Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why the US Govt Should Be Happy About Wikileaks

Posted by samzenpus on from the how-I-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-leaks dept.

angry tapir writes "WikiLeaks' leaking of classified information should be considered a blessing for the US government, and other governments should take heed of the lessons when it comes to information sharing, according to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) research associate, Professor Mike Nelson, who spent four years as Senator Al Gore's science adviser and served as the White House director for technology policy on IT, and was also a member of Barack Obama presidential campaign."

49 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Mike Nelson? by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Like I am going to take advice from a dude who spent years trapped on a satellite while being forced to watch bad movies.

    --
    Monstar L
    1. Re:Mike Nelson? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lol, as soon as I read "Professor Mike Nelson, who spent four years as Senator Al Gore's science advise" all the credibility the article had vanished.

      An Inconvenient Truth had so many anti-scientific mistakes with it (the Drowning Polar Bear Myth, the Global-warming-caused-Katrina Myth, and so forth), that even RealClimate.org's apologetic review of the movie had to admit them (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/).

      There's all sorts of good sources of information about AGW out there, but Al Gore is not one of them.

  2. Yeah, so bad by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, be embarrassed is so much worse than having ~4,000 of your citizens killed and entering a trillion dollars worth of wars. Remember that one of the primary findings by the 9/11 commission was that a primary cause of us not catching the cell was lack of information sharing.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Yeah, so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember that one of the primary findings by the 9/11 commission was that a primary cause of us not catching the cell was lack of information sharing.

      What did you expect an official commission to say? That privacy and freedom are more precious than safety and that the terrorists win if we turn into a police state because of their actions?

      Duh. I tell you what else they won't say. They won't say that maybe we wouldn't have these problems if we didn't keep meddling in the Middle East's affairs, often brutally. Nah, there is no connection between repeatedly provoking them and finally getting attacked by them. Clearly information sharing now that they already want to attack us, yeah that's the real issue.

      Government lies to you. It lies to you routinely, naturally, and without remorse. Why you fucks can't bring yourselves to accept it is the only mystery.

    2. Re:Yeah, so bad by cavreader · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What people call meddling I call normal international interaction. Every country in the middle east has bargained with Western governments by leveraging their oil reserves and playing countries against one another to gain favor. This behavior has been ongoing since before WW1. In return for good deals the western countries had to support the leaders of the country. During the cold war all the little countries in world played the US and Russia against one another to gain concessions. The US or any other western country might have "meddled" but it has always been the citizens and leaders of the country who allowed and participated in the meddling who bare the responsibility for their problems. It's become an all to common practice today for all the little failed states to blame all their troubles on someone else thus alleviating their own culpability in screwing up their own country.

    3. Re:Yeah, so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's also worth recalling that the "meddling" that Osama bin Laden was concerned about was Operation Desert Shield. Not Storm, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, but Shield when the U.S., at the Saudi government's request, led a multinational coalition of forces to defend Arabia. He was upset that non-Muslims and non-Arabs were allowed to set foot in the land of the two cities, even if they were 1,000 km away from Mecca. To call this a justification for terrorism, you would have to assume that OBL is the proper authority over Arabia and the House of Saud is not.

      OBL was also upset that there were still Jews living in Judea, Indians in India, and Christians in Spain. Not everything is the Americans' fault.

    4. Re:Yeah, so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Secondly, - slipping into conspiracy theory mode - how do we know that the public report of the commission is really the complete report? Were there parts kept under wraps, that could have embarrassed certain people in powerful positions? That there was more to blame for the attacks?

      Because it wasn't in Wikileaks.

    5. Re:Yeah, so bad by INT_QRK · · Score: 2

      You touch on a logical flaw in the whole information sharing debate. The flaw is that information and data ubiquitously available throughout a system facilitates an information advantage. This is nonsense. "Intelligence failures" are far more often the result of misinterpretation or insufficient understanding than lack of information. One almost always finds in hindsight that the information was there all the time. Anyone who has actually tried to manage a complex operation will tell you that it's more important to ensure that *only* the right information, at the right level of complexity, is shared *when needed* with the right actors, because operators, analysts, decision makers, time, and options are resources in perpetually short supply and who individually and in aggregate have limited coping "bandwidth" relative to the available data. Too much information too widely disseminated becomes background noise very quickly.

    6. Re:Yeah, so bad by afidel · · Score: 2

      The US knew all about that because the CIA trained Al Qaeda to fight against the USSR in Afghanistan. The relevant answer here is "If you play with fire, you might get burnt", or "Live by the sword, die by the sword".

      False, the CIA trained the Mujahideen, some of whom joined Al Qaeda decades later, but just as many have fought against Al Qaeda.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  3. Too bad about Obama by identity0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "was also a member of Barack Obama presidential campaign."

    Too bad the Obama administration hasn't done anything to increase openness - in fact, they've done just the opposite.

    If only this guy had actually been appointed to a position of power - or maybe this kind of opinion is why he wasn't.

  4. More to the point by Sparx139 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The US Government should be relieved that Wikileaks 'cablegate' portrayed them in a relatively positive light, meaning that the backlash will be minimal from a domestic standpoint.

    95 per cent of those leaked memos were incredibly well written and well reasoned, with one paragraph that might be sensitive

    And the other 5% are the ones that cause a scandal. And while they may help garner domestic support (which is unlikely, because the media only covers that 5%), diplomacy could get a lot trickier when you have to explain your conversations with others.

    Before I get modded into oblivion for this, all I'm not passing judgement on Wikileaks in either direction. Leaking can be argued as being necessary depending on the situation, but saying that the US government should be happy about it is just ridiculous.

    --
    Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    1. Re:More to the point by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      diplomacy could get a lot trickier when you have to explain your conversations with others.

      Perhaps. OTOH it might actually be easier in the long run if you deal with people openly and honestly. Too often when people start talking about Wikileaks effect on diplomacy people (though not specifically the person whose post I'm replying to) end up making diplomacy sound like some sort of game played be old men who get a kick out of pulling levers and trying mould the world to their will rather than the art of arriving at genuine understanding and agreement. No doubt there are often short term gains to such an approach but I can't help but think it is harmful in the long run.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    2. Re:More to the point by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      Ya, what bothers me more than anything else about the leaks is how much of it is stuff that is of no public benefit but that some of it is things that hurts diplomacy.

      A working diplomatic process is a really important thing in the world if we want any kind of peace and stability. That is the reason for things like diplomatic immunity. Countries recognize that it is so important to have unhindered diplomacy.

      Well another side of that is that diplomats and their staff and advisers need to be free to talk among themselves candidly. They need to speak freely outside of the negotiations so that the negotiations can be productive.

      This kind of thing hurts that, and so really isn't useful.

      In my mind, if you are going to leak something it needs to meet two tests:

      1) It needs to be in the public's interest to have it leaked, they need to have some need to know. If it isn't relevant to the public then there is no cause to leak it. Now please note that means needs to know, not "Would find amusing in the tabloid sense." Some way the public was harmed or deceived or whatever.

      2) The need to know needs to outweigh the harm the leak will cause. Just because the public may have a need to know, doesn't mean it is worth leaking if there is extreme harm. For example suppose you uncovered a small fraud, a few million against the public. However to leak the necessary information to prove it, you'd have to leak detailed nuclear secrets. Well then you shouldn't because the harm vastly outweighs the need to know.

      To me, it seems much (perhaps all, I've look at little of it) of the Wikileaks material fails one or both these tests. It was leaked for the glee of leaking something secret, not with any real consideration of "Is this something that the public needs to know?" Frankly, I couldn't care less what the department of state thinks about Russian leadership, but they may care and thus the leak is harmful. We the public gain nothing and it can hurt diplomacy, so it shouldn't have been leaked.

    3. Re:More to the point by jandrese · · Score: 2

      I think the point is that politics often forces people to act against their self interest on the diplomatic stage, just because doing the right thing would get them kicked out of office (and the right thing overturned). This is the case with a lot of middle eastern regimes that secretly want to help the US kick the insurgents out of their country, but can't because the insurgents are way more politically popular than the US.

      Also, like it or not, a lot of diplomacy is playing the game. The other guy lies to you, you know it but you pretend to go along because it serves some interest of yours. Then these leaks come out and he really can't pretend that he's fooling you anymore. Most of these situations will work themselves out over time though.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  5. It depends on the objective. by steelfood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He's right if the U.S. government's objective is to promote freedom and democracy. The cables certainly show the rampant corruption in the world, the injustices everywhere, and that the United States government recognizes and responds to them.

    However, Obama is actually more interested in stability in the region, and will do everything to maintain that regardless of what it takes to achieve that stability. There's a reason one of the most repressive governments in the world is considered a close ally, while a democratically-elected president is constantly being vilified.

    The leaked cables has actually caused the opposite effect. And because of the instability of the middle east region, oil and thus gas prices are higher than they otherwise should be. High gas prices are detrimental to an economy trying to dig itself out of a recessionary hole. Which the egg-on-his-face notwithstanding, is why Obama is generally against such whistleblowing.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:It depends on the objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, Obama is actually more interested in stability in the region, and will do everything to maintain that regardless of what it takes to achieve that stability.

      As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".

    2. Re:It depends on the objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To clarify:
      'Stability' does not mean 'peace' or 'happiness of the local people' or whatever else in the context of the post above.
      'Stability' means things are calm and thus, easy for politicians and governments to deal with. The local population could be forced into working like slaves for their nation's leaders, women could be raped daily, kids taken from their parents to be brainwashed into becoming soldiers, as long as the people don't rebel against their government it's considered 'stable'.

    3. Re:It depends on the objective. by Livius · · Score: 2

      Obama is interested in *short-term* stability.

      Actual democracy would be the key to long-term stability.

    4. Re:It depends on the objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, Obama is actually more interested in stability in the region

      As has every president since at least WW II. Can't have Pax Americana if the barbarians are running amok, can we?

      And because of the instability of the middle east region, oil and thus gas prices are higher than they otherwise should be. High gas prices are detrimental to an economy trying to dig itself out of a recessionary hole. Which the egg-on-his-face notwithstanding, is why Obama is generally against such whistleblowing.

      No, he's against it because he's a politician - and they absolutely fucking hate it when peasants like Assange get all fucking uppity.

      Gas prices? The economy? Fuck me. For the cost of one of our wargasms in the Middle East, our government could subsidize gas to 1980's levels without adding anything more to the national debt.

    5. Re:It depends on the objective. by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Oh, yes... let's turn all government functions directly over to the people, such as those currently running amok at 4chan. The point of TFA is that the leaked cables show that international policymaking is hard, and the US government should be "looking on the bright side" and pointing out the tough situations the diplomats work in on a daily basis. Do you really think that high-school dropout down the street will be better at diplomacy than the appointed diplomat we have now?

      Short-term stability makes a much more conducive environment to work out long-term stability. I'd imagine that almost every oppressive dictator out there really thinks they're doing what's best for their people. If they can be convinced that peace and acceptance are best, that's what they'll do. It's just much harder to convince anyone of such an idea while their neighbor is arming for war. Once everyone in the area is on friendly terms, then you can talk reasonably about maintaining peace long-term. Of course, there hasn't been short-term stability in the Middle East for the past thousand years, so I don't expect it anytime soon.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:It depends on the objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You say that like it's a bad thing. Bad for US industry, energy supplies, etc., is bad for our unemployment rate, CPI, etc.

      That doesn't mean that corporate greed should run the show, but Chomsky is so cynical about stuff like this he stumbles onto the truth like a blind squirrel finding a nut in a grove of trees that it can't see.

    7. Re:It depends on the objective. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let us not forget that democracy gives the people the ability to choose things contrary to what other people choose. It is much easier (and cheaper) to sway a politician than to sway the masses. Germany and france didn't come around to their current borders until about 1956/57 when the french gave up on taking over the Saar. That is, after 900 years of stabbing, shooting and occupying each other, the recent total occupation of cosmopolitan france, and all of a (a newly defined) germany, the killing of millions of people - they were still squabbling over who gets to keep what for themselves for a decade.

      People, as a whole, can, and will choose what benefits them, even if it as at the expense of someone else. If we give people democracy a hell of a lot of them aren't going to go the nelson mandella truth and reconciliation route, they are going to demand territories which cannot be given voluntarily. And who do you side with? How do you even define what is a legitimate democratic outcome or not, is a majority of people in the middle east a legitimate democratic outcome, or does it need to be done country by country? If the world votes against the US existing and decides to carve it up and redistrict it back to mexico, spain the UK and various native inhabitants, is that democracy we want to support?

      Democracy is a dangerous, and deeply flawed idea. It is suitable in conjunction with other systems but by itself it is a path to a very dark place, albeit rarely, but those places are very dark. The challenge the world faces is building systems which both represent the best interests of the people, including taking their opinion into account, and resolving when those two things (best interests and desires) do not align. But if people will vote for less taxes, more spending, conquest at the expense of others and so on, then democracy is unsustainable, and must be balanced by control from people who actually have some sense. The people who are in control, are, in turn, hopefully balanced against being nuts and can be removed if they fail that test. But democracy has a tendency to form a feedback loop of corruption and incompetence. I'm sure there's ways to deal with that, but not in a /. post.

    8. Re:It depends on the objective. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What makes democracy so stable? One charismatic leader comes along and gets elected, and you've got World War Two to deal with.

    9. Re:It depends on the objective. by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".

      Well, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The United States offers a host of pretty compelling benefits, not among the least of which is the protection of our vast military, to our allies and friends. It's only natural that we should ask for certain things in return for these benefits. That's the way the world works after all.

    10. Re:It depends on the objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe the Noam-Chomsky-quoting-AC has the radical idea that the people in those foreign countries should be allowed to make up their own minds and have their own government that does what is good for *them*, not necessarily good for the USA.

    11. Re:It depends on the objective. by m50d · · Score: 3, Informative

      Democracy means he has to burn down parliament first, which puts a bit more of a barrier to entry in place.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:It depends on the objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As Noam Chomsky points out, in US foreignpolicyspeak "stability" means "obedience to US corporate demands".

      Well, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The United States offers a host of pretty compelling benefits, not among the least of which is the protection racket of our vast military, to our allies and friends. It's only natural that we should ask for certain things in return for these benefits. That's the way the world works after all.

      There, corrected it for you.

      "Prosperous little democracy you have there going. It would be such a shame if something happened to it."

    13. Re:It depends on the objective. by XManticore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the hypocrisy that the world hates the US for.

      Your government plays the democracy tune when they wish a people to overthrow a tyranny that doesn't suit their agenda. And when a peaceful, fair election such as the one in Palestine happens, and somebody who you don't like gets elected, the West get their panties in a twist and starts their pathetic economic bullying.

  6. They're not simple to dismiss. by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Leaks are almost inevitable in a relatively free society - as long as the information is in a usable state, and it is used by people, it pretty much will be leaked eventually if people care to leak it.

    As far as distributors of sunshine (breaks in secrecy, disinfecting stagnant air) go, Wikileaks is rather benign - they exercise considerable restraint and editorial control considering their size and content they process.

    The problem isn't their arguable responsibility though, it is the relative difficulty in getting rational people to dismiss their evidence, the difficulty in painting them as a poisoned source of valid information. Certainly it is tried - all the logical fallacies that exist are thrown against them at a fairly constant rate, but they are still viewed as a valid source of important information.

    Since they don't delve purely in talking point - just releasing information from sources known as valid, their points are fairly solid - whatever you think of their practices.

    Ask Newt Gingrich - claiming a problem exists because you were quoted accurately and directly doesn't get you very far.

    Ryan Fenton

  7. Re:If You Are Right by bughunter · · Score: 2

    If you are right, then you have nothing to hide.

    Hmm, let's see how accurate that statement is by using a little political gedankenexperiment.

    • Wife: "Does this dress make me look fat?"

      Husband: "I'm sorry... that information is classified."
      Wife: "If you are right, then you have nothing to hide."
      Husband: "OK, since you put it that way, that dress reveals exactly how overweight you are."

    Do you think the outcome of this scenario will make the Husband happy that he was open and honest?

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  8. Re:My ss# is 555-55-5555 by cheeks5965 · · Score: 2

    what do you have to hide?

    --
    -- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!
  9. Re:Yeah, so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What makes you think you deserve to be told the truth? That's a huge assumption in itself.

  10. Arab Brothers? by larsl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Iranians are not Arabs.

    1. Re:Arab Brothers? by Sun · · Score: 2

      Yes. He probably meant "Muslim". It's a common mistake.

      To be fair, his exact words are not contradictory to knowing all of that:

      ... because he thought he was well-loved by his Arab brothers.

      The statement is that his brothers (in Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia) are Arab (which they are), not that he, himself, is. I'm for giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

      Shachar

    2. Re:Arab Brothers? by inviolet · · Score: 2

      Iranians are not Arabs.

      Iran's native population is indeed Persian, but the current ruling party and its enforcers is mostly Arab. Arabs have a tight grip on Islam on account of its history, and when the Persians fell for the religion, it gave the Arabs ideological power over them. From ideological power eventually comes political and then physical power.

      This is one of the motivators for the recent uprising: Persians who are fed up with their mostly-Arab government and its Arab goon squads.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  11. Obviously not by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It fails the obviousness test:

    Does it actually manage to do something in a reasonable timescale without completely stuffing it up?
    Yes?
    Well in that case the CIA are not running it.

    Remember that the only reason Homeland Security exists is because the CIA was unable to be a centre to co-ordinate all of those other intelligence agencies - you know, the job the CIA was set up to do in the first place.

  12. Re:If You Are Right by FrankHS · · Score: 2

    It isn't the nuclear subs or troop positions that need to be revealed. It is all the other stuff that our government and the corporations hides from us to keep us from seeing how we, the people, are being ripped off by them.

  13. Re:Wikileaks is a CIA front. by reasterling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you look at a lot of the information provided by wikileaks it doesn't make the US look bad

    The US is not all that bad. Sure we have our problems (who doesn't), but even in poverty I am able to live resonably well. The kings of old did not have it as good as I do. There may be lots that I can complain about (I wont - it does no good), but their is a reason that illegal imigration is a problem here. That is we have a very high standard of living even for most people who are considered poor.

    I do not understand why people expect the US to be bad or evil.

    --
    "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
  14. Re:What does Private Mean????? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there was an assumption that all private conversations would be made public, diplomacy would take the form of hushed conversations in a broom cupboard with no written account being made. Politicians would play diplomacy like actors, putting on a show for the people, while the real work was done informally and secretively.

  15. Re:If You Are Right by somersault · · Score: 2

    If his wife is that stupid that she wants people to lie to her rather than just eating better, he shouldn't have married her..

    --
    which is totally what she said
  16. Re:If You Are Right by metacell · · Score: 5, Informative

    If invading Iraq was the safest course of action, why did the Bush government have to mislead Congress with outrageous claims about an army of unmanned drones ready to strike against America?

    From Wikipedia:

    In October 2002, a few days before the US Senate vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, about 75 senators were told in closed session that the Iraqi government had the means of delivering biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drones that could be launched from ships off the US' Atlantic coast to attack US eastern seaboard cities. Colin Powell suggested in his presentation to the United Nations that UAVs were transported out of Iraq and could be launched against the United States. In fact, Iraq had no offensive UAV fleet or any capability of putting UAVs on ships.[90] Iraq's UAV fleet consisted of less than a handful of outdated Czech training drones.[91] At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the intelligence community whether the CIA's conclusions about Iraq's UAV fleet were accurate. The US Air Force agency denied outright that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability.[92]

    It's not just in hindsight the government's course of action looks insane; even back then, a lot of people pointed out how they systematically picked and chose intelligence reports to support their pre-determined conclusion.

  17. Re:If You Are Right by digitig · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you are right, then you have nothing to hide.

    Hmm, let's see how accurate that statement is by using a little political gedankenexperiment.

    • Wife: "Does this dress make me look fat?"

      Husband: "I'm sorry... that information is classified." Wife: "If you are right, then you have nothing to hide." Husband: "OK, since you put it that way, that dress reveals exactly how overweight you are."

    The husband can safely and honestly answer "no" to "Does this dress make me look fat." He might not choose to add "It's not the dress, it's all those burgers and fries."

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  18. Re:If You Are Right by AlecC · · Score: 2

    In a negotiation, it seems perfectly reasonable to hide your ultimate fallback position. If there is space between your ultimate fallback and the other guys ultimate fallback (i.e. the negotiations have a chance of succeeding), you want to capture as much of that space as possible. Revealing your stopping point allows the other guy to claim all the space by demanding that.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  19. Re:Diplomacy and the White Lie. by metacell · · Score: 2

    Hmmm, if your wife ask you if she looks fat in that particular outfit, do you answer her "open and honestly"?

    I answer politely and honestly. She can see through when I'm lying, since she has no illusions about herself, and only by being honest can I make her believe me when I give her compliments.

  20. Re:If You Are Right by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 2

    If you are right, then you have nothing to hide.

    It has little to do with hiding information because of being 'right.' It has to do with hiding the information from those who would use it to harm others or the interests of said country. To keep in line with your thought process, why do so many companies keep their IR&D facilities on such tight lock down? They are protecting their own interests. And if you think that not hiding all information will make you safer, I think there is a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  21. Re:If You Are Right by cavreader · · Score: 2

    The bombing was a direct result of him not honoring the agreement made after the first war. If they were not attacked for this it would set a precendence that anyone can ignore these types of agreements without penalty.

  22. Re:If You Are Right by that+IT+girl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Exactly. Argh. 99% of women give the rest of us a bad name!

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  23. Re:If You Are Right by GospelHead821 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, we can consider price as the example. If I'm willing to pay as $3 for a loaf of bread and the seller is willing to accept as little as $2.50 for it, then there's 50 cents of grey area in there for us to negotiate over. If I were being REALLY idealistic, I'd say that we both reveal that information and then agree on $2.75 as the final price because we want to be fair to one another. Alternately, I offer $2.50 at first; the seller requests $3.00 at first, and we negotiate toward $2.75.

    I am, however, willing to pay $3 for the bread. I don't think it's being "taken advantage of" if I offer $3 and end up paying it. So what if the guy selling the bread makes 50 cents that he didn't really expect to make? So what if I could have had a share of that 50 cents? If I have set my boundaries such that paying $3 for a loaf of bread allows me to be content with my purchase, then I have no reason for complaint. In my opinion, this is a fundamental flaw in what I consider to be the typical free market. People allow their utility, wellbeing, happiness, etc. to be predicated on their ability to capture that grey area.

    Put another way, I don't think it's reasonable to choose to be happy because I saved a quarter on a loaf of bread and merely indifferent about getting a loaf of bread at my threshold price. I think it's more reasonable to choose to be happy about enjoying my bread that I paid a fair price for rather than fretting over how much less I could have paid for that bread.

    --
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
    Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
  24. Re:Maybe because Chomsky is a linguistics professo by gambino21 · · Score: 2

    I don't think he's ever claimed to be an "economics expert". He writes/speaks his opinions about various topics just as anyone should have the right to do, even if they are not a so called "expert". I noticed that you didn't actually attack any of his positions, you just say he doesn't have the correct training so we shouldn't listen to him. And you criticize his writing style by linking to Chomskybot? You do realize that chomskybot is a computer program and not the actual writing of Noam Chomsky. I could just as easily say Charles Dickens is a terrible writer because when I randomly assemble phrases from his writing, the sentences don't have any meaning.