mi_b: (child pic)
Забавная статья на известном американском электоральном блоге 538 про выборы республиканского претендента в президенты на выборах 2016 года. Объясняется, что голосование внутри республиканской партии для выбора претендента дает относительно высокое представительство республиканцам из "голубых" демократических штатов.

На выборах многих кандидатов по окружной системе, где в каждом округе решает простое большинство, важны голоса тех, кто живет в примерно равно разделенных округах. Именно эти голоса решают исход выборов и под них разумно подбирать кандидата, если хочется победить. Республиканцы из глубоко демократических штатов так же иррелевантны, как республиканцы из глубоко республиканских "красных" штатов, потому что последние все равно никуда не денутся и проголосуют на президентских выборах за какого угодно республиканского кандидата против демократа. При этом, поскольку перед республиканцами стоит задача выиграть президентские выборы после предыдущих двух поражений, реальный фокус должен быть на слегка "синих" штатах, которые проголсовали за Обаму в прошлый раз но могут склониться к республиканцам в этот раз.

Интересно, что автор статьи, видимо, не понимает этой иррелевантности республиканцев из красных штатов и рациональности фокуса на республиканцах из умеренно синих штатов и пишет пассажи типа

And thanks to the Republican National Committee’s allocation rules, the votes of “Blue Zone” Republicans — the more moderate GOP primary voters who live in Democratic-leaning states and congressional districts — could weigh more than those of more conservative voters who live in deeply red zones. Put another way: The Republican voters who will have little to no sway in the general election could have some of the most sway in the primary.
mi_b: (child pic)
Интервью/диалог с Тайлером Коэном

про Россию в 1991:

In 1989, I made recommendations for Poland. I said several unusual things, like “Don’t pay your debts, get debt cancellation. You need emergency, a billion dollars on this date,” and so forth. Everything I recommended actually ended up happening with US government support.

Then in Russia two years later I was asked by Gorbachev and then by Yeltsin to help them, because they saw what was happening in Poland. They liked that. They wanted something similar. So I said exactly the same things, and the US government kept saying, “No, no way, no way.” I kept saying, “But that kept working there.”

I didn’t understand it in some deep sense for a long, long time, how weird this was. I knew it wasn’t the difference of economic advice. I understand what a financial crisis is.

TYLER COWEN: Culturally weird, you mean.

JEFFREY SACHS: No, how weird it was in the historical moment that things that had worked extremely well, had shown themselves, where I had had Brent Scowcroft and Bob Dole and others strongly supporting it, all of a sudden just no support from Washington. The IMF saying, “We’re not going to do this.” I said, “But, Richard Urban, you did that two years ago in Poland.” “We’re not going to do it.” “Why?” Flat.

[...] We didn’t want to help Russia in 1991. We wanted our unipolar world. I didn’t know that at the time. [...] Yeltsin [...] said [...] “We want to be a normal country.” I said, “I will help you, Mr. President.” We didn’t want that in this country. What I didn’t understand was everything I said about Poland was immediately accepted because it was good advice and because Poland was going to be a bulwark of NATO. Everything I said about Russia didn’t matter whether it was good advice or not. Russia was on the other side.

By the time they got out of the financial crisis, which was several years later, because we completely stuck it to them in amazing ways and allowed the crisis to be fulminant for a number of years. The reformers were gone, the corruption was completely out of control.

Про Африку тоже интересно.

April 2017

2345 678


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 09:38 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios