On Augustine, Aquinas, and the transition from Roman Empire to the medieval, and to the pre-modern

Unlike Aquinas, Augstine was very autocratic and dogmatic. Augstine believed that how human-beings, at the current (contemporary) time, are not how they ought to be. Therefore, they need a strict principle like the "idea" (This indicates Augstine was strongly influenced by Plato) to guide them to how they should be. The problem of his idea is that there is "no stop point" where all human-beings are fulfilled in what God, the idea, claim. That's why Augstine stated. Aquinas was more realistic and Augustine. Aquinas at least knew how human-beings are at the current (contemporary) is what God initially planned them to be. So, we can neither complain nor expect them to be at the ideal state. Aqunas argued that we coexist with our sins but we have to resist against it as much as possible. However, from my point of view, sin is a reality, and sin can be necessary. I do not see sin to be always something to be avoided; it is often a necessary to enjoy our life !!


Well, you have to imagine what the community was like in the early medieval age. Collapse of Roman Empire, havoc everywhere, and so people lost their direction in their life. Unlike nowadays when we can access to various information resource and be educated with Copernican world view, people at the medieval age were disparate to believe in something superstitious.... oh it should be said the superstitious worship was "necessary" to give people a certain principle as the "natural law", the universal invincible law. But, this explanation does not mean I support it: Actually I think of this divine rule was necessary evil at the contemporary time period. As a matter of fact, I reckon the late medieval age (about from the 3rd Crusader period) when people gradually became independent from this Christian autocracy. This was the sign that that part of the world became more stabilised, the technology advanced, and the information flow grew.

Furthermore, I highly admire all 3 Palestinian religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These religions enlightened people to think independent from the nature surrounding them. Neither all ancient religion nor all oriental religions have ever done in such a way! The Palestinian religions enabled individual human-beings to think rationally (beyond their surrounding nature and their box of thought), and established strongholds! Augstine and Aquinas definitely contributed in this great work!

US Political Compass (American Political Compass)

Reference:

http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

http://paulbrazeau.com/?p=484

Quotes from “Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World” by Walter Russell Meade

- P.g.11: It was only when Germany and Japan began to take lessons from the lecklessly idealistic United States – An emphasis on commerce rather than military
- P.g.12: The …. Statemen of the U.S. often devoted more of their attention to foreign policy questions before and … the Civil War
(The chart shows that only Eisenhower and Bush Sr. have had experience in foreign affairs)
- P.g.13: Their children and grandfather never forgot their dependence on foreign customers and on the means of transporting their … (production) to the market
- P.g.18: Unlike Jackson, politicians like the Hamiltonian Daniel Webstar who were seen as “Soft on Great Britain.
- P.g.24: After indeed usually, the American government was more pacific and isolationist …. opinion
- P.g.25: Jefferson’s dispatch to Tripoli and Algiers of a … mission against the Berbary privates was ….
- P.g.59: Debt from the Civil War: Borrowed from Europe
- P.g.73: Both the liberal democrats who care to power with President Jimmy Carter and the Conservative Republicans who came in with Ronald Reagan focus years later moved …. Away from the Nixon & Kissinger approach
- P.g.78: Economics, Morality, and Democracy are these things that Continental Realism largely seeks to banish from the realm of high international politics
- During the Bretton Wood acting, the U.S. economic policy affected the entire world economy. The globalisation is new to America and the U.S.A. is actually an endebted nation.
- P.g.87: Hamiltonians against the treaty of Versailles E.g. Bush Sr.
- Continental Realism more during the Cold War
- Hamiltonian learns from British imperial order
- P.g.110: Hamiltonian economic policy changes fluctuately
E.g. opentrade ←→ protectionism owing to American economic interest
- P.g.110: Hamiltonians have never believed in using tarrifs simply as a revenue tax nor lowering tariff in line with the fiscal needs of government
• Read upto p.g.123
- P.g.126: Hamiltonians were quick to grasp the implication for American interest of British decline and they understand how to build a new hegemony as the old one collapsed
- P.g.130: The Hamiltonian grandfather had been contest to be free riders as long as British hegemony was ….
- P.g.131: As long time free riders in the British system American industries had enjoyed a …. of domestic production and global markets
- P.g.135: British liberal fought against the pragmatic tilt toward the Ottoman Empire that British imperial interests seemed to require ….that Ottoman aristocracies in the Balkans demanded what we would now call a human rights
- P.g.135: (Wilson’s) his strongest foreign affairs were found in the British Labour party, and the most savage attacks on the shortcoming of the Versailles treaty were …ed by John Maynard Keynes, the towering intellect of British Liberal thought in the 20th century
- P.g.136: More broadly the New Labour government. (Tony Blair) he has built is attempt to reconstruct the Old Labour party and tradition on the ruins of British socialism ……… voice recalling fro “idealistic” politics on
• Wilsonian is also related to the “non-conformist”
- P.g.158: Basically ………… with the modern Middle East plus much of South-Eastern Europe, this regain was the object of the first great missionary endeavour of the American missionary movement.
- P.g.161: The secular contributions of the missionary movement may, on a global scale. ultimately have more impact than do their religious achievements
- P.g.180: The Jeffersonian view of the U.S.A. as a revolutionary nation with a revolutionary mission runs deep … The Jeffersonian party locks of American Revolution with something of the same emotion with the USSR good Bolsheviks once viewed Lenin’s October revolution.
- The original Jeffersonians were steeped in the rich tradition of English & Scottish descent. They often saw the American Revolution as the least something as a secular – step in the British Reformation and they saw themselves as Cromwellian Round-Heads attempting to complete that Reformation against the opposition of the Hamiltonian Cavaliers
- P.g.181: Wilsonian could be called the Trotskyites of the American Revolution. They believe that the securities and success of the Revolution at home demands its universal expansion thought the world
- Jeffersonians take the Stalinist point of view. Building democracy in one country is enough challenge for them, and they are both sceptical about the prospects for revolutionary victories abroad and concerned about the dangers to the domestic revolution that might result from excessive …… in foreign ….
- P.g.182: (Jeffersonians) They believe that democracy is a fragile plant – difficult to grow, harder to propagate. Looking lack at long struggle in Britain – The Magna Carta, the Reformation, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, etc
- P.g.204: The Great Dilemma after the collapse of British Empire their ideality and the Homeland Security especially during the cold war.
- P.g.209: Jeffersonians used to be anti-federalism. But, …. The human right activity, they standed supporting the federal government power
- P.g.210: Both Jeffersonians and Wilsonians against …. With a tyrannical regime for anti-commercialism case
- P.g.212: Jeffersonian voice was minority during the Cold War
- P.g.224: Like Jeffersonians, Jacksonians are profoundly suspicious about elites. They generally prefer a loose federal structure with as much power as possible retained by states and local government
- Suspicious of ….. federal power, sceptical about the prospects for domestic and foreign do-gooding (Welfare at home, foreign aid abroad,) opposed to federal taxes but obstinately fond of federal programs seen as primarily helping the middle class (Social security, Medicare, mortgage interest subsidies)
- But, the difference between the two movements run very deep, so deep that during the Cold War: Jeffersonian = Dovish: Jacksonian = Hawkish
- P.g.225: Both Jeffersonians and Jacksonians are civil libertarians, passionately attached to the constitution and especially to the Bill of Right. But, Jeffersonians are most profoundly devoted to the First Amendment, protecting the freedom of speech and prohibiting a federal establishment of religion
- Jacksonians join the National Rifle Association (NRA)
- Jeffersonians join the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU)
- P.g.232-233:
• Jacksonians support regional social securities such as discounting transportation prices for elderies, and caring communities.
• Jacksonians also believe in equality among community members: Supporting socialism in small community
• Many American Labour Unions are Jacksonians

Wish A Happy New Year in 2012 although this year will be dread full for the majority of people in this world...!

The proverb for this year:


"Live like we die tomorrow; Talk like we live forver" (Mahatma Gandhi)


This year will be even tougher than the last year! Everyone has got to prepare for it!! The majority of people are in a bloody hell condition this year!!!

But, I still wish us A Happy New Year even though we may have got to prepare for this dreadful time period!

Lord of Mercy....... Amen!

The Irony of Fate: Russian New Year Tradition Movie

This is the movie strongly recommended by my female friend from a Russian speaking country.

According to her, almost all Russian speaking people watch this movie in the night between the new year eve and the new year day. The reason why this movie is popular is that watching this movie before the new year comes makes people really happy, content, pleased, and entertained, and happily welcome the new year.

This movie is a love romance movie which contains Russian humours. Russian humours are quite unique. We see the humours from experiencing a little bit of pains in a funny incidence. Russian people seem to know how to laugh at unexpected incidences with some pains. We can see a strong pleasing humour from their natural ability to overcome any unexpected incidence and always expect a better outcome afterward by making fun of it instead of remaining the pain hurting them.

This also involves a secret rhetoric to criticise the extravagant USSR administration by using an example of their housing development plan. The great ability of Russian film makers is that they produced a love romance movie which does not look like harshly criticing the USSR administration. They simply made a fun of the negative influence of the administration in the Russian humours! The USSR government official would have never felt being criticised at all, and they would have simply enjoyed seeing the funny humour and unique charming personalities of the characters in this story!

This love romance is so diffrent from cheesy movies which always show provocative sex scenes in order to attract mobs to watch. This Russian movie is a traditional love romance which shows having experiencing dilemas and struggles to acquire a loving relationship with each other. Unlike the films shown nowadays, this Russian movie expresses the complicated feelings these young adults face, and how this complication developed their romantic mood. The story in this movie takes place in the contemporary time when majority of young adults still had a naive attitude toward loving relationship. This story may make young adults, and even teenagers, nowadays think these young adults in this story are too naive and jevenile. Nowadays, the romance these characters in this story experience seems to no longer exist so that some young generations may find difficult or even impossible to understand the meaning of the love of these characters in this story. However, I am happy to introduce these young generations to watch this movie as well.

This is educational to learn that openness of sexual relationship and having a big love romance are different from each other. At the contemporary period, people might not have been to flexible to express their emortion to each other unlike nowadays. These contemporary people have struggles in expressing their emortions and then suffer from dilema and regrets more than those nowadays. I do not mean the feeling and attitude toward love nowadays is faded. In fact, I embrace the flexibility and openness of expressing love, by means of physically and mentally, nowadays, and detest the reluctancy on expressing love in the old days. Nevertheless, the feeling of romance becomes bigger when the obstacle of expressing and/or obtaining love becomes bigger. Therefore, in this movie, we can discover the love romance which grows in the sorrow, the struggle, and the achievement after overcoming the reluctancy and the obstacle in the old day men&women relationship!!


Well, I hope everyone enjoys watching this video. This is a really good asset of people having lived in the communist Russia period! Click the following link to go to the website to watch "The Irony of Fate"!!

* Russian New Year Tradition Movie:
- The Irony Of Fate
http://video.kylekeeton.com/2008/12/russian-video-new-year-tradition-movie.html





* The image of this picture is from http://darim.info/59870-ironiya-sudby-ili-s-legkim-parom-saundtreki.html.

The Prisoners' Dilemma in the EU Parliament concerning the Fiscal Unification

Last day, Ms. Merkel said "At least, this is the second best outcome" in the treaty concerning the EU fiscal unification. She wished if all EU nations had agreed to participate the fiscal unification plan as the best outcome. However, there are some nations, such as the U.K., who objected to the participation in the rescuing the European economy by the fiscal unification. Although there are substantial numbers of the EU countries agreed to participate in rescuing the European economy by their unified fiscal stimulus plan, the best outcome (all the EU nations participate) was not accomplished.

The matrix shown above is the Prisoners' Dilemma matrix modified to explain the Prisoners' Dilemma in the EU parliament concerning this treaty on the fiscal unification. At this time, this Prisoners' Dilemma matrix is based on the mixed strategy which considers all agents do not act like the prisoner in the Prisoners' Dilemma theory. In the pure strategy of the Prisoners' Dilemma theory, all agents decide to take their action 100% rationally, do not trust each other to cooperate together, and cannot exchange the information between them. By contrast, the mixed strategy takes the possibility of agents not acting 100% rationally, cooperating together, and exchanging information between agents. Therefore, we never know how these agents select their choice.

In this matrix, there are two groups of EU nations, Pro-Europeanists, such as Germany, France, and Benelux nations, and Euro-Sceptics, such as the U.K., Sweden, and Czech. This model generalised to suppose all EU nations belong to either groups, and both groups' decision has a 50% influence over European economy.

The bottom left cells of this matrix are deleted because it is less likely that the Euro-Sceptics sign the treaty whereas the Pro-Europeanists do not.



If this game is based on the pure strategy, the Eurosceptic group would definitely not sign the treaty. The benefit to the Euro-Sceptic group will gain the tremendously high benefit by not signing the treaty when the Pro-Europeanist group sign the treaty. Furthermore, in the pure strategy, the Pro-Europeanist group would have given up signing the treaty as follow:



Because, in the pure strategy, both groups are afraid of the situation that the other group gains the free riding benefit by not signing the treary. The pure strategy does not take account of any action motivated by an intuition, a superstitious belief, altruism, an expectation that the opponent may cooperate, and an anticipation without logics. All groups select their choice completely based on the benefit coming from the rational and logical but selfish interest if it were the pure strategy. Therefore, in the pure strategy, both groups take the possibility that the Pro-Europeanists would not sign the treaty while the Euro-Sceptics would sign the treary (This is a very odd case which would not happen in the real world) into their consideration. So, that is why the Ms. Merkel's wanting outcomes are the least likely in the pure strategy. This is the reason why it would be the case, even in the real world situation, that both would not sign up the treaty even though both groups could maximise the utility if both sign up the treaty if it were based on the pure strategy.


By contrast, the last resolution on the treaty was based on the mixed strategy. Even some Euro-Sceptic leaning nations took account of the possible benefit for themselves coming from signing the treaty by knowing almost 100% of the Pro-Europeanist leaning nations would sign the treaty. In the real world, especially in such a big scale rather than two prisoners in a separated shuttered cell, there are always cheap talks, a flexible flow of information exchange, and irrationality caused by human-emotion and belief in something superstitious, and/or anticipated outcomes rather than the outcomes derived from logical analyses. Thus, everyone knew that all the Pro-European leaning nations were more likely to sign the treaty, and the Euro-Sceptics leaning nations would not make the loss by any choice they could select. This is why Ms. Merkel really wanted all the EU nations signed the treaty.

The matrix of the outcomes in the mixed strategy is as follows:



The outcome of the last resolution could avoid the worst case scenario, in which all the Euro-Sceptic leaning nations did not signed the treaty, and either 100% or 25% of the Pro-European leaning nations signed the treaty. If the worst case scenario took place, all the nations who signed the treaty had to suffer, and the rest of the nations who did not sign the treaty could gain the free-riding benefit. This is what Ms. Merkel was afraid of, and Mr. Cameron would have induced if not only the U.K. but also substantial numbers of nations did not sign the treaty.

The outcome was the second best according to what Ms. Merkel said. Majority of the EU member nations (more than 50%) agreed with the treaty so that the outcome became the middle right cell. Although it could not be in the bottom right cell, it did cause neither the decline of the power of the EU economy (The center cell) nor the collapse of the Eurozone (The top left cell: The collapse would be 100% possible in the pure strategy), nor the free riding by the Eurosceptic leaning nations (The top middle cell and the top right cell).



Nonetheless, it was almost falling into the worst case scenario (either the free riding by the Euro-Sceptic leaning nations or the collapse of the European Integration) unless the Pro-Europeanists had given up signing the treaty by knowing all the other nations would not sign the treaty. This is why Mr. Cameron's reaction caused to significantly lose the trust in the U.K. from the EU. At least, Mr. Cameron should have acted not explicitly like what he has done. He should have been wise enough not let any one to know the U.K. has wanted to keep the distance from the fiscal unification. The way Mr. Cameron acted was to make the Pro-Europeanist nations to think the U.K. is quite happy to sacrifice the EU for her own sake. I did not disagree with the Euro-Scepticism at all. But, I just wanted him to know this Game Theory! All political leaders, diplomats, and any those who have to face a big complicated decision making have got to study this Game Theory!!

The CBA of the EU fiscal unification and Mr. Cameron's failure in the Game Theory

The Eurozone countries are no longer able to give up the monetary union.

Even though the cost of continuing the monetary union is high, the loss of benefit when they dissolve the monetary union is very high.

As one of this blog entries [Sunday, September 04, 2011: Empirical evidence prooving Liquidity-trap: Lower interest rate does not stimulate economy ] demonstrated, all Eurozone member countries, except for Ireland, share a strongly harmonised business cycle. The dependency of these Eurozone countries (excluding Ireland) on the inter member state is extremely high.

Furthermore, when these countries abolish using the Euro, the value of their national debt will be almost worthless. Majority of Eurozone nations, especially the Mediterranean ones and the newly entered Eastern European countries, were benenefitted from their national debt value based on the value of Euro. These national debt is valued not only on the credit of these countries itself but also the credit rate of the entire Eurozone economy. Therefore, leaving or dissolving the Eurozone will decrease the value of their national debt, so these countries will suffer in their public finance. This means that these countries eventually have to go back to the old system relying on the excess money supply which induces a high inflation in their countries. (* Read "2. The problem caused by the monetary policy transformation" in [Saturday, July 23, 2011: The European Monetary Union is inevitable, but has to be fundamentally revised ])

Even Germany will be indifferent between restoring German national currency and keeping the Euro. German GDP relies on the export and German industries expanding their business in the EU member states with a low cost of labour, corporation tax, land, and utilities. In addition, German tourists visiting European (Tourism is an import from foreign countries to home countries: The monetary transaction of Germans touring foreign countries is German import from abroad). Therefore, the cost of German economy of leaving/relinquishing Euro is equally significantly high as same as keeping and assisting the European Monetary Union (EMU) by German effort. Germany may do well even she leaves/dissolves the EMU. But, the loss of the benefit Germany is gaining from the EMU is certain, and the cost of leaving/relinqushing Euro is uncertain.

All in all, even though the cost of keeping the EMU is high, the balance of the both cost and benefit all these Eurozone countries have is certain. The benefit will be certainly lowered by dissolving the EMU for both Germany and the rest of the member nations. Thus, the certainty of keeping and improving the EMU is certain at least, therefore the optimum solution for the European economy despite the high cost of reforming and maintaining the EMU.


------------------------------------------

2. Mr. Cameron's failure in the Game Theory

On the other hand, the UK and Ireland will suffer from participating thsi scheme due to their independent (dis-harmonised) business cycle with the continental Europe. However, I would like to blame Mr. Cameron's unwise way to excuse to avoid participating with the European fiscal integration. The diplomacy is a serious mind game. As I have studied the "Game theory", I understand the importance of reading the mind of opponents, and not being too honest.


This considers both prisoners do not trust each other fully and there is no communication taken place between them.

Even though both can gain the best outcome (if they still think of each other as friend) by cooperating together by insisting both of them are not guilty, they are more likely to incooperate with each other. The most likely outcome will be that both prisoners will be guilty. This is because you can obtain the better outcome only for "yourself" by betraying your partner. You also may think that your partner is also about to betray you to gain the better outcome than helping you. Therefore, both you confess your partner is guilty and your partner confesses you are guilty.

However, if both of prisoners trusted each other and cooperated together to support each other, then both of them would not confess their partner is guilty.



Ms. Markel's feeling must feel like Henry (the guy in this picture) betrayed by Dave (Wow, same name as Mr. Cameron's first name accidently lol). In the conference, Ms. Merkel said that the best outcome would be that all the EU nations including both the Eurozone and the non-Eurozone cooperate together. However, it fell into the "second" best outcome in which not all but many EU nations agree to participate. From now, not only Germany but also the other EU nations start regarding the UK as an incooperating member in the Game Theory. All cooperating EU nations will act like the prisoners trusting in the previously shown matrix. By contrast, between the UK and the Europe will be the prisoners not trusting each other in the matrix.

When one player, whose chose has a high influence, chooses an incooperative answer, it will be a threat on the opponents. Now, the EU has started to see the UK to be an incooperative opponent (The free rider) so that the EU's treatment on the UK will become harsh from now.

If Mr. Cameron wanted to keep a distance from this treaty on the fiscal unification, he should have pretended he would still cooperate with them but inducing the consequence for the UK not to sacrifice her national interest a lot..... The U.K. obviously wants to avoid being too much involved in the fiscal unification. It burdens a cost on the UK because the UK is a relatively richer country so the EU expects Britain to participate or even sacrifice herself to help the EU. However, it is an extremely tough task for the U.K. to declare keeping distance from the EU fiscal unification plan. The U.K. has signed up the trade agreement with the EU since the U.K. joined the EU so that the U.K. has a responsibility for the entire European economy. Therefore, the U.K. has to be very wise to keep the distance by preventing the situation that the EU realises the U.K. is incooperative. I do not have any particular advice for Mr. Cameron. But he should have not been too honest to show the U.K. keeps an incooperative attitude on the current EU fiscal unification. We should have learned from what Machiavelli taught in his book "Prince" to act wisely in a foreign diplomatic game...!