I’d like to preface this post, which is mostly about economics and domestic politics, by saying that those two things (along with Palestinian plumbing) are most certainly world politics.

The elections coming up provide for a whole load of excitement. What I’m most concerned about is the world economy. We seem to be dangerously close to a Keynesian Liquidity Trap, wherein interest rates can’t really go any lower, and it seems like the Federal Reserve System is grasping at straws in an attempt to patch up our sinking ship of an economy. With the fee charged to banks when they borrow from the Fed currently at 1%, there’s really no leeway for further effective change on the economy through that avenue. But these technical matters are almost superfluous; what really matters are consumers’ expectations of the future of the economy. If people think that the economy is going down the drain, they’ll pull their money out of the markets and keep it in as liquid a form as possible. If money is being stuffed under mattresses instead of stuffed into banks, there is less capability for small businesses to take out loans from those banks. It’ll be a downward spiral. If, on the other hand, people think that the economy is going to do well, they’ll keep their money where it can be utilized.

People are expecting the economy to do better if Obama wins – 80% of economists in a poll conducted by The Economist think that his policies are better. If he wins, the economy will do better.

Halloween and Terrorist Attacks

I discovered much insecurity in the world this weekend.  First, it was a possibility to invade the sovereign territory of Guatemala on Halloween.  Not saying I did, but I was aware that it was possible.  The idea of Halloween trick-or-treating is insecure because random strangers can invade your home and take things from you.  So when the embassies allow college students to enter their domains, there are going to be some dangerous and insecure situations.  When a door is unlocked and there are jack-o-lanterns on the stoop and a bowl of unguarded candy inside, it is inevitable that their borders will be breached with such an absence of security.  Not that I did, but I could have if I did not hold such a high respect for Guatemalan sovereignty. 

            There is also a lack of security for the furniture on the 5^th floor, but I know nothing about that.  However, when an advancing group has arms, and the defending side has none, the attackers do not need to waste ammo on the infidels to get whatever they desire.  Halloween got me in a realist mood. 

            On Friday, we had a curious discussion about actual and perceived security.  I posted a bit about this on Wednesday, but I will mention a few things in response to Amanda’s post.  I am glad that Amanda caught the essence of the argument on Friday when we mentioned 9/11.  Again, our perceived amount of security was a false because we did not see the black swan approaching.  Perhaps we could have, knowing about the memos sent to government officials about a probable terrorist attack in the United States, but as these were not made open to the general public, we could not have seen it coming.  Similarly to Amanda, I liked the point that terrorist attacks are things to worry about because they can drastically change the political situation of the country.  I had not thought of this as an argument against the article, but it is definitely a valid point.  The aftermath of September 11^th has resulted in a war, a new economic situation, and a completely different political environment.  I do not even think I need to mention how that changed everyone individually because I am sure that all of you have flashbulb memories of that day and can all say exactly how it has affected you.  But that would be interesting to hear about, so feel free to leave comments! 

            

World: Going to Hell in Handbasket?

So I'm sitting here reading my news feed on Google News, and realizing that pretty much nothing cool is happening right now. I figured I'd provide some interesting news links for potential news stories in the coming days/weeks/months and then maybe find something or other to talk about.

Thousands more Syrian troops deployed on Lebanon border.

Russia, Libya sign civil nuclear deal as Kadhafi visits: Tripoli

Now El Loco's pursuing the bomb

Syria may have approved US border incursion

The Syrian border raid is of interest to me. It marks the continuation of the most recent manifestation of American counterterror operations. Does the United States have the right to protect its security interests if it means violating the territorial sovereignty of another nation? Does the other nation have a right to respond when it views sovereignty as its primary goal? Well, to answer the latter, obviously yes. Nations still have to pursue their own interests, regardless of whether or not they pursue our own. But that doesn't mean we forsake our own so the Syrian Mukhabarat can fulfill its ends. The United States views security as prime right now, and has a right to fulfill that end, especially when they kill an al-Qaeda commander and were apparently tacitly endorsed in their mission by Syrian government officials.

Dia De Los Muertos

Happy Dia De Los Muertos everyone! Well, Dia de los Inocentes, but November 1st and 2nd are both really Dia de los Muertos, because dead kids are still dead.

Anyway. Let's talk about the media.

Yesterday in class we discussed briefly the media's role in what people deem as "threats". I said that the media can never be balanced.

And it can't. Media's job isn't to be unbiased, it's to pay the bills. Sensationalism means higher ratings and larger profits. So, how best to create sensationalism? Play off people's fears.

What's more terrifying? Being attacked by a shark or being diagnosed with cancer? While cancer is pretty frightening, being ripped apart by a shark a la Jaws (which is what you automatically think of when you think shark attack, isn't it?) is more terrifying on a visceral level. If a shark attacks you, you can't do a whole lot. Getting cancer, at least you can do something.

The point is, even though you are much more likely to die from cancer, if there is a sudden "upswing" in shark attacks, guess which story gets covered more. Same goes with terrorist attacks, SARS, avian flu, mad cow disease...things that are not a common happening. The unusual sells. The same ol', same ol' (aka: cancer, AIDs, car crashes, heart disease, poverty, starvation) is boring, because it happens all the time. Thousands of people die from cancer, car crashes, poverty, starvation, AIDs, whatever, everyday! That's not news! That's just life! (and death)

Life, sad to say, is generally boring. And what better way to increase ratings than to sensatilonize marginal threats (meaning, in all likelihood, you are not going to be on a plane that gets hijacked by terrorists; meaning, in all likelihood, you will not eat meat contaminated by mad cow disease)...to place what unusual and dangerous as a "very plausible, even quite probable" part of your life? The media are experts at creating irrational fear, and making it appear rational.

Isn't that a happy thought?

Security and Economics: Insufficient Sciences

I agree with the statement that it is impossible for a state to be completely secure given the infinite number of potential threats to any one nation’s security at any given point in time. It’s like what I said on the first day of class: everything in the world is relevant to international relations – we just don’t know it yet. Similarly, everything in the world is relevant to national security – we just don’t know about it until the simmering threat actually boils over. The ‘black swan theory’ that Professor Jackson discussed during class is exactly what I’m talking about here. 9/11 was, to us, a black swan. Of course, in hindsight, we can see at least some of the factors that lead up to the attack – but only in hindsight.

I have heard argued, and I am at least somewhat inclined to agree, that economics is a somewhat flawed science due to the fact that it is only concretely adept at analyzing economic trends and the veracity and strength of various economic theories in hindsight. It has proven relatively worthless at prediction- at being able to, with some measure of reliability, stating what will occur in economics in the future. It is more of a historical than a practical science. The extent to which this failure at prediction holds true is evident in the amazement at which we view actually successful economic predictions, whereas if economics was a practical science, we would expect economic predictions to be true the majority of the time.

Analysis of national security seems to me to be like science: it’s the Black Swan events that have the largest impact, and there is no reliable way of predicting them. We cannot turn to analysis of past events to determine what will happen; we can only turn to analysis of past events to tell us how we might handle the aftermath of events and what we might be able to do to soften, but probably not completely prevent, the negative results.

Nope.

I do not think anyone or any country can be completely one hundred percent secure because you never can know how to secure yourself from every threat imaginable.  Or unimaginable.  Instead, you can be more secure or less secure; there are different levels of security.  However, this applies when you consider security a fact.  In class on Tuesday, there was some discussion on security as possibly being a perspective and if you perceive yourself or your nation as being secure, than you are.  I do not think this can be the meaning of security.  For example, if you asked people on the streets of New York City how secure they felt the nation was 10 minutes before the planes hit the World Trade Centers and 10 minutes afterwards, you would get very different answers.  And it is evident that the first perspective was incorrect.  Security is not a mind set, but the true level of security you are at cannot be absolutely determined until after that moment.  So, when we assess current security, it is more of a hypothesis than a fact.  The truth of the matter is that the instability of a measure of security inherently makes security unknowable until you look back on that particular instance.  Now that I think of it, even though I would say there are levels of security, it is near impossible to quantify security.  I suppose you could compare different situations to determine which one was more secure, but then you could not consider all the threats imaginable, or even compare the perceived threats of the times.  I have totally confused myself, but what I mean to say is that knowing how secure you are, or your nation is, is impossible.   

Security in Context

We often like to make philosophic arguments that is impossible to be completely secure. Well, yes. This is obvious. To be secure in an absolute sense is impossible, just as being completely rich, or completely full, is literally impossible. About the only thing you can be is completely dead (D:< BRUTAL). So really, arguing about whether or not it is possible to be completely secure is nonsensical. The "black swan" problem shows this. You may identify every white swan possible, but there always exists the one you can't. So we have to put this in an arguable context, or else the question is abusive and has no way to argue two sides of the question. The question is unanswerable. So yes, the infinite nature of possible threats makes full security impossible, considering anything can be perceived as a "threat."