[kenrexford]

 Winstonm, on 2016-September-13, 17:53, said:

Jihad may indeed be a part of Islam but according to this it is not an excuse for terror or terrorism.

Otherwise, I think you are exaggerating the threat from terrorists and terror, and that you see it as such an important threat goes a long way IMO to understanding why you are swayed by a touch-talking con man running for President.

For as many decades as I can remember at least since the fall of the Soviet Union politics has been about two issues. Sure there might be other fluff issues but there are basically two issues. Number one it's the economy stupid. Number 2. What the heck are we going to do about the Middle East?

I have no earthly idea what's going on in South America these days. I mean I hear things every once in awhile but generally have no clue. Sub-Saharan Africa is barely discussed except on TV ads for the children. Cool things are happening in India apparently. Don't really know much. All of Asia east of a line due north of India is relatively boring. Russia has a strong man who likes to bark every once in awhile. Europe is bickering. What the whole conversation is always about the Middle East. Crazy people doing crazy things killing maiming whatever. Trying to get over here or in the European to Asia or wherever and blow things up there too.

My point is the terrorism per se is not necessarily all that. It's really bad because a lot of people are dying. For that part of the world just won't stop distracting us from everything else. Who gets top Wars there and stop meddling there and let the crazy people do whatever the crazy people do maybe we could get our economy In-Shape schools in shape and heck maybe even colonize the moon or Mars. It's like a family who is obsessed with dealing with a drug addict uncle. Sometimes the family health requires that we just let the uncle go do his thing and then show up at the funeral.

[Winstonm]

 kenrexford, on 2016-September-13, 20:49, said:

For as many decades as I can remember at least since the fall of the Soviet Union politics has been about two issues. Sure there might be other fluff issues but there are basically two issues. Number one it's the economy stupid. Number 2. What the heck are we going to do about the Middle East?

I have no earthly idea what's going on in South America these days. I mean I hear things every once in awhile but generally have no clue. Sub-Saharan Africa is barely discussed except on TV ads for the children. Cool things are happening in India apparently. Don't really know much. All of Asia east of a line due north of India is relatively boring. Russia has a strong man who likes to bark every once in awhile. Europe is bickering. What the whole conversation is always about the Middle East. Crazy people doing crazy things killing maiming whatever. Trying to get over here or in the European to Asia or wherever and blow things up there too.

My point is the terrorism per se is not necessarily all that. It's really bad because a lot of people are dying. For that part of the world just won't stop distracting us from everything else. Who gets top Wars there and stop meddling there and let the crazy people do whatever the crazy people do maybe we could get our economy In-Shape schools in shape and heck maybe even colonize the moon or Mars. It's like a family who is obsessed with dealing with a drug addict uncle. Sometimes the family health requires that we just let the uncle go do his thing and then show up at the funeral.

I think you have your shoes on the wrong feet. Most middle east terrorists are Arabs who happen to be Muslim rather than Muslims who happen to be Arab. Radicalization is not a religious phenomenon.

The Arab problem is social, economic, and political - and ancient. But the problem is not their religious preferences.

[The_Badger]

Here's a bit of 'light relief' (among the 14 pages of replies on here) for us statistically-minded bods courtesy of Columbia University.

And yes, I know, it's quite bizarre what university students study these days...

http://www.stat.colu...gelman_icml.pdf

[hrothgar]

 kenrexford, on 2016-September-13, 20:35, said:

What about the socioeconomics of the Middle East? How precisely did the socio-economic arise? Do you somehow think that the Middle East which has constantly been the center of Commerce and now an oil Mecca magically turned socioeconomicly destitute? Was there a meteor that hit?

The Middle East got hit by five significant meteors (I'll arrange them chronologically)

1. The first was the Mongol invasion, the subsequent destruction of the irrigation system in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and the desertification of Iraq
2. The second was the discovery of sea routes to India and China which allowed trade to bypass the old Silk Road
3. The third was the inflationary cycles caused by the large influx of Spanish silver into the Mediterranean trading area
4. The fourth was the British and French colonial efforts with their deliberate attempts to foment ethnic tensions and consciously cultivate a privileged minority who would rule over a larger subject class
5. The last was oil itself. (There's all sorts of literature about the curse of being an oil exporter with a larger population)

(The fact that you seem unaware of any of this is kinda telling)

I'll note in passing that my father wrote a rather amusing article 35 years ago or so.

He noted that there is an weather pattern that crops up in Europe on occasion. In Switzerland and southern Germany its called a föhn. Its a very hot, dry wind. What makes this interesting is that the wind seems to have a significant effect on folk's behavior. In fact, the German legal code called for reduced sentencing if one committed a crime when this wind was blowing.

Coincidentally, this is pretty much the same weather pattern that you have in the Middle East 24x7.
I'm not sure if he was completely serious, but he used to say that you take sane Europeans, drop them into the Middle East for 30 or so years, and you end up with modern Israel.

And, of course, there is also the fact that this started out as a discussion of Islam and less than 20% of the world's muslims live there.
As I recall, the areas nations with the large muslim populations are in the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia...

[kenberg]

 The_Badger, on 2016-September-14, 01:46, said:

Here's a bit of 'light relief' (among the 14 pages of replies on here) for us statistically-minded bods courtesy of Columbia University.

And yes, I know, it's quite bizarre what university students study these days...

http://www.stat.colu...gelman_icml.pdf

I believe more study is needed here, perhaps I will apply for a grant. In particular, we have to examine whether No Trump is positively or negatively correlated with the declarer's view of a Trump presidency. "Trump" might be upsetting, but "No Trump" might be soothing. Or vice versa, of course, it all depends.

We also need to examine whether more hands are passed out than before. It could be that players are so upset by having to choose between a Trump contract and a No Trump contract that they avoid the whole issue by passing.

I believe there is a great opportunity here. If we play our cards right we should be able to support several graduate students on a research grant.

[Zelandakh]

 kenrexford, on 2016-September-13, 20:49, said:

For as many decades as I can remember at least since the fall of the Soviet Union politics has been about two issues. Sure there might be other fluff issues but there are basically two issues. Number one it's the economy stupid. Number 2. What the heck are we going to do about the Middle East?

Rather depends on what you mean by "the economy". I would say that "fluff issues" such as those attached to the aging population are in the long term far more important than the Middle East question, particularly for America with the immigration levels being rather different from those of some European countries. And there are other current questions too that might yet turn out to be historically critical - an Iranian nuclear device for example. It is far too early to say that the 2 issues you list are the key political actions of the current time.

[kenrexford]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-September-14, 06:06, said:

Rather depends on what you mean by "the economy". I would say that "fluff issues" such as those attached to the aging population are in the long term far more important than the Middle East question, particularly for America with the immigration levels being rather different from those of some European countries. And there are other current questions too that might yet turn out to be historically critical - an Iranian nuclear device for example. It is far too early to say that the 2 issues you list are the key political actions of the current time.

The aging population is an economy issue.
The Iranian nuclear threat is a Middle East issue.

I agree with you that the fluff issues are or should be more important. Because of the bush and clinton schools, they are put on the back burner.

Your post seems to be a rebuttal, but you get an amen from me.

[Winstonm]

This has an interesting chart concerning terror attacks in the U.S.

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2016-September-14, 21:59, said:

This has an interesting chart concerning terror attacks in the U.S.

What a strange graph and article. They compare ideological categories with one ethnicity (Jewish) and also Latino which is a collection of many ethnicities. They include "extreme left wing groups" but ignore right wing ones. And that is just the graph. The first paragraph rants about Jewish extremists, then they go on to compare terrorism to crime and call out the FBI for entrapment of would-be Muslim terrorists. (Some of this in quotes from elsewhere, but quotes are selected.)

There may be some interesting data, but overall I will not be putting much stock in this article.

[Winstonm]

 billw55, on 2016-September-15, 06:54, said:

What a strange graph and article. They compare ideological categories with one ethnicity (Jewish) and also Latino which is a collection of many ethnicities. They include "extreme left wing groups" but ignore right wing ones. And that is just the graph. The first paragraph rants about Jewish extremists, then they go on to compare terrorism to crime and call out the FBI for entrapment of would-be Muslim terrorists. (Some of this in quotes from elsewhere, but quotes are selected.)

There may be some interesting data, but overall I will not be putting much stock in this article.

I don't think the issue is the non-Islamic classifications but the comparison of 6% Islamic extremists to 94% Other. To be fair, this chart only goes until 2012 so it omits the shootings in California and Florida that were Isis-inspired, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing. Perhaps frequency of attacks is increasing. The article is mute on that point.

The main point I had in providing this information was to emphasize that the chance of being injured by an Islamic terrorist is quite low in the U.S. so the over-the-top response many have to the threat is misguided - and probably encouraged by the images and stories of terrorist attacks from around the world as well as here that makes terrorists attacks appear epidemic.

To me, the amount of fear is disproportionate to the threat; reminds me of some who live here in Oklahoma and fear tornadoes to the point where every cloud on the horizon is seen as a threat. Even here, tornadoes are infrequent; terror attacks even more so.

This is not to say we should ignore the threat of terror or abandon efforts to stop terrorists. It is an effort to remind ourselves to place threats in proper perspective.

[hrothgar]

 hrothgar, on 2016-September-14, 04:44, said:

The Middle East got hit by five significant meteors (I'll arrange them chronologically)

1. The first was the Mongol invasion, the subsequent destruction of the irrigation system in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and the desertification of Iraq
2. The second was the discovery of sea routes to India and China which allowed trade to bypass the old Silk Road
3. The third was the inflationary cycles caused by the large influx of Spanish silver into the Mediterranean trading area
4. The fourth was the British and French colonial efforts with their deliberate attempts to foment ethnic tensions and consciously cultivate a privileged minority who would rule over a larger subject class
5. The last was oil itself. (There's all sorts of literature about the curse of being an oil exporter with a larger population)

What, no respond from ken?
Guess he was just blowing smoke as usual...

[kenrexford]

 hrothgar, on 2016-September-15, 10:41, said:

What, no respond from ken?
Guess he was just blowing smoke as usual...

Your challenge is stupid. There is nothing all that impressive about listing ridiculous factors and then suggesting that the extreme detail proves that you are correct.

I mean, just to humor you, let's look through your brilliances.

1a. Mongol invasion. The Mongols invaded Europe. The Muslims invaded Europe. Europeans from every part of Europe invaded every other part of Europe. WWI and WWII were fought in Europe and decimated Europe.

1b. Destruction of the irrigation systems and desertification of Iraq. The Middle East was a place of lunatics before any of this. Consider, e.g., Assyria. Lunatics. Islam did not create the lunacy. Islam arose from the lunacy and reinforced it. Besides, we are now supposedly in a tech world, where crops are not all that important (i.e., Japan).

2. Sea routes. I am sure that you are correct, in that sea routes took away the monopoly. However, in the face of this, the Muslin world opted against colonializing and developing an effective navy, or lost in that race, instead opting to enslave and sell the slaves. Why is that?

3. Inflationary cycles. Bread cost something like a billion dollars in Germany. The Germans accordingly went nuts. So, sure, inflationary cycles can and do cause people to go nuts. But, have the monetary policies of the Middle East been in place for about 1400 years? God help us if the FED is around screwing things up in the year 3346.

4. Colonialism. So, the Muslin world should be mad at the West for talking the Muslim world into being more openly and aggressively racist/sectarian? I mean, please. Before colonialism, there was one privileged minority who beat the crap out of any dissent. After colonialism, there were over a dozen little privileged minorities who each had their own little piece of the pie who beat the crap out of any dissent. Why? Because the dissent was never a well-reasoned nuance of democratic ideals. The "dissent" was "Allah wants us to kill you, not you to kill us."

5. Yes, the availability of oil is also killing the United States. We are quite cursed. We even have lunatics like Sarah Palin begging us to drill baby drill and thereby speed up our ruin. If we would only shut down the refineries and drilling, and buy the oil from others, we would be in much better shape. I agree.

You will undoubtedly have more points or counters to this. However, "meteors" hit everywhere. How a society reacts to meteors tells something about that society. I cannot recall any society deciding that death to all others is the primary solution for all problems. Hitler came close, but I would not want to be in his company. The only other real parallel seems to be Krikkit.

[mike777]

I hope readers will take the time to watch the entire discussion:

".....The key problem: Lack of shared prosperity

Porter says the key issue for America today is a lack of “shared prosperity,” as working and middle-class citizens are struggling.

“The lack of shared prosperity has rightly been a central issue in the 2016 campaign, but the diagnoses and proposed solutions are way off the mark,” the report points out.

As the middle class began to stagnate amid globalization and technological change, instead of increasing investments, the US made “unsustainable promises” to maintain the “illusion of shared prosperity,” the report notes. That included extending credit, expanding entitlements and increasing public-sector benefits......" Michael Porter

https://finance.yaho...-030021739.html


"...the manifestation of competitiveness is productivity, Porter explains. A nation can only compete successfully and pay rising wages through high value of output per worker and per dollar of capital invested.

But productivity growth has been stuck below long-term levels, hitting negative territory in the last three quarters...."

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2016-September-15, 07:57, said:

I don't think the issue is the non-Islamic classifications but the comparison of 6% Islamic extremists to 94% Other. To be fair, this chart only goes until 2012 so it omits the shootings in California and Florida that were Isis-inspired, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing. Perhaps frequency of attacks is increasing. The article is mute on that point.

The main point I had in providing this information was to emphasize that the chance of being injured by an Islamic terrorist is quite low in the U.S. so the over-the-top response many have to the threat is misguided - and probably encouraged by the images and stories of terrorist attacks from around the world as well as here that makes terrorists attacks appear epidemic.

To me, the amount of fear is disproportionate to the threat; reminds me of some who live here in Oklahoma and fear tornadoes to the point where every cloud on the horizon is seen as a threat. Even here, tornadoes are infrequent; terror attacks even more so.

This is not to say we should ignore the threat of terror or abandon efforts to stop terrorists. It is an effort to remind ourselves to place threats in proper perspective.

Winston you leave out important information and do not put the threat in "proper perspective" regarding the chances of being injured by Islamic terrorist. Trillions have been spent to lower the chances. Armies have been sent around the world to lower the chances. Posters keep quoting how low the chances are but that is after spending trillions, after great blood, sweat and tears and sacrifice by military families. We have turned our airports into armed camps where we wait in lines for hours to fly.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-September-15, 15:06, said:

Winston you leave out important information and do not put the threat in "proper perspective" regarding the chances of being injured by Islamic terrorist. Trillions have been spent to lower the chances. Armies have been sent around the world to lower the chances. Posters keep quoting how low the chances are but that is after spending trillions, after great blood, sweat and tears and sacrifice by military families.

The "armies sent around the world" are what created the opportunity for Isis to gain ground. The present course of action with fewer ground troops and more drone strikes seems to be working at least as well, if not better, than other options.

I don't leave out the military; neither do I blindly praise all military efforts. Some actions have been good; many have backfired.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2016-September-15, 15:13, said:

The "armies sent around the world" are what created the opportunity for Isis to gain ground. The present course of action with fewer ground troops and more drone strikes seems to be working at least as well, if not better, than other options.

I don't leave out the military; neither do I blindly praise all military efforts. Some actions have been good; many have backfired.

So the proper perspective is to keep sending billions if not trillions on our military around the world and spending trillions on home security? not sure what your point is.
You started out saying the chances are low, very low for us to be attacked and not over react and so??

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-September-15, 15:19, said:

So the proper perspective is to keep sending billions if not trillions on our military around the world and spending trillions on home security? not sure what your point is.
You started out saying the chances are low, very low for us to be attacked and not over react and so??

My point is that you exaggerate the benefits of military intervention to support your viewpoint that there are immediate and tremendous dangers from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

[hrothgar]

 kenrexford, on 2016-September-15, 12:49, said:

Your challenge is stupid. There is nothing all that impressive about listing ridiculous factors and then suggesting that the extreme detail proves that you are correct.

I mean, just to humor you, let's look through your brilliances.

1a. Mongol invasion. The Mongols invaded Europe. The Muslims invaded Europe. Europeans from every part of Europe invaded every other part of Europe. WWI and WWII were fought in Europe and decimated Europe.

1b. Destruction of the irrigation systems and desertification of Iraq. The Middle East was a place of lunatics before any of this. Consider, e.g., Assyria. Lunatics. Islam did not create the lunacy. Islam arose from the lunacy and reinforced it. Besides, we are now supposedly in a tech world, where crops are not all that important (i.e., Japan).

2. Sea routes. I am sure that you are correct, in that sea routes took away the monopoly. However, in the face of this, the Muslin world opted against colonializing and developing an effective navy, or lost in that race, instead opting to enslave and sell the slaves. Why is that?

3. Inflationary cycles. Bread cost something like a billion dollars in Germany. The Germans accordingly went nuts. So, sure, inflationary cycles can and do cause people to go nuts. But, have the monetary policies of the Middle East been in place for about 1400 years? God help us if the FED is around screwing things up in the year 3346.

4. Colonialism. So, the Muslin world should be mad at the West for talking the Muslim world into being more openly and aggressively racist/sectarian? I mean, please. Before colonialism, there was one privileged minority who beat the crap out of any dissent. After colonialism, there were over a dozen little privileged minorities who each had their own little piece of the pie who beat the crap out of any dissent. Why? Because the dissent was never a well-reasoned nuance of democratic ideals. The "dissent" was "Allah wants us to kill you, not you to kill us."

5. Yes, the availability of oil is also killing the United States. We are quite cursed. We even have lunatics like Sarah Palin begging us to drill baby drill and thereby speed up our ruin. If we would only shut down the refineries and drilling, and buy the oil from others, we would be in much better shape. I agree.

You will undoubtedly have more points or counters to this. However, "meteors" hit everywhere. How a society reacts to meteors tells something about that society. I cannot recall any society deciding that death to all others is the primary solution for all problems. Hitler came close, but I would not want to be in his company. The only other real parallel seems to be Krikkit.

Ken, this would work much better if you were able to remember details of a discussion.

This all started when you made some laughably ignorant comments about inherent characteristics of Islam as a religion.
I countered by saying that you were conflating broader characteristics regarding the Middle East with Islam.

When you make comments like " The Middle East was a place of lunatics before any of this. Consider, e.g., Assyria. Lunatics. Islam did not create the lunacy. Islam arose from the lunacy and reinforced it." you are conceding my basic point.
If you agree to do so, we can then go and consider the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia (home to 80% of the world's Muslims and a much better place to consider the role of Islam in society than the Middle East.

Before doing so, lets examine some more of the gems of wisdom that you dispensed.

You criticize me for listing "ridiculous factors". To start with, this was a direct response to your own comment "What meteor hit the Middle East?"
I gave you five very big ones...

One of the (several) undergraduate degrees that I have is in history (I specifically focused in the Ottoman Empire)
Please trust me when I say that all of these events are considered as being quite significant.

As to some of your other pearls of wisdom

1. Yes, World War I and World War II devastated Europe. England, France, and Germany were destroyed as world powers.
How does that in any way negate my claim that the Mongol invasion had a similar impact on the Abbasid caliphate.

If anything, by claiming that major wars can devastate a region, you are supporting my main point.

Oh, BTW, while the Mongols did invade Europe, their impact was limited to Russia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, and Turkey.
he first three were pretty much backwaters for the next 500 years.

2. The Ottoman's had a highly effective navies that operated in both the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. The issue here is not that the Ottoman's could not trade with India and China, rather, they lost their ability to extract monopolistic rents

3. There's plenty of good material out there discussion the Spanish price revolution

Here's one of the first sentences from wikipedia "The Spanish Price Revolution is overwhelmingly the most prolonged and influential occurrence of rampant inflation in modern history."

5. With respect to the curse of oil, wikipedia once again has a decent enough treatment

https://en.wikipedia.../Resource_curse

These aren't minor little things that I identified.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2016-September-15, 15:25, said:

My point is that you exaggerate the benefits of military intervention to support your viewpoint that there are immediate and tremendous dangers from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

I did not exaggerate anything, you made the claim that the odds are low for attacks, I agreed. You just left out information, facts, and did not put it in proper perspective, I did. Hopefully everyone can agree that we are against over reactions.

Now you advocate for robots to do our killing rather than humans. You advocate for more robots to do the killing and fewer human ground troops .


At some point we need to discuss the ethical treatment not only of animals but of robots.

In the mean time back home here in the USA we have numerous protests of the police oppression of people of color. In some cities we have riots as a response to police oppression, the police killing people of color and the justice system putting so many people of color in prison.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-September-15, 13:05, said:

I hope readers will take the time to watch the entire discussion:

".....The key problem: Lack of shared prosperity

Porter says the key issue for America today is a lack of “shared prosperity,” as working and middle-class citizens are struggling.

“The lack of shared prosperity has rightly been a central issue in the 2016 campaign, but the diagnoses and proposed solutions are way off the mark,” the report points out.

As the middle class began to stagnate amid globalization and technological change, instead of increasing investments, the US made “unsustainable promises” to maintain the “illusion of shared prosperity,” the report notes. That included extending credit, expanding entitlements and increasing public-sector benefits......" Michael Porter

https://finance.yaho...-030021739.html


"...the manifestation of competitiveness is productivity, Porter explains. A nation can only compete successfully and pay rising wages through high value of output per worker and per dollar of capital invested.

But productivity growth has been stuck below long-term levels, hitting negative territory in the last three quarters...."

Quote

Source: Harvard Business School US Competitiveness Project
Porter says the key barrier to progress is the political system.

“We’ve concluded after these five years of work on this that actually the political system and the political rhetoric is the problem at the core,” Porter said. “Because of the political gridlock we’ve not been able to make any progress on a lot of the basics.”

Gridlock fault lies on the right hand side of the isle.