An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Or the various activitives and "behavior" of government isn't guided by an ideology so it seems twisted and incoherent to those who apply narratives and motivations where none exist. I'd been thinking the same thing as I flipped back at all the articles on MNE last weekend. The "analysis" of many of these events and political leaders come back to bite them in the tucus. I find the narratives to be unhelpful and prefer to know what has happened than why someone thinks what has happened, happened.
I think the alternatives to the narratives are either 1) moronism, and 2) competing interests in government, as James Petras suggests in his post that I linked to, where different faction pursue policies and implementing strategies and tactics in ways that are interest-driven rather than integrated under an overarching policy and strategy that is determinative, so the result seems somewhat chaotic.
Zbig has admitted that the mujahideen were sponsored in Afghanistan to counter Russia and he also said that the blowback of "radical Islam in MENA was worth taking down the USSR, in the course of which Afghanistan was instrumental. So I think this at least is settled.
I also think that in most everything, moronism is heavily involved.
There are also competing interests. This is pretty identifiable, and "going rogue" is not unusual. For example, it's pretty well known that the Pentagon has been at odds with President Obama since day one, when he started implementing Bush's agreement with the Iraqi government for the US to leave Iraq.
2 comments:
Or the various activitives and "behavior" of government isn't guided by an ideology so it seems twisted and incoherent to those who apply narratives and motivations where none exist. I'd been thinking the same thing as I flipped back at all the articles on MNE last weekend. The "analysis" of many of these events and political leaders come back to bite them in the tucus. I find the narratives to be unhelpful and prefer to know what has happened than why someone thinks what has happened, happened.
I think the alternatives to the narratives are either 1) moronism, and 2) competing interests in government, as James Petras suggests in his post that I linked to, where different faction pursue policies and implementing strategies and tactics in ways that are interest-driven rather than integrated under an overarching policy and strategy that is determinative, so the result seems somewhat chaotic.
Zbig has admitted that the mujahideen were sponsored in Afghanistan to counter Russia and he also said that the blowback of "radical Islam in MENA was worth taking down the USSR, in the course of which Afghanistan was instrumental. So I think this at least is settled.
I also think that in most everything, moronism is heavily involved.
There are also competing interests. This is pretty identifiable, and "going rogue" is not unusual. For example, it's pretty well known that the Pentagon has been at odds with President Obama since day one, when he started implementing Bush's agreement with the Iraqi government for the US to leave Iraq.
Post a Comment