I certainly didn't say I didn't subscribe to elite theory, just not to the extreme degree you do. My problem is that while I don't deny this cabal of rich white men wields much power, I don't think these men are ultimately that smart, and the idea that everything is under their control seems unlikely because it's impossible to make plans of that complexity that survive contact with the real world. Attributing what's going on in the world to some confluence of greed, corruption, ineptitude and stupidity go a long way towards explaining things better than simple elite theory.
Theyaren't that smart, but they pay people a significant amount of money to work out these strategies; and these stratagies are intelligent but only if viewed from a specific perspective (I'll explain below). But no, none of these plans will remain intact during real world application--but I think you're attributing the failures of these plans to
stupiditywhat you
shouldbe attributing to a disregard of
consequence. A good smaller scale example would be, since I brought him up earlier, Mitt Romney leading Ampad into financial ruin. From the outside looking in, the constant risk assumption by taking on just ruinous amounts of debt seems just supremely stupid--it was a perfect recipe for a company to go bankrupt during any market fluctuation that would have presented a credit crisis (And that's exactly what happened).
However;
we(The outside observer who is intrinsically connected to the market and suffers from collapses of job producing domestic companies) only see stupidity because we assume failure comes with consequence; and we are actually affected by the consequences of that failure--in short, our judgment is biased by our perspective. This isn't really the case past a certain point. Romney's assets were perfectly shielded from the collapse of the company--and his main wealth draw was actually short term bonuses and cash outs from sales figures, which he drove furiously high with an uteneble strategy of high debt load and risky market acquisitions. Because, again, his main rationality wasn't long term--it was obtaining the next cash out. Once the whole thing came down, because of his legal and financial status, he could simply cut ties, and move on.
This works on a larger scale too, even a national one. The companies who stood to profit, for example, from Iraq, didn't lose anything if the U.S. was lead into a full scale debacle. So AT WORST, they would have stood on the sidelines while soldiers died and the country plunged hilariously into debt--but at best, they'd have an entire new market to explore and dominate. So, since you're a student of statistics--doing a simple game theory on the process of supporting the war--they'd have either a win, or a neutral outcome; on average, the effect, regardless out outcome, is a
net gain. So obviously their plan is rational from their point of view. (But only because they have a lack of consequence). (And yes, it's a bit more complex than this; companies need to forecast for market recessions brought on by government debt, ect; but this is usually what it comes down to.)
So, no, it's not some evil geniuses at work. It's simply a bunch of guys that win if things go well, and
don't loseif they don't. Of course you're going to see them consistently push for these things that seem ruinous and stupid to us--but for them, it's +1 or 0, never a -1. Without that loss; without the potential of consequence, it becomes, actually, stupid for them NOT to advocate for reckless and destructive behavior. (An analogy would be, in black jack, if you kept the winnings but the house at your losses--your strategy then instantly becomes bet recklessly every time,
no matter what. Because even the smallest chance of a gain is a net positive, even if your losses are enormous.)
But you know the saying; old men make wars, young men fight them. It's just another way of saying the people who profit from the risk, aren't the ones who take the risk.
