Thread: Politics - this would be counterintuitive for many

Here's a bit of a sensationalist, but still pretty relevant illustration that may change your views on politics and policy:

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicts Iran's future | Video on TED.com

I watched the video and I think he's right but my immediate impression is that he hasn't said anything very profound.

For example, his conclusion is that Iran will do what it says it will do, i.e., use nuclear power for electricity and not make a bomb. Well, what Iran will do is not, in fact, the problem. The problem is that the US and Israel don't believe Iran. So, the real question is not what Iran will do, but what Israel and the US will do and he didn't talk about that.

Despite the common wisdom, I believe that Israel knows that Iran isn't going to build a bomb and doesn't care one way or the other. Why? Because Israel already has a lot of bombs and can't use them. Iran will have the same problem. What's Iran going to do with a bomb? Drop it on Israel? Fat chance! Israel is interested in reducing Iran's influence and isolating it, whether or not it has a bomb.

If Israel attacks Iran, that will make it more likely that it will want a bomb and this guy hasn't put that into his model.

So, long story short, a lot of nothing.

He did say that the model assumes that Iran was more or less left alone to the same extent that it has been.

actually my reason for posting this was not the particular illustration, but to point out that this approach is starting to get traction in policy making (it's been in academia for the last 20-30 or so years where it has gained a rather significant share).

i've noticed consistently in political threads quite a bit of ignorance of how things are happening and thought this would be somewhat stimulating one's critical rationale.

i would be rather surprised if you haven't already googled his ideas about other issues, such as the israeli-palestinian conflict and north korea....

here's a few years old profile article some of you may find interesting GOOD Magazine | Goodmagazine - The New Nostradamus

Originally Posted by Chimensch

So, long story short, a lot of nothing.

Well, I don't know if you paid attention starting at 11:45. There are two curves, it's billions worth of dollars difference right there. I wouldn't call that nothing, but I could use 'a lot' to describe it.

As far as what he has in his model, I don't think you know, but my money would be that the scenario you mention is actually in there as well.

BTW he was paid a lot of money in the Marconi merger for example, so it's not like this is esotherics nobody cares about.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Well, what Iran will do is not, in fact, the problem.

Unless they do something that is a problem.

The way the Iranians are making the fuel is the problem. The process they are using is not the process needed to make the fuel for a power plant. They are investing quite a bit of time and money to take it to the next step. So, it is hard for me to believe that they just want to make a power plant.

The Israelis have proven that they will nip things of this nature in the bud when they did it to Syria a couple of years ago. Iran is just a little bit further away.

This guy's model has the Iranians sitting around with a lump of weapons grade fuel in 2011 and nothing else to show for their trouble. I have a hard time believing that. The Iranians already have a missile program that can deliver a substantial payload a considerable distance.

Whether they end up using it or not, it should prove to make them a lot of money if they build it. It will open up trade for them as they would have one heck of a trading tool. Then, because they are somewhat industrialized, they will manufacture goods and send them out to whoever will buy them. This makes sense to me in the long run for them, because if they really do want to use it, they will then have to defend themselves from some very big guns already aimed in their direction.

Game theory is pretty neat stuff. Thats my story and I am sticking to it!

-Rob

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, I don't know if you paid attention starting at 11:45. There are two curves, it's billions worth of dollars difference right there. I wouldn't call that nothing, but I could use 'a lot' to describe it.

As far as what he has in his model, I don't think you know, but my money would be that the scenario you mention is actually in there as well.

BTW he was paid a lot of money in the Marconi merger for example, so it's not like this is esotherics nobody cares about.

So, let's assume that this fellow modelled Saddam Hussein's options and he went and told Bush and Cheney that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction ... do you see my point?

There was more than enough information about Saddam proving that an invasion wasn't necessary except for the fact that Bush wanted to invade. There is more than enough evidence that Iran would not be a nuclear threat if left alone, except there are people who don't want to leave it alone.

I have another objection to this modelling technique that came to me later. Assuming that the tool wins wide acceptance, what's to stop the programmers from tampering with it to make the model produce the outcome that the people in power want. In my scenario above, don't you think Bush would have said, "Go back and tweak your model so that it shows what I want it to show"? Accountants do it all the time.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

So, let's assume that this fellow modelled Saddam Hussein's options and he went and told Bush and Cheney that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction ... do you see my point?

no reason to assume, he did. i don't see the point you are trying to make.

it's just another tool to the currently available ones, e.g. 'analyses by expert'. and as any tool it's been tested and continues to be tested against the others. i don't think it's the ultimate tool, but in the majority of tests it has performed at least as well, or better as the alternatives. your objections applied to the alternative approaches are even stronger.

to repeat my point, it seems that this is performing sufficiently well that it's already getting attention from those who can use it. i think it should be pretty clear that we're just observers to the process and the policy makers are the ones who make policy based on whatever they think it should be based on.

i'm most certainly a fan of having more good tools than fewer.
(and i'd still prefer accounting done by an accountant instead of an expert with an opinion on what the numbers should be.)