Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1835)	1/7/2003 6:47:47 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

"utopian analysis"? Not dealing with the actual reality in analyzing the facts.. I think you are misusing the term. "Utopian" is: u·to·pi·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-tp-n) adj. often Utopian Of, relating to, describing or having the characteristics of a Utopia: a Utopian island; Utopian novels. - Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: a utopian scheme for equalizing wealth. - Proposing impracticably ideal schemes. The term comes from Thomas More's novel "Utopia", which talks of a perfect place where there are no social, educational, legal etc problems. So, to the extent that an analysis can be "utopian", it would have to be used in the sense that it is and optimist analysis, wishful thinking, in other words. In fact, in one of the few articles "utopian analysis" is used, here's what the author says: Since pessimism, dystopian analysis, is a self-confirming theory, and optimism, utopian analysis, is a self-deluding theory - wishful thinking - realism compels the effort to find a middle ground: pragmatic meliorism. business.hol.gr Anyway, coming back to your feeling that this analyst does not deal "with the actual reality in analyzing the facts", I have to say that you are not looking at it from a Game Theory point of view. You insist on looking at Jong, etc, what you think their past behaviour has been and what you think their current behaviour is ("he feeds his army not his people"). Game theory looks at the stones on the board and anticipates the actions of the players. For this, it studies the available options and their expected results. Here are the last two paragraphs of Krugman's analysis. Note the impersonal, calculating viewpoint, looking at the available options: --------------------------------------------------- The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak. The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice — it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American efforts to isolate it economically — North Korea hardly has any trade except with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs. -------------------------------------------------------- The above is not lacking in "dealing with actual reality". It is classic Game Theory. Simplified, of course, but the point he is making - i.e. it seems evident from Bush administration's actions towards Iraq that the only way to make sure they will not be threatened is to build nuclear arms - is quite valid. I urge you to read a bit about Game Theory. It is a fascinating study, and a way of thinking that is at once simple, and effective in analysing situations such as international relations.