149 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

I've never even heard of The Beast.

 

Plus, just putting it out there, it's Cult of Redezra dogma that Friedman is a hack. I don't believe and am strongly against Nostradamus like predictions of the future. I like being at least vaguely optimistic that nobody has any idea what the fuck is going on.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The Beast is a terrific movie.

 

There's a difference between predictions by someone like Nostradamus, supposedly using supernatural powers, and a trained, experienced historian. The first is voodoo nonsense, the second is at least based on some rational analysis of events. Of course the art of prognostication is always at least partly guesswork; Friedman acknowledges as much many times. But it is still possible to get a sense of the overall direction and where the evidence suggests things are going. Such analyses have a lot more value.

[slimshadyinc]

Does anyone else feel like Nostradamus was a little to vague?

[Haflinger]

Not at all. He provides a great backstory for First Wave.

 

(For those who haven't seen it, looks like it's all on YouTube.)

 

[Lord Draculea]

Geopolitics is a science pretty much the same way as Economics is. You can more or less put your trust in it, but to ignore it altogether is naive (to say the least). It uses geographical and civilisational rifts, historical patterns, and long term trends to try to make predictions of the future. Like with any prediction, the more specific it goes, the less accurate it gets. But at the same time (and perhaps counter-intuitively), longer term predictions tend to have a greater rate of success. It's like in fundamental Economics, where it is said that the exchange rate of two currencies can be better forecasted over 10 years than, say, 10 days or weeks.

[Redezra]

I still doubt any human can predict the future, especially when the future is based on human action.  I mean, look at the stock market.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

It's not so much predicting the future as forecasting trends. You would never see a guy like Friedman giving you names and dates, for example, only ranges. And he himself stresses over and over that his examples are only that — examples. He is more concerned with overall trends.

Predicting the stock market is voodoo. But looking at historical trend data and saying we are due for a recession is not. It's just science. Give me enough data and I will make predictions so accurate they will seem like magic.

[Manoka]

Well, anyways... Assad has killed hundreds of thousands, declared genocide against his own people, possesses nerve gas and other WMD's and has used them, displaced 9 million, created nearly 4 million refugees, started massacring anyone who stood against his regime, and caused a civil war to erupt in his own military as soldiers refused to slaughter their own civilians. His military has somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 people, 500 advanced aircraft, S-300 missiles which can take down even some American aircraft, and support from Russia in terms of funds and equipment. The military makes about 3 billion a year or more annually.

 

ISIS has killed a few thousand people, want to make their own country, largely possesses infantry weapon, with a few dozens stolen armored cars and 2 billion dollars in total assets. There's about 20-30,000 ISIS fighters total, and few advanced forms of technology, such as tanks, aircraft, or the like.

 

 

So... Syrian forces are larger, possess more advanced equipment, support from a country and have caused significantly more damage. Nearly two orders of magnitude, or over 100 times more deaths and casualties. 

 

But uh, ISIS is the lesser of two evils. You definitely called that one. 

[Lord Draculea]

I still doubt any human can predict the future, especially when the future is based on human action.  I mean, look at the stock market.

Then you should disregard science as well, 'cause that's what it does: predict the future.

The Stock Market is a different story: its short term moves are largely emotional and caused by factors that noone can control (though some think they can, and some even occasionally succeed). It instantly reacts to the daily news flow, driven by greed and fear; even educated speculators take short positions, to protect themselves against the "self-fulfilling prophecies". But in the long run, the fundamentals shall prevail. If those are good, long terms investors (such as pension funds, insurance companies) mind their own strategies, and only adjust their positions based on changes in their long term vision.

[Thrash]

the stock markets are run by algorithims and the fed, if the algos do bad, the fed steps in

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Stock markets aren't really "run" by anything, at least not anything so simple that it can be described in one short sentence. A conglomeration of forces come together to dictate how the stock market behaves. If the Fed controlled it they wouldn't have spent the last few years keeping interest rates artificially low in a desperate attempt to keep it propped up. Human psychology plays a big role, too, as Draculea points out.

 

The problem with using the stock market as a measure of the nation's economic health is that a huge swath of the population has no involvement in the stock market whatsoever. And another large chunk, like myself, have only tangential involvement through pensions and retirement funds. The stock market is a good indicator of how rich people are doing, and not much else.

[Haflinger]

Given how much voodoo is apparently capable these days, I should go hire a houngan. Maybe get some stock tips.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Given how much voodoo is apparently capable these days, I should go hire a houngan. Maybe get some stock tips.

 

There was once a study in which students picked stocks by throwing darts at a board. Their mock investments did just as well as those chosen by an expert. So a houngan might not be a bad idea!

[lennybronx]

America is all about installing Democracy in other nations whenever the chance presents itself. However, similar to what was said earlier, sometimes the lesser of two evils needs to be selected for the sake of long term gain. Iraq is an example i always like to use. Do people seriously believe there would be an ISIS in Iraq if Saddam was still in power? No. I just feel there needs to be more strategic planning involved when making these decisions. We went into Iraq, caused a shit hole, pulled out too early and now we have ISIS. 

 

I dont like Assad just as much as the next guy but i just want to point out something people in America tend to forget. WE HAD A CIVIL WAR TOO. And just like now, there were countries that supported either side, and there were a lot of deaths.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Democracy is overrated. Anyway the version of democracy America promotes is more like corporate oligarchy.

 

A lot of countries (maybe even most countries) have had civil wars. And it's not unusual for other countries to get dragged into these things. In that sense, nothing has changed. But the stakes have gotten higher. Man's ability to kill his fellow man has grown exponentially in the past 100 years. Assad has already used chemical weapons; in all likelihood the rebels have, too (even the "goodguys"). Imagine what would happen if one of the warring parties got hold of a nuke?

[Redezra]

I still doubt any human can predict the future, especially when the future is based on human action.  I mean, look at the stock market.

Then you should disregard science as well, 'cause that's what it does: predict the future.

The Stock Market is a different story: its short term moves are largely emotional and caused by factors that noone can control (though some think they can, and some even occasionally succeed). It instantly reacts to the daily news flow, driven by greed and fear; even educated speculators take short positions, to protect themselves against the "self-fulfilling prophecies". But in the long run, the fundamentals shall prevail. If those are good, long terms investors (such as pension funds, insurance companies) mind their own strategies, and only adjust their positions based on changes in their long term vision.

Future based on a lack of humans is nigh deterministic. Humans have too many factors for humans to predict.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

We accurately predict human behavior all the time, such as when Target figures out that someone is pregnant based on their buying habits. It's just data.

[Redezra]

Ehhhh I'd say that's comparing apples and oranges.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Not at all. It's just a matter of the amount and detail of the data. I would expect you of ALL people to appreciate the elegant beauty of that!

[Haflinger]

We accurately predict human behavior all the time, such as when Target figures out that someone is pregnant based on their buying habits. It's just data.

That's not prediction, it's analysis.

 

Now if Target was predicting that someone was going to vote Republican in 20 years time based on their buying habits now, you'd have a point.