17-11-2015: appointment results

i know this is going to upset people on both the left and the right, but this is the right choice and that will become clear over time.

to win this fight, you don't need to merely destroy targets - and the bombing can make the problem worse through further radicalization if it hits the wrong targets. to be successful, the logical conclusion of the approach taken by our allies will necessarily require committing war crimes on a broad scale over a very long period. france is committing itself to a decades long quagmire that can only end with the area in a crater, or with a withdrawal. and, the idea of a lasting peace becomes out of reach. it's a formula for perpetual war.

nor do you need to merely occupy the region with just any troops. western troops will always be viewed as illegitimate occupiers, and will always be targets.

nor do you need to merely occupy the region with local troops, although this is a necessary precondition.

what you need to do is to find a way to convince the local population to work with the local troops in rebuilding. in germany, that was easy. it's not going to be so easy here. this is a propaganda war and a hard propaganda war at that....

if we cannot find a way to convince the local population to work with local troops, the war will never end.

what that means is that trudeau doesn't just have a task ahead of him in adjusting our own role. he also has a task ahead of him in convincing our allies that he's right, and that his approach is the only approach that can end the conflict. if we switch to training, and they keep bombing, there's still no end in sight.

but, do our allies want to end the conflict? and, how are we to react if we learn that they don't?

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-iraq-trainers-military-1.3322288

i can follow your logic in the abstract, but i really don't see how it fits the evidence.

if what you were saying were true, the governments of the united states and canada would:

(1) stop fracking.
(2) stop muzzling climate change scientists.
(3) stop subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
(4) drop billions into renewable energy.
(5) stop trying to control all the rest of the oil on the planet.

but, the exact opposite seems to be happening. it's really hard to actually trace these bribes you're talking about. i mean, there's a bit of cash coming from investment funds (like tides). but it's nothing compared to the subsidies going out to coal & oil. conversely, it's pretty easy to trace the funds coming out of organizations like the heartland institute.

even so, you're not really addressing the issue. what you're claiming is that the issue is impossible to address. and, that would actually logically lead to agnosticism. your argument is not that the science is wrong, it's that you don't trust the science. rejecting it is a leap of faith.

i'd be tempted to conclude that your little story here is a way to suggest that you, yourself, are being bribed. but, i don't think that's actually true. rather, i think you just don't like the proposals that climate change activists present because they tend to lead to bigger government. it's not a left/right thing like you suggested in your video, it's more an action/reaction thing.

but, you're surely aware that there's a huge number of libertarian environmentalists that suggest things such as privately owned rivers in order to deal with these kinds of concerns. now, i think this is insane. and, i don't know exactly what your views on owning rivers are. but, i'm sure you can come up with an answer that you can ideologically support, and i think it would help a lot.

i'd much rather see a debate over what the best approach to solving the issue is than a debate over whether it's actually an issue. frankly, i think you'd get more public support on solutions than i would.

there's a point here when somebody asks if this is all about investors, but in sort of a tongue in cheek way that suggests it was more of a comment: that this is all about investors.

but, it's also a good example of why normal plebs like me view financial experts as charlatans to be treated with derision or even contempt.

summers spends a good chunk near the end defending his position as essentially harmless. that's not the right argument, not even under attack. it suggests that the best reason to listen to him is that it won't make any difference. but, then, why listen to him? yet, he lets on something that he's clearly aware of: it really won't make any difference. or, at least it won't make any difference in the context that the panel is supposed to be discussing.

the debate doesn't exist in the real world. both sides are trying to present an argument designed to convince an audience on terms that are entirely disingenuous. the debate is presented here as being about sound fiscal management, aggregate demand - policy positions.

but, it's really all about investors.

see, short term loans are casino capitalism and benefit investors that want to play the market like it's vegas. buy low, sell high. run it up; burst it. somebody's always manipulating the market. somebody's getting rich fast, and somebody's getting poor fast. long term loans are investment capitalism and benefit things like pension funds and state actors. it's about buying a lot of something that you can have a high certainty will gain value predictably over time.

from a policy perspective, it really doesn't matter. but, it matters a lot if you're trying to set the rules of the game.