Sanctions vs. war [vs. trade]
Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:35:49 -0800
> 1) I said more, not they win we lose.
Please explain the mechanism. A trade
improves the lot of both parties, and
they split that benefit somehow. How
does one party consistently manage to
skim off most of the benefit?
> 2) In issues of military policy economic gains aren't the only yardstick
> worth considering.
Yes, but the abstraction of economic
thought is that we can reduce things
to a single utility measure. Some
forms of power are more liquid (more
readily deployed), but some forms of
capital are also more liquid, which
doesn't seem to bother anyone.
I believe we are both trying to figure
out what the strongest course of action
for the US may be. If time and chance
will not treat the US and Iraq equally,
then perhaps we are not in the stronger
position, and (pace morals) should then
consider attacks. But time and chance
are not noted for playing favorites, so
why should they in this case?
:: :: ::
I was guilty of five-fingering from
Friedrich without checking context
(if aphorisms are meant for context),
so, as an avowed pot-caller:
> "There is a time to kill ..." Proverbs
not the preacher? Ecc. 3:
| ... and a time to heal ... I know that there is no good in them, but
| for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life ... God shall judge
| the righteous and the wicked ... All go unto one place; all are of
| the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man
| that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to
| the earth? Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than
| that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion ...
> "If it 'twere to be done, tis best done quickly." Shakespeare. And Bush
... but as I recall, Macbeth's use of
force does not end happily:
"and damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'"