User talk:AutoJellinek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

]

Welcome![edit]

A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

Hello, AutoJellinek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sadads (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AutoJellinek. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Possible nomination of GA to FA status[edit]

Hi AutoJellinek,

It is not likely that I will be able to read an entire book in any reasonable time period, but let me know if you need any help with specific sourcing issues. To be honest my Holocaust knowledge is not nearly as good as my Israeli history knowledge, but I know about the major events and countless individual stories that may be of use (although I do not myself have the necessary secondary sources).

Please let me know specifically what I can do to help.

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 12:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Evil and the God of Love[edit]

Hi there; I've not read that particular book, but I did read quite a bit on Hick a few years ago. I'm happy to do what I can to help dig out reviews, if you like, and I'd certainly be happy to offer a GA or FA review; are you planning to write the article from scratch? Was there some particular help you were after? J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Where's the article? Which article are we talking about, here? There's nothing at Evil and the God of Love? J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That article's by ItsZippy (talk · contribs); if you're keen to see it improved, you may want to talk to him. If you're asking me to improve it, I'm afraid I can't commit to that, but if there's something in particular you're looking for some help with, I can see what I can do. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find some time, but I can't promise anything, I'm afraid. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing- you really shouldn't nominate the article for FA status without talking with the primary contributor first. As there's inevitably going to be a lot of feedback at the candidate page, you need to be very familiar with the article, the subject and the sources. I don't know what your background is, but this is a fairly big and complex topic. Before nominating at FAC, I recommend you familiarise yourself with the literature, and do what you can to improve the article; after that, peer review (or, if you're quite confident, FAC) would be the next step. The way to start would be to take a look at some other introductory texts to see how they cover the topic; do you have access to a university library? J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My recommendation was going to be to take a look at some of the companions to/encyclopedias of philosophy of religion; there will be a few moderately recent publications (Blackwell, Routledge, Oxford and Cambridge will all have their own, I suspect) which may well have chapters; they'd give a good impression of what the current research looks like, as well as pointing towards any classic texts which may be important. As you seem to be pretty serious and pretty ready to go for this, I'll have a good look through the article now and throw out any thoughts I have on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've left you some pointers on what you may want to work on- check the article talk page. I'm watching the page, so if you need any clarification, please ask. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It's best to reply to my comments on the article talk page, so that everything's in one place- you should also make the changes necessary to the article. (I'm removing your comments from my talk page, but they're still in the page history for you if you want to copy them across to the article talk page.) J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Realist and Idealist Geo-economics[edit]

The traditional names associated with economics applied to domains outside of domestic affairs have often been divided between references to either economic globalization, international trade, or international economics. This short essay examines the economics involved with geopolitics in general and adopts the use of the less rehearsed reference of geo-economics as representing a close cognate of geopolitics. Although among the standard names encountered in the field of geo-economics are usually American political scientist Edward Luttwak and the French economist Pascal Lorot, the general association with geopolitics invites a much broader review of all the relevant aspects of economic theory which influence international politics and therefore suggests a much broader domain of influence from economists of many diverse backgrounds. Geopolitics usually divides its domain of active opinion between realist and idealists, often paraphrased as the hawks and doves, and it is suggested here that the terms are not without resonance when applied the fields of economic globalization and international trade. The perspectives are perennial and often also characterized as distinguishing skeptics (realists) from more issues-oriented idealists. When redefined in this way, the domain of economists extends far wider than the types of limited comparisons in geo-economics which have been seen over the last ten years towards allowing more general comparative assessments of the contrasts being scholars of international economics such as Thomas Schelling (realists) and Jeffrey Sachs (issues-oriented) and the extensive influence which each of them have exerted on the very large research discussions which each of the respective these geo-economists have supported during their extensive careers.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Nuremberg trials[edit]

Few events in the last one hundred years clarify the different objectives in geo-economics are clearly as the contrasting views of social justice as they emerged out of the conclusion of WWII. One the one hand, Eleanor Roosevelt began her extensive campaign for the passage and resolution of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the newly formed United Nations. On the other hand, the war trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo both denoted the realist concern for the much larger economic and social issues denoted by the prosecution of the world war against both national socialism and the imperial Japanese empire. The costs associated with each of these respective projects was staggering. In the case of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the costs of implementation have been so extensive that no-one has serious considered associating a direct cost with accomplishing the lofty goals expressed, let alone establishing a time frame for their implementation across the entire world. In the case of WWII, and not to mention the practical aftermath represented by the Cold War, the geo-economics of both the prosecution of the world war among the Allies as well as the staggering costs of supporting the Cold War nuclear arms race have been argued and debated in legislatures around the world every years since WWII, and an entire cottage industry supporting and criticizing the economics of warfare and military preparedness has been fueled by tireless efforts of a seemingly inexhaustible group of interest economists of all stripe.

The actual social justice objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[edit]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. The full text is published by the United Nations on its website.

It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.[1] This first ten of the thirty of these rights, in turn denoting the associated economic implications for implementation, are given as follows; (1) All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood; (2) Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty; (3) Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person; (4) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms; (5) No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (6) Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law; (7) All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination; (8) Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law; (9) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; and, (10) Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

The economic assessment and impact of the implementation of the full thirty points of the Declaration has not ever received the type of budgetary evaluation which would suggest it as being implementable in any effective or straightforward manner. This has been a major criticism by those hawkish of the reality of its ever being fully implementable. The result has often been to accept it as a statement of normative goals having little basis in anything actually realizable as a goal directly consistent with economic practices of planning and budget wither at the domestic or the international level. Mary Ann Glendon has recorded mush of this in her recent book from 2002 titled A world made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Military preparedness and principle security issues in geo-economics[edit]

Few scholars in geo-economics have had as extensive effect on the realist study of the economics of warfare or military preparedness as has the Nobel prize winning economist Thomas Schelling. Thomas Crombie Schelling (born 14 April 1921) is an American economist and professor of foreign affairs, national security, nuclear strategy, and arms control at the School of Public Policy at University of Maryland, College Park. He is also co-faculty at the New England Complex Systems Institute. He was awarded the 2005 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (shared with Robert Aumann) for "having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis." There are two major books written by Schelling in which he elaborated his views of the economics of warfare and of military preparedness which were titled, The Strategy of Conflict, and Arms and Influence.

The Strategy of Conflict, which Schelling published in 1960,[2] pioneered the study of bargaining and strategic behavior in what Schelling refers to as "conflict behavior". It is considered one of the hundred books that have been most influential in the West since 1945.[3] In this book he introduced concepts like focal point and credible commitment. Chapter headings include "A Reorientation of Game Theory," "Randomization of Promises and Threats," and "Surprise Attack: A Study of Mutual Distrust."

Schelling's theories about war were extended in Arms and Influence, published in 1966.[4] The blurb states that it "carries forward the analysis so brilliantly begun in his earlier The Strategy of Conflict (1960) and Strategy and Arms Control (with Morton Halperin, 1961), and makes a significant contribution to the growing literature on modern war and diplomacy". Chapter headings include The Diplomacy of Violence, The Diplomacy of Ultimate Survival and The Dynamics of Mutual Alarm.

Schelling's influence as a economics thinker of geopolitics has rarely been challenged, although the neo-realists have attempted to make a juncture of challenging his analysis of the arms race. Somewhat famously, the late Kenneth Waltz had taken the counter-intuitive position that the possession of nuclear arms actually increases the responsibility of nations and their conduct in geopolitics. By direct implication, Waltz argued that vast expenditures of money in an arms race were therefore misapplied since stability in geo-politics, by his counter-intuitive argument, were only stabilized through the expansion of the number of nations possessing nuclear weapons. This is the opposite of the assumption under which Schelling operated for the vast majority of his writings which were in concordance with general Cold War assessments of nuclear arms race imperatives.

Reviving the economics of global social justice during and after the Cold War[edit]

If Thomas Schelling can be identified as being among the leading economist articulating the details and necessity of the nuclear arms race and of general military and security preparedness, then few voices among economist have been as well represented as that of Jeffrey Sachs in his defense of many of the objectives originally put forward in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from after WWII. Jeffrey David Sachs (/ˈsæks/; born November 5, 1954) is an American economist and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University. One of the youngest economics professors in the history of Harvard University, Sachs became known for his role as an adviser to Eastern European and developing country governments during the transition from communism to a market system or during periods of economic crisis. Subsequently he has been known for his work on the challenges of economic development, environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, debt cancellation, and globalization. Sachs is the Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and a Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia's School of Public Health. He is Special Adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on the Millennium Development Goals, having held the same position under former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He is co-founder and Chief Strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was Director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the Millennium Development Goals, eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger, and disease by the year 2015. He is Director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Since 2010 he has also served as a Commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, which leverages broadband technologies as a key enabler for social and economic development.[5] Sachs has authored three New York Times bestsellers: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011). His most recent book is To Move the World: JFK's Quest for Peace (2013). He has been named one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People in the World" twice, in 2004 and 2005.

Particularly important to Sachs in the last ten years has been his participation and promotion of the economics of the United Nations program titled the Millenium Development Goals and the issues of world health and world poverty which these goals seek to address on the world stage of geo-economics. Sachs has become one of the leading voices and researchers in the practical realization of these goals which have an excellent chance to succeed by 2015. The Millenium Development Goals have a special importance to many supporters of the original Declaration of Human Rights in that, in a practical sense, it has come to represent the best version of the portion of the Universal Declaration which would be converted into an actionable plan in geo-economics with a good chance of actually succeeding in the goals which it first set over a decade ago. It is now possible to enumerate the Millenium Development goals in the subsequent section.

The Millennium Development Goals and the Revival of the Universal Declaration[edit]

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are eight international development goals that were established following the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000, following the adoption of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. All 189 United Nations member states and at least 23 international organizations committed to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, the goals follow:

  1. To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
  2. To achieve universal primary education
  3. To promote gender equality and empowering women
  4. To reduce child mortality rates
  5. To improve maternal health
  6. To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
  7. To ensure environmental sustainability
  8. To develop a global partnership for development[6]

Each goal has specific targets and dates for achieving those targets. To accelerate progress, the G8 Finance Ministers agreed in June 2005 to provide enough funds to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) to cancel $40 to $55 billion in debt owed by members of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) to allow them to redirect resources to programs for improving health and education and for alleviating poverty. Criticisms accompanied the MDGs, focusing on lack of analysis and justification behind the chosen objectives, the difficulty or lack of measurements for some goals and uneven progress, among others. Although developed countries' aid for achieving the MDGs rose during the challenge period, more than half went for debt relief, with much of the remained going towards natural disaster relief and military aid which do not further development. As of 2013 progress towards the goals was uneven. Some countries achieved many goals, while others were not on track to realize any. A UN conference in September 2010 reviewed progress and concluded with the adoption of a global plan to achieve the eight goals by their target date. New commitments targeted women's and children's health and new initiatives in the worldwide battle against poverty, hunger and disease.

The balancing of geo-economics concerns between the economic hawks and the economic doves[edit]

The contrast which exists between the economic traditions represented by adherents to the viewpoint of economists such as Thomas Schelling, on the one hand, and economists such as Jeffrey Sachs on the other hand, is well-rehearsed in the literature of geo-economics and need not be repeated here. This is the very old debate and discussion between the concerns of social justice, whether of the domestic scale or the global scale, with the concerns of security-oriented interests. The preservation of the peace, or its restoration in times of conflict, is always an imperative irrespective of whether the position of the hawks or the doves is being examined and scrutinized. For scholars such as Niebuhr, Morgenthau and Waltz, the designation of these contrasts were normally delineated into three broad categories of assessment which date back at least to the time of Grotius in identifying the relationship of social justice to the issue of military warfare and military preparedness. This delineation is traditionally designated by the three forms of concern of the jus bellum or "just war" theory represented by; (a) jus ante bellum, (b) jus bellum, and (c) jus post bellum. In direct paraphrase to the contrasts which were introduced at the very start of this brief essay applied to the progress of WWII, the economics of the jus bellum corresponded to the conduct of the economics of belligerent nations during the years of the war itself between 1939 and 1945. The jus ante bullum would correspond to the decade leading up to WWII in the 1930s as a whole. The jus post bellum would correspond to the prosecution of the war crimes at Nuremberg and Tokyo, the implementation of the Marshall plan, and the eventual emergence of the nuclear arms race in the form of what is often referred to as defense enhancement. Each of these is directly relevant to the geo-economics concerns as these have been raised in the above sections dealing with those who would side their interest as swaying either towards Thams Schelling and the geo-economic hawks or towards Jeffrey Sachs and the geo-economic doves.

It has been voiced above that both Schelling and Sachs are concerned with the principle of preserving the peace and restoring the peace given the apparently inevitable reality that warfare appears to be part of the permanent condition of humankind. The challenge geo-economics is whether the framework of Niebuhr's and Morgnethau's jus bellum theory as generalized above can capture the principle concerns of leading economists of geopolitics and geo-economics. Specifically, that for Sachs, the basic argument for investing into the amelioration of world health and world poverty is the elimination or substantial amelioration of one of the principle causes of warfare which can be identified here as the desperate plight of desperately deprived groups of individuals and societies. For Sachs, the investment in the jus ante bellum is always deserving of attention and active investment since it provided one of the most effective mechanisms of geo-economics for the prevention of the conditions for the initiation and escalation of warfare. Schelling by contrast, has devoted his productive research efforts to understanding the economics of the jus bellum and the jus post bellum and the geo-economics spurred by the actual presence of belligerent activity or the conditions its immanent prosecution. The conditions for the repair of a nation or nations after the conclusion of warfare has been analyzed by both schools of economists considered in this brief comment.

AutoJellinek (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).