..

Today we are studying international politics from the edge of a cliff... This was a way for Thomas Crombie Schelling to express the dynamics of mutual assured destruction via his game theory. Schelling had many strings to his bow, including understanding racial problems from a focal point, a tacit communication and cooperative point of view. 

Schelling published widely cited articles dealing with racial dynamics and what he termed “a general theory of tipping” [tipping points, not tips at restaurants]. In these papers he showed that a preference that one’s neighbors be of the same color, or even a preference for a mixture “up to some limit”, could lead to total segregation, thus arguing that motives, malicious or not, were indistinguishable as to explaining the phenomenon of complete local separation of distinct groups. He used coins on graph paper to demonstrate his theory by placing pennies and dimes in different patterns on the “board” and then moving them one by one if they were in an “unhappy” situation.

Schelling’s dynamics has been cited as a way of explaining variations that are found in what are regarded as meaningful differences – gender, age, race, ethnicity, language, sexual preference, and religion. Once a cycle of such change has begun, it may have a self-sustaining momentum. His 1978 book Micromotives and Macrobehavior expanded on and generalized these themes and is often cited in the literature of agent-based computational economics.

Schelling had been involved in the global warming debate since chairing a commission for President Jimmy Carter in 1980. He believed climate change poses a serious threat to developing nations, but that the threat to the United States has been exaggerated. Drawing on his experience with the Marshall Plan after World War II, he had argued that addressing global warming is a bargaining problem; if the world is able to reduce emissions, poor countries will receive most of the benefits but rich countries will bear most of the costs.

Stanley Kubrick read an article Schelling wrote that included a description of the Peter George novel Red Alert, and conversations between Kubrick, Schelling, and George eventually led to the 1964 movie “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”.

Schelling is also cited for the first known use of the phrase “collateral damage” in his May 1961 article Dispersal, Deterrence, and Damage.

Read more and pay some cash to Wikipedia on my behalf:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling

What does this mean in regard to Donald Trump?

A big fat zero comes to mind. 

Some people like Rupert Murdoch are “born” gamblers... They are in fact taught at a young age how to envisage the odds of success in practical situations. For Murdoch it was his grandfather Rupert Green who taught him how to play the horses. People like Rupert manage information about the various histories of horses and jockeys and the state of the track. For them, not all people (horses, jockeys) are “equal”. Some are better than others, but there is no point betting on a “sure bet” that will bring little reward for a 50/50 chance on a “favourite”. The rule of thumbs for most professional gamblers is to bet at 10 to 1. The 50 to 1 could be a lucky nag, while the 10 to one can be a colt on the rise. As well, someone like Rupert knows that at some stage you can make an offer (a bet) than cannot be refused and break the bookie's back. Even if the cost of the offer is high, you can recoup assets and cash from other successful bets, or increase the value of your purchase by whipping it like a horse to the winning post. Doping comes to mind. In the newspapers world, you froth up the value of alternative conservative populist facts and devalue your opponents, especially if they are socialists.

For Trump, gambling is to lie and to manage these lies in chaos, because until he changes position these lies are not lies -- only unsubstantiated crap which “he believes” in, in the sense that if “I believe in alternative facts” these fact must be true. Trump lies to himself daily with no second thoughts, in an a-changing truth/porkie landscape. We’ve see the Donald deal with the Saudis --doing a 180 degree turnaround. 

I don’t believe that his change of mind was due because his advisors presented him with a “better” (or worse outcome in decent people’s mind) argument. No he believed what he said about the Saudis before the Presidential elections, right to the bottom of his artichoke heart. Now he saw a way to make a few quick bucks regardless of the odds of a dangerous future while ignoring the unavoidable connection between the Saudis and the Sunni extremists of Daesh (ISIL, ISIS, whatever). For him selling weapons and uttering the words “peace in the Middle East” at the same time is natural as piss. And he means it. For anyone else this would be hypocritical, but for Trump, getting cash is the name of the game resulting in a happy customer who is not interested in “peace” all around. What matters is that the Donald is at peace with himself. This attitude is not new of course. This was explored in satirical depth by Bertolt Brecht in Mother Courage. The horror of the rationale is that whether you sell weapons or not, there will be conficts somewhere that cannot be controlled, but these weapons can be a great source of revenue, while spruiking “Hey guys, stop it! Here, have another gun...”. 

No point selling weapons if these aren’t used. You end up with market saturation. This is Donald non-rationalised psycho-subconscious at play. It’s conflicted play acting, but really acceptable in his own mind. Same with “his” Christianity. It’s play acting to suit the flock and the Pope. He “believes” but really, he could not care less if he was sincere or not, as long as he gets the kudos and the cash. Sincerity has no value here.

So what does this means in regard to the “Strategy of Conflict?” In order to “get unshackled from a mutual assured destruction, one needs to be dancing like crazy to the edge of the cliff” proposed Schelling. But is this “conflict management” of Schelling a full-on conflict resolution? You have to bet that the person you are shackled to, is not completely mad. This is where the theory might get undone. 

Schelling also made erroneous assumptions in regard to Global warming such as considering the threat to the United States being exaggerated, and by not seeing the possibility of “tipping points” which are on the cards... At this stage, one could say with a 50/50 bet that within say ten years the ball game will change (tipping points). The planetary system of Atmosphere, biosphere, oceans and carbon cycle could go mightily topsy-turvy. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE (in different circumstances but a tipping is possible with our present situation). The lesson we have learnt from observation is that most computer models are too conservative and suddenly we are looking at a rise of “2.7 metres” of sea level by 2100 -- possibly at best, even with moderate predictions. It’s all a question of complex feed-back mechanisms, say the ice in the whisky is complicating the prognosis which by all account is not going to be pretty. 

So better informed negotiations need to take place. For example, while global warming is adding humidity in the atmosphere, we should expect more clouds. But the extra heat is also preventing the formation of some clouds at the expected levels, except in more unpredictable and severe format, leading to non-ordinary massive downpours, flooding and destruction. Such 100 year events seem to happen more and more frequently, nearly yearly now, around the world during the summers and winters on both hemisphere. Records are broken.

As well global warming adds extra heat during dry spells with strong air movement, leading to dangerous bush fires. California for example seems to be oscillating between heavy flooding rain with very long dry spells in between, with increased ferocity. So far after a summer nearly three degrees above average, Sydney had a few month slightly above, then May has been so far 1 degree above average. This would not be so worrying if this was not part of a major trend.

So apart from The Donald still being loony tune in regard to global warming, what’s his position in regard to Russia? Most of the USA has been hysterically demented about Russia for a few years now. The successive administration of Bush and Obama, and a rabid media promoted the hate of the Ruskies. History has something to do with this.

In 1998, the Americans at all levels thought that they had licked that USSR “problem” and there was cash to be made from those naive Russians. The arrogant American exceptionalism was in full swing dancing on the decomposing body of the bear. The Yanks had the biggest army on the planet, spent a lot of their cash making weapons, while treating the Chinese like a reservoir of slaves to manufacture cheap goods -- all in the hope that the Chinese government would become as elitist corrupt western capitalist system as their own. 

The Americans would also slowly economically invade the former USSR countries. Two major weapons used but often unsung, are Coca-Cola and McDonald's. It’s the invasion of the culture with Hollywood and Pop music. It’s an exhilarating sense of false freedom which is also tacked to the products. You can say anything freely as long as you play the game of the empire.

But in 2000, a little guy came on the scene: Vladimir Putin. It could have been someone else, but I believe the outcome would have been similar, possibly with a different style. Putin came in with a great sense of Russian history. Between you and me, despite whatever the Yankees have done, their history is far less serious than that of the Russians. The Americans suffered far less from world events and they lied far more about their intent. 

Schelling was involved in the Marshall Plan, which was using US loans to rebuild Europe. The Russians did not get one cent, just brickbats. The French saw through the sting. The General de Gaulle was cleverer than the average US President. De Gaulle repaid the plan in full using French gold reserves that had been spirited out of France before the war (WWII). The General knew that the Marshall plan had been devised so that the loans could never been repaid because of the “interest rates”. He saw this as a way for the US to occupy (read control) France (Europe) ad infinitum, with American bases dotting the landscape forever, like they do in Italy presently -- and starting to creep in Australia as well. De Gaulle pulled France out of NATO. It was only when the imbecile Sarkozy came to power that France rejoined this army-orgy for no other reason that he got “bought out” with sweet talking. At the time, the Russian little guy was rebuilding Russia and the “West” should be worried and rush to “mama” USA. All rubbish, really. But the trick worked.

Then came a few incidents, including Russia taking care of the Russian people in Crimea. This went like a lead balloon with the Yankees who had already set their eyes on the peninsula via the thugs they have helped elect in Ukraine. So the Yankees as usual slapped Russia with sanctions that to say the least helped the Russians become cleverer in making their own stuff, rather than be lazy on the price of oil.

Meanwhile in the US, the word “Russia” still means bad things in the mind of most people under the spell of a bad bad media. So The Donald in his wisdom, had to abandon his plan for a love-in with Russia because DESPITE HAVING CLAIMED THAT he wanted a rapprochement, the media and his losing opponents argue that Russia helped him win the Presidency. This of course is ludicrous. Sure there were false alternative facts about Hillary Clinton, but Trump got his fair share of said facts against him, including secret tapes of “pussy-grabbing movements"... All the crap presented about Trump was of course mostly true and should have sunk him at a moral carrot contest. But we know the presidency of the USA is not about morality nor rectitude, but about the ability to sell vacuum cleaners.

Gus Leonisky

You local politics professor...