course, that's what I call optimism. I doubt the Republican party is nearing its end.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #416
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    I think the only viable solution is engineering prosocial behavior through use of technology (physical creation of the patterns of altruism). That's why I am studying what I am studying and why I want to to work in the industry that interests me (or at least, that is part of it).
    You, um, realize that sounds like kinda ominous, right? Perhaps you could elaborate?

    Also, that list of preconditions for 'pro-social communities' could mean any number of things, many of which are in direct conflict with each other: for instance, 'a strong sense of group identity' at the local level is 'bonding' social capital, which is usually inversely related to spontaneous cooperation between different communities, or 'bridging' social capital.

  7. #417
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Do you understand the difference between restrained conservative policy and the neo-con corporate statism that has arisen on the right?
    Pop Quiz: Who was the first neo-con president?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  8. #418
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    You, um, realize that sounds like kinda ominous, right? Perhaps you could elaborate?

    Also, that list of preconditions for 'pro-social communities' could mean any number of things, many of which are in direct conflict with each other: for instance, 'a strong sense of group identity' at the local level is 'bonding' social capital, which is usually inversely related to spontaneous cooperation between different communities, or 'bridging' social capital.
    Yeah, I don't mean it to. I want an heuristic algorithm to tie all the pieces of infrastructure so the interaction evolves in real time and is based simultaneously on the needs of the various levels of interactivity of being (I know that sounds weird). I guess I look at human experience as "synaptic firing packets" so even exchanges between two people can be thought of as being a part of the same process. In my mind, culture is a response (in part) to what we view as being possible because of the availability of various resources and identity is a subprocess within the larger schema. So, as world resources expand and contract in real time as we utilize them or access more etc being would shift continuously in a way that allows it to fit it's current ability while at the same time being able to activate new functions as they become more or less necessary. I would base this on objective measurements of the enlarging circles of basic human needs with extremes of various types of functionality being allowed to exist in perpetuity (albeit on a sliding probabilistic scale) in order to facilitate contradiction and development.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  9. #419
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Yeah, I don't mean it to. I want an heuristic algorithm to tie all the pieces of infrastructure so the interaction evolves in real time and is based simultaneously on the needs of the various levels of interactivity of being (I know that sounds weird). I guess I look at human experience as "synaptic firing packets" so even exchanges between two people can be thought of as being a part of the same process. In my mind, culture is a response (in part) to what we view as being possible because of the availability of various resources and identity is a subprocess within the larger schema. So, as world resources expand and contract in real time as we utilize them or access more etc being would shift continuously in a way that allows it to fit it's current ability while at the same time being able to activate new functions as they become more or less necessary. I would base this on objective measurements of the enlarging circles of basic human needs with extremes of various types of functionality being allowed to exist in perpetuity (albeit on a sliding probabilistic scale) in order to facilitate contradiction and development.
    So your field is complexity theory? And you think that such an algorithm could help indicate which organizational structures/policies would mold cultures under variable conditions of resource availability so as to produce societies with high social capital (the preconditions of which change alongside resource availability)?

    Edit: I'm only marginally acquainted with complexity theory, btw, mostly indirectly from researching Hayek, and have no clue as far as the purely mathematical aspects are concerned. I've been meaning to become better acquainted with the purely theoretical aspects, but I've been lazy.

  10. #420
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    From The American Conservative:

    This confirms something I've had a sneaking suspicion about for some time.

    Open-Minded Conservatives, Prejudiced Liberals

    Jonathan Haidt, the author of The Righteous Mind, is on a roll. A few months ago, Haidt and his collaborators released a study of the psychology of libertarianism, which I blogged about here. This week, they published a paper on what liberals and conservatives think about morality–and what they think about each other. Here are the key findings:

    In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do…Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about “typical” liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup’s morality. Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about both groups.
    As with the libertarianism study, some of these conclusions are not very surprising. Liberals emphasize compassion while conservatives are more concerned about authority and tradition. We already knew that, which is precisely what Haidt’s research documents.

    The interesting result is that liberals are more likely than conservatives to exaggerate the differences between them. Liberals, after all, like to think of themselves as especially resistant to prejudice, even concerning their political opponents. At Mother Jones, Kevin Drum asks why liberals’ self-conception should be so distant from reality. He suggests four explanations:

    One possibility is that the study is wrong. Its sample was light on extreme conservatives, and that might have made a difference even after the researchers corrected for it. A second possibility is that liberals are over-influenced by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. We take them as representative of conservatives even though they represent only its right wing. A third possibility is that the conservative leadership in Washington DC is more hardnosed than the movement as a whole, and everyone legitimately takes that as representing real-world conservatism. And finally, a fourth possibility is simply that liberals are wrong. We interact very little with conservative institutions (churches, business groups, etc.) and therefore don’t understand them, while conservatives have no choice but to interact with liberal institutions (Hollywood, academia, etc.).
    The fourth possibility has the most explanatory power. Although they pride themselves on being open-minded, liberals generally have far less contact with conservatives than conservatives do with liberals. As a result, their understanding of conservatives and conservatism is frequently a caricature. The problem is not simply that they disagree. It’s that they have little first-hand experience of whom or what they’re disagreeing with.

    As Drum acknowledges explicitly, one cause of this ignorance is that liberals are unlikely to participate in institutions where conservatives have a substantial presence. Another, to which he only alludes, is liberal dominance of the entertainment industry (as opposed to the news and opinion business). Complaints about Hollywood are the stuff of cliché. But really: when was the last time you saw a movie that depicted conservatives, the traditionally religious, people who work in “brown” industries, or suburbanites favorably?

    Yet Drum misses the last and perhaps most important cause of liberals’ alienation from conservatives: their tendency to cluster in major metropolitan areas. I’m unaware of any study of the geographical distribution of ideological self-identification as such. But it does appear that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to live in uncompetitive House districts.

    Contrary to the stereotype, then, it’s liberals who tend to live in politically-monolithic bubbles. Under those conditions, it’s no wonder that they take their cues from the only conservatives they’re likely to encounter, the windbags on talk radio and cable news. So in the spirit of civic friendship, I offer a message to liberals: you should get out more, whether physically or around the Internet. The water is warm, and you might be surprised by what you find.
    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Pop Quiz: Who was the first neo-con president?
    Dubya. (although I'm sure that's not the answer you're looking for)

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO