“I think Trump, Bush, and large parts of their respective administrations simply do not think that people in other countries are as complex or real as in their own. That simplistic belief that one could decapitate a dictator and remake the economy and politics implies that the dictator is the sole or even major cause of these problems rather than an equilibrium outcome of underlying forces that can reassert themselves.” Yes, this.
In addition to the obvious motivations--distraction from Epstein, oil, his love for strutting his dominance--with Trump you can never rule out petty jealousy, and Maduro actually succeeded in overturning an election he lost.
Same reason he’s been so dismissive of Machado despite her actually trying to work with him. She actually won the FIFA/Nobel prize he only pretended to earn.
This article epitomises what The Argument offers - a step back from the minute-by-minute news developments to consider the wider ideological significance of an action. The use of Hayekian insight to expose the hypocrisy of the anti-social planning outlook was masterful.
Though notably Hayek believed free market capitalism needed to exist alongside democratic political institutions – it was the coexistence of both that enabled liberty. Therefore it’s not surprising that Trump administration departs from Hayek both in terms of economic libertarianism and classical liberal political doctrine, since this administration embodies an ascendant post-liberalism on the right which disdains the rule of law.
I'd be really interested in what Hayek would think of his original thesis now given all the technological advancement since uh, 1945. There are algorithms now that can very accurately predict what a certain person will want to buy, and how much of it (of course with a margin of error depending on the product).
Did we all see the half-asleep President babbling for 30 minutes about how this will all be worth it because of the oil? I have little hope for further engagement being limited.
The Trump administration can frame this as a legal arrest of an international criminal, but this has opened up a whole new world of possibilities for leaders in China and Russia. Drum up some bogus charges against a leader of another nation, and you can arrest them by any means possible.
The "Donroe Doctrine" feels awfully close to cold war Soviet Union setting up satellite states governed by leaders who are loyal out of fear.
Observations here, regarding the contradictory approach by Republicans to centrally planned economies are true — but might not explanations vary as to *why* they're true?
For example, could it be that Venezuela was not a socialist government after all, but a "tyrannical… government [which] engaged in massive wealth confiscation…", as Trump himself stated — that is, a *criminal* government? That is, a *kleptocracy*?
In the United States, are not private business constantly engaged in "wealth confiscation", via guaranteed government contracts paid by tax revenue and borrowed money — along with numerous forms of corporate welfare, which are paid from the same sources? Is free speech here not suppressed — that is, has not the Trump administration leveraged its influence to demand institutional self-censorship (including and especially among mass media), under threat of retaliation? Is there not a "relentless propaganda machine" here — in the Pentagon "press corps", for example, or in right wing blogs, podcasts, radio shows, or in the FoxNewses of the television world… or even at CBS, now?
Has a *certain special* American political party not been working to leverage election terms for its own benefit (i.e. "rigging" them), recently? Are prosecutors here not directed by a *certain special* chief executive, to "persecute [his] political opponents", and/or to "[destroy] the impartial rule of law", as that certain special chief executive himself said about Venezuela?
Every accusation is a confession.
Did Friedrich Hayek mention anything about criminal states?
What if the United States is a kleptocracy? Didn't it just "steal" the nation of Venezuela? Trump has vowed that the U.S. will "run the country," hasn't he?
I wish liberals would be a bit more vocal in their defense of international order and law instead of wringing their hands about how maduro was bad BUT and so forth. Of course he was bad, but one of the big reasons why no other country takes international law seriously is we, the most powerful country on earth, don't take it seriously.
I wanted to note that South Central Alaska, the most densely populated part of the state (Anchorage and Matsu Valley), is geophysically closer to the Russian coast than the Washington state coast. The Diomede Islands (one Russian and the other American) are 2.4 miles apart. If we are talking spheres of influence, there could be some conflict. If we are shifting toward strongman spheres/personal kingdoms, I don’t see Putin leaving that alone in order to respect the Donroe Doctrine.
I'm surprised you'd support intervention in Sudan. We'd have to pick between two repulsive forces (the RSF being the more depraved), each backed by some of our regional allies, or I suppose otherwise fight both of them on behalf of an unaligned, pro-democracy Sudanese political movement which barely exists and certainly doesn't field a military. I understand the impetus to protect civilian populations being slaughtered, but from a pragmatic standpoint if we were to deploy ground forces to intervene in some foreign conflict, I'd prioritize it behind fighting ISIS affiliates in the Sahel or the junta in Burma, not that I'd recommend those either.
This went to my promotional inbox for the first time I wonder if it was the title.
I think the value of seeing China strongly condemn the kidnapping while they remain neutral on Ukraine is worth the temporary chaos. No one should try to convince China of anything.
I think this is an interesting comparison but an important difference is that when prices are set by market forces this is usually good, while the sum of forces that cause a particular person to lead a country are I think less related to how good it is that that leader is leading.
With your South African aluminum example there is a clear mechanism for the price to change in response to some welfare consideration far away, but what is the equivalent for leaders? Suppose some policy of Maduro’s made South Africans much worse off, what mechanism causes the government of Venezuela to act differently? I think the only real path is diplomacy but this is basically back to central planning.
Even in functioning democracies leaders are chosen in a way that is not that responsive to welfare implications because the median voter is not very informed. It seems plausible to me that the median CIA analyst would do a better job of picking a leader who improves the welfare of a country.
“I think Trump, Bush, and large parts of their respective administrations simply do not think that people in other countries are as complex or real as in their own. That simplistic belief that one could decapitate a dictator and remake the economy and politics implies that the dictator is the sole or even major cause of these problems rather than an equilibrium outcome of underlying forces that can reassert themselves.” Yes, this.
In addition to the obvious motivations--distraction from Epstein, oil, his love for strutting his dominance--with Trump you can never rule out petty jealousy, and Maduro actually succeeded in overturning an election he lost.
Same reason he’s been so dismissive of Machado despite her actually trying to work with him. She actually won the FIFA/Nobel prize he only pretended to earn.
This article epitomises what The Argument offers - a step back from the minute-by-minute news developments to consider the wider ideological significance of an action. The use of Hayekian insight to expose the hypocrisy of the anti-social planning outlook was masterful.
Though notably Hayek believed free market capitalism needed to exist alongside democratic political institutions – it was the coexistence of both that enabled liberty. Therefore it’s not surprising that Trump administration departs from Hayek both in terms of economic libertarianism and classical liberal political doctrine, since this administration embodies an ascendant post-liberalism on the right which disdains the rule of law.
I'd be really interested in what Hayek would think of his original thesis now given all the technological advancement since uh, 1945. There are algorithms now that can very accurately predict what a certain person will want to buy, and how much of it (of course with a margin of error depending on the product).
Did we all see the half-asleep President babbling for 30 minutes about how this will all be worth it because of the oil? I have little hope for further engagement being limited.
The Trump administration can frame this as a legal arrest of an international criminal, but this has opened up a whole new world of possibilities for leaders in China and Russia. Drum up some bogus charges against a leader of another nation, and you can arrest them by any means possible.
The "Donroe Doctrine" feels awfully close to cold war Soviet Union setting up satellite states governed by leaders who are loyal out of fear.
Observations here, regarding the contradictory approach by Republicans to centrally planned economies are true — but might not explanations vary as to *why* they're true?
For example, could it be that Venezuela was not a socialist government after all, but a "tyrannical… government [which] engaged in massive wealth confiscation…", as Trump himself stated — that is, a *criminal* government? That is, a *kleptocracy*?
In the United States, are not private business constantly engaged in "wealth confiscation", via guaranteed government contracts paid by tax revenue and borrowed money — along with numerous forms of corporate welfare, which are paid from the same sources? Is free speech here not suppressed — that is, has not the Trump administration leveraged its influence to demand institutional self-censorship (including and especially among mass media), under threat of retaliation? Is there not a "relentless propaganda machine" here — in the Pentagon "press corps", for example, or in right wing blogs, podcasts, radio shows, or in the FoxNewses of the television world… or even at CBS, now?
Has a *certain special* American political party not been working to leverage election terms for its own benefit (i.e. "rigging" them), recently? Are prosecutors here not directed by a *certain special* chief executive, to "persecute [his] political opponents", and/or to "[destroy] the impartial rule of law", as that certain special chief executive himself said about Venezuela?
Every accusation is a confession.
Did Friedrich Hayek mention anything about criminal states?
What if the United States is a kleptocracy? Didn't it just "steal" the nation of Venezuela? Trump has vowed that the U.S. will "run the country," hasn't he?
At some level Trump thinks this is all a tv show, and he’s the hero. And the audience loves him.
I wish liberals would be a bit more vocal in their defense of international order and law instead of wringing their hands about how maduro was bad BUT and so forth. Of course he was bad, but one of the big reasons why no other country takes international law seriously is we, the most powerful country on earth, don't take it seriously.
Thank you for the sense-making you do here. We need more writers to write clearly and plainly about international relations. Especially now.
I wanted to note that South Central Alaska, the most densely populated part of the state (Anchorage and Matsu Valley), is geophysically closer to the Russian coast than the Washington state coast. The Diomede Islands (one Russian and the other American) are 2.4 miles apart. If we are talking spheres of influence, there could be some conflict. If we are shifting toward strongman spheres/personal kingdoms, I don’t see Putin leaving that alone in order to respect the Donroe Doctrine.
I'm surprised you'd support intervention in Sudan. We'd have to pick between two repulsive forces (the RSF being the more depraved), each backed by some of our regional allies, or I suppose otherwise fight both of them on behalf of an unaligned, pro-democracy Sudanese political movement which barely exists and certainly doesn't field a military. I understand the impetus to protect civilian populations being slaughtered, but from a pragmatic standpoint if we were to deploy ground forces to intervene in some foreign conflict, I'd prioritize it behind fighting ISIS affiliates in the Sahel or the junta in Burma, not that I'd recommend those either.
This went to my promotional inbox for the first time I wonder if it was the title.
I think the value of seeing China strongly condemn the kidnapping while they remain neutral on Ukraine is worth the temporary chaos. No one should try to convince China of anything.
I think this is an interesting comparison but an important difference is that when prices are set by market forces this is usually good, while the sum of forces that cause a particular person to lead a country are I think less related to how good it is that that leader is leading.
With your South African aluminum example there is a clear mechanism for the price to change in response to some welfare consideration far away, but what is the equivalent for leaders? Suppose some policy of Maduro’s made South Africans much worse off, what mechanism causes the government of Venezuela to act differently? I think the only real path is diplomacy but this is basically back to central planning.
Even in functioning democracies leaders are chosen in a way that is not that responsive to welfare implications because the median voter is not very informed. It seems plausible to me that the median CIA analyst would do a better job of picking a leader who improves the welfare of a country.