Reddit reviews The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics.

There's a solid summary on the internet provided by CGP Grey, The Rules for Rulers

I think I would also direct them to this video, made in the 1940s that ISM cartoon I'm sure people are quick to point out that communism is strongly implied in that video; but really, any authoritarian regime has these problems. Freedom and liberty should be of highest importance in this country. As a country, we've absolutely forgotten that.

Daca vrei sa afli cum arata perspectiva puterii citeste http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 + http://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/
Se aplica in orice loc unde sunt oameni.

Sunt foarte multe de spus dar eu 's prea obosit momentan.

Dato che parli di anti establishment e mi sembri una persona ragionevole, ti faccio qualche appunto che magari serve come spunto di riflessione in futuro.

La parola anti-establishment è una parola completamente vuota. Chi promette di abbattere l'establishment lo fa perché vuole diventarlo esso stesso.

Il punto è che molte delle sovrastrutture governative non sono costrutti artificiosi fatti per succhiare potere, ma conseguenze necessarie e spesso machiaveliche per scaricare le tensioni e mettere d'accordo decine di stati con molteplici interessi contrastanti. Se hai idea di quanto sia complicato fare una riunione di condominio, puoi immaginare come sia divertente accordare decine di stati nazionali.

Ciò non significa che persone in malafede aplrofittino della complessità di queste istituzioni per instaurare strutture di potere. Ma risolvere questo va nella direzione opposta al distruggere l'establishment.

Altro problema. Non è che lo spazio lasciato libero da un establishment che se ne va rimane vuoto. Bensì, come un gas qualcuno arriverà a riempirlo. Solitamente a riempire questi spazi sono suoerpotenze estere (Russia, USA, Cina) o corporazioni private (come nel caso dell'Africa, la cui frammentazione in decine di stati in conflitto è sicuramente incoraggiata dall'occiddente e fa da terreno fertile per società private che de facto sono stati negli stati).

L'UE ad esempio è il bersaglio classico di establishment per molti partiti. Anche se è vero che la commissione europea è poco rappresentativa degli stati e andrebbe riformata, L'UE è l'unica massa critica in grado di giocare ad armi quasi pari con gli altri elementi in gioco. Quando qualcuno parla di eliminarla chiediti sempre "a chi gioverebbe?".

Detto questo, ho fatto un pippone OT da cellulare. Solo perché la macro politica e la teoria dei giochi mi piace parecchio e mi piace parlarne in modo non convenzionale :D.

Magari quando torno a casa edito e aggiungo link a un paio di libri al riguardo.

EDIT: Ecco il promesso angolo dei libri!

• The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics [Amazon] -- La fa un po' facile e non devi prenderlo come oro colato. Ma è il più "divulgativo" dei libri e getta le basi per tutta una serie di ragionamenti più complessi.
  
• The Logic of Political Survival [Amazon] Stesso autore, 6 anni prima. Più formale ma un mattone da quasi 600 pagine. Per veri appassionati. :D
  
• The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups [Amazon] -- Piccolo ma denso manualetto sulla teoria dei gruppi applicata ai beni pubblici.
  
• The Best and the Brightest [Amazon]
  
• Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis [Amazon] -- Un grande classico di politica internazionale.
  
  Direi che per ora basta. Se devi cominciare da qualche parte, consiglio il primo e l'ultimo. Sono più brevi, densi e divulgativi.

This shit all reads like it's straight out of The Dictator's Handbook. They have all these rules and bylaws pretty much specifically set up to raise the barriers to participation in the association and thereby keep themselves in power (however local and limited that power may be).

Highly recommend anyone interested in this read The Dictator's Handbook - the book goes into interesting detail about the politics of how foreign aid really works.

Basically it's more often than not about paying foreign dictators for favours then it is about providing genuine aid.

> Podés creer lo que quieras. Yo no dije "falso". En lo que a mi concierne, Cristina puede haber hecho exactamente todas las cosas que Nisman denunciaba y aún así no hay delito constituído. Si leyeras la denuncia, se desprende una sola conclusión posible. Queda muy claro que ni la miraste.

Pero el pacto se firmó. No es que lo pensaron nada más y no hicieron nada al respecto. Es un poco más complejo que tu ejemplo sobre matarme. Obviamente que planear algo y no actuar no es delito, si fuera por cada pensamiento oscuro yo estaría preso hace años. El tema es que acá se actuó.

Y la verdad es que no soy abogado ni se tanto de derehco, y la denuncia como decís es floja, y muchos lo dicen. pero eso no quiere decir que, como decía, no sea verosimil. Escucharlo a D'elia (un tipo que se trajo 1 millon de dolares en cash de Cuba para armar la contracumbre contra Bush en Mardel, y lo reconoció!!!) conspirando con Rabbani, me parece que es algo que al menos da para sospechar, más allá del trabajo de Nisman.

> Claro, y es totalmente imposible que alguien de una facción cualquiera opuesta al gobierno haga esto para generar exactamente esa impresión.

Sería la primera vez en la historia del mundo que se hace algo así para desestabilizae a un gobierno que se termina en seis meses y que ya está muy débil por los miles de quilombos que creó por todos lados. No es que estamos hablando de Néstor en el 2006.

> Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Lee la denuncia. No tiene nada de "Verosimil". Los hechos que Nisman dice que indicaban culpabilidad no sucedieron. Eso es la definición de inverosimilitud.

Andá más allá del documento de la denuncia, y decime si no tiene aunque sea una pizca de verosimilitud.

Además yo no estoy habalndo con el diario del día después. Si el gobierno si hizo ese pacto, incluso si no lo llevó a cabo (a pesar de haber hecho su parte y aprobarlo en el Congreso), ellos no podían saber que la denuncia era una garcha juridicamente. Por lo que tiene sentido que hayan querido prevenir que hablara o que la presentara. O por lo menos tener una excusa para salir a embarrar la cancha.

Ahora, si no hicieron el pacto no tiene sentido nada de eso, obviamente. Pero que lo hayan aprobado en el congreso me da una cierta pauta de que no era una mentira de nisman. Insisto, a pesar de lo choto que pueda ser su escrito.

> Lol yo le doy muy poco crédito, vos estás diciendo que se auto-generó una crisis política a propósito.

Es lo que viene haciendo desde hace 8 años. Te doy solo dos ejemplos.

1. La crisis del campo. Ella la podría haber desarticulado cualquier día, pero presionó, insistió, jodió, hizo marchas, provocó a los ruralistas, creó la guerra con Clarin. Por qué? Porque políticamente se benefició con eso, le permitió crear y darle forma al relato.
   
2. La crisis con los holdouts. Podría haber pagado cualquier día. La cláusula Ruffo no era tan seria. Pero incluso si te la querías tomar en serio, van 3 meses del 2015 y podía pagar el 1 de enero. Por qué no lo hizo? Porque los Buitres son el enemigo perfecto, y la crisis política alrededor de eso le reditua, porque puede culpar a los yankis - un enemigo muy querido en argentina - y crecer políticamente.
   
   Y así hay mil más.
   
   > A ver ¿Qué bibliografía me recomendás?
   
   Te recomiendo varios de mi biblioteca personal:
   
   

• El autoritarismo competitivo, de Steven Levitsky. Analiza muy bien las nuevas "democracias" autoritarias, sobre todo en las exrepúblicas soviéticas, y en algunas zonas de América Latina.
  
• Nothing to Envy: Real Lives in North Korea. Este libro es excelente. Una corresponsal yanki en Korea del Sur cuenta la historia de 6 o 7 desertores norcoreanos – muchos igual muy nostálgicos de su vida en aquel país –que cuentan el régimen desde adentro. Te pone la piel de gallina, y también te hace ver otro lado del regimen.
  
• Finding the Dragon Lady Este cuenta la historia de Madame Nhu, la primera dama de Vietnam del Sur antes de la guerra. Una hija de puta impulsiva y caprichosa que generó tantos conflictos que casi casi que aceleró la guerra. No es un libro muy profundo, pero es muy divertido y si te gustan las historias de dictadores o democracias altamente imperfectas está bueno.
  
• The Dictators Handbook Este está escrito en tono muy gracioso por dos politólogos de NYU, pero básicamente hace un trazado y exhibe elementos comunes en varias dictaduras alrededor del mundo. No es un libro académico ni mucho menos, es para leer en el baño casi, pero la verdad que está bueno y tiene su valor.
  
• Why Nations Fail Este creo que es un libro fundamental. Habla sobre el origen de las naciones, sobre la maldición de los recursos naturales, y sobre como el mismo sistema político lleva a que muchos países no se desarrollen. Es un libro super conocido, y vale la pena.
  
  Tengo algunos más, pero tengo el Kindle sin batería y no me acuerdo del nombre de todos. Pero los dictadores son uno de mis temas favoritos.
  
  No con eso quiero decir que Cristina sea Kim Jong Un, ni Madame Nhu, o Saddam Hussein. Nomás digo que toma elementos de ese tipo de regímenes y que su aplicación de algunas estrategias parece de manual. Nada más.
  
  > Es meramente estar medianamente informado. Lee la denuncia. Es descabellada, mal escrita, vergonzosa.
  
  Como dije antes, vos te remitís nomás al documento.
  
  Edit: corregí lo que dije sobre los buitres, había puesto cualquiera.

The Dictator's Handbook.

The Gervaise Principle

Here's the link:
https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics-ebook/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Pretty good deal!

The book he got his concepts and stuff from

The Dictator's Handbook
https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics-ebook/dp/B005GPSLHI/

If someone knows where I can get a hard copy of that in Pakistan, pls lemme know.

I HIGHLY recommend "The Dictators Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics" as an introduction to my outlook on power structure. From my interpretation of the text, it shows how politics often boil down to incentive systems, and how they are manipulated by the actors within.

Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics-ebook/dp/B005GPSLHI

I've never seen that term before, and the Wikipedia article on the subject was a good read. But it's not quite what I'm talking about (though it's definitely a closely related concept). Or perhaps it is, but the Wikipedia article, focusing on the management of democratic institutions rather than the direct power of corporations over individual lives, makes it look less like that than it should.

What I'm talking about is an application of the theory laid out in The Dictator's Handbook. In it, the authors lay out and analyze what they regard as the essential difference between dictatorial and democratic regimes: the number of people necessary for a successful leadership coalition. In dictatorships, this number is relatively small, allowing the leaders of such coalitions to keep the coalition loyal by rewarding the individual members for their assistance directly, through things like special privileges and direct bribes. In a democracy, on the other hand, this number is relatively large, making direct rewards prohibitively expensive, requiring instead more general "policy rewards" designed to keep the largest possible number of people happy with the regime at the lowest possible cost.

In their analysis, the authors point out the the corporation, under this model, functions in a manner identical to a dictatorship. Theoretically, the CEO is there to generate a profit which (s)he can either release as a dividend or use to pump up the value of existing shares by reinvesting it. In reality, because boards are small and most shareholders are too diversified to really pay attention to board politics, the CEO can better reward the coalition that brought him to power by "hiring" individual board members for a variety of made-up positions, the primary purpose of which is to put the money directly in their pockets, while cutting out the peripheral shareholders. Indeed, this can be so much cheaper, that the board majority can make more money hiring a CEO whose focus is to loot the company for their sake, rather than actually managing it well in the long term.

Now, in this country, we theoretically vote for our representatives and top officers of government. But who we have the option of voting for is typically determined by corporate support. Thus, our form of government is more comparable to the one-party-rule of places like the Soviet Union or China, than an actual democracy. But rather than the ruling elite being an official political party, it is instead an unofficial and loose coalition of corporate interests... a federation of corporations, so to speak, or as I put it before, a federation of dictatorships. Their direct control (ownership as property) over the majority of the resources in the world put us at their mercy; we must meet their demands in order to save our very lives. They decide who we can vote for, and then we legitimize their choice by choosing from among the approved candidates, in a process very similar to that in places like China or Iran.

Si les interesa seguir leyendo mas del tema el libro se llama: "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics"

I recommend checking out this book if you have the time.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I'm not advocating screwing over the citizens of Flint, I'm pointing out that it is the unfortunate reality of the situation.

You should read The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics to squash any remaining faith on the human race regarding politics.

To anti-Trumpgeniuses I would like to point something out:

Start with the blog http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/rules-for-rulers

The look up the book: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics-ebook/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1477309620&sr=1-1&keywords=the+dictator%27s+handbook&linkCode=sl1&tag=greyblog-20&linkId=f8e4272303a83475186b4ed632168f9c

Note that it was published in 2011.

Now let's read the description:

> For eighteen years, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith have been part of a team revolutionizing the study of politics by turning conventional wisdom on its head. They start from a single assertion: Leaders do whatever keeps them in power. They don't care about the “national interest”—or even their subjects—unless they have to.
> This clever and accessible book shows that the difference between tyrants and democrats is just a convenient fiction. Governments do not differ in kind but only in the number of essential supporters, or backs that need scratching. The size of this group determines almost everything about politics: what leaders can get away with, and the quality of life or misery under them. The picture the authors paint is not pretty. But it just may be the truth, which is a good starting point for anyone seeking to improve human governance.

If you make the conclusion: let's keep government as small as humanly possible - yay! Good for you.

If you conclusion is: red team sucks, blue team rocks, then OMFG!

I can't even! How? How do you not see or smell the fucking rotting sperm whale in the room?

You know, red team, at least in name is the government opposition party. Blue team is all for more government. It is not even symmetric ...