Last week, I put my house up for sale. Buying your house at the peak of the housing bubble (2006) and trying to sell it at the bottom of it is not a financially wise choice. You will inevitably lose money. At first, my wife, my parents, and my in-laws were not happy about it. I guess they understood my reasons and supported my attempts to sell and move back to India to do an MBA, but they, living in their own fantasy lands, hoped to get nearly every penny that I paid for in 2006. They were hoping to find an "uneducated" buyer who has been comatose for the last couple of years and is unaware of prevailing market conditions.
I wouldn't call them greedy, they were just unrealistic. Myopic is probably more apt. I am the one who is greedy: I am willing to forego a settled lifestyle to go get an MBA in India so that I can further my long-term career. My wife is happy with what we have now (she has always preferred a simple common-man lifestyle over my preference to a famous one). I don't want to have the burden of managing this house from India and so I am willing to take a realistic financial loss in the short-term.
In optimization, an algorithm that seeks true optimality has to be aware of existing "local optima" in its path. A local optimum is a point which, when compared to all its adjacent points seems to be the best possible outcome, yet when compared to the entire feasible solution space, is not the most optimal. The global optimum (as I see it today) for my life is to move back to India, stay close to parents, do an MBA and become something big. I believe my decision to live with short-term losses is in line with this long-term approach to optimality.
World affairs are no different than affairs at my home (just the scale and therefore the complexities are different). United States, as a nation, might have been sucked into the Iraq war by a bunch of no good politicians, or, alternatively, led into a legitimate combat by a group of visionaries who saw what the rest of the world are still failing to see. The objectives then for the war may have been legit, or, may be not. That is no more relevant. What should be the focus for the people of USA is what its long term objective is now, not what it should have been then. Discussions about the war should revolve more around what is the most optimal Iraq strategy in the long-term given today's scenario, and not whether the war was justified to begin with.
But what do we get from both sides of the aisle? Between the two Presidential nominees, one argues for an immediate pullout of all troops from Iraq and the other for staying the course indefinitely. It serves both parties well, in the short term (campaign year etc.), to take those stands and in that sense they are just seeking (sub-consciously) their respective local optima. They have chosen a popular stand (to their individual constituencies) with no regard or thought for what is right for the nation as a whole. In the process, they forgot that it is the nation, and not their constituency, that they will inherit as the President.
I have issues with both these positions. An immediate pullout will cause irreparable instability in Iraq that could potentially change the social and political dynamics of the middle-east forever. An indefinite war with no visible progress and no prospects is not something U.S could afford militarily, politically and more importantly economically. Unfortunately, in this case, there is no such thing as a middle ground. What is needed here is intervention. An intervention that will create prospects - prospects for all parties involved, and a solution that will replace the mistrust and animosity with hope and peace. That is what I would like to hear from the two Presidential candidates - how they are planning to intervene and alter the course of this war and pull us all out of this quagmire.
One who takes a stand (whatever it might be) without explaining his/her position and without stating the long-term vision and without deliberation as to the consequences of executing on that vision doesn't make a leader.
In my family's case, they forced me to state clearly and then defend my position on what my long-term goal is before I could put the house on the market. In the process, my family made me a leader. If only we could do the same with the Presidential nominees... If only Presidential debates were meaningful... If only news coverage was more objective... If only editorials didn't lose their importance... If only campaigns didn't get stuck in local optima...
Like my family was hoping to find an uneducated, comatose buyer for my house (before I talked them out of it), both the candidates are wishing the "average" voter will neither question nor seek clarifications on their positions. Let's talk them out of it...
I wouldn't call them greedy, they were just unrealistic. Myopic is probably more apt. I am the one who is greedy: I am willing to forego a settled lifestyle to go get an MBA in India so that I can further my long-term career. My wife is happy with what we have now (she has always preferred a simple common-man lifestyle over my preference to a famous one). I don't want to have the burden of managing this house from India and so I am willing to take a realistic financial loss in the short-term.
In optimization, an algorithm that seeks true optimality has to be aware of existing "local optima" in its path. A local optimum is a point which, when compared to all its adjacent points seems to be the best possible outcome, yet when compared to the entire feasible solution space, is not the most optimal. The global optimum (as I see it today) for my life is to move back to India, stay close to parents, do an MBA and become something big. I believe my decision to live with short-term losses is in line with this long-term approach to optimality.
World affairs are no different than affairs at my home (just the scale and therefore the complexities are different). United States, as a nation, might have been sucked into the Iraq war by a bunch of no good politicians, or, alternatively, led into a legitimate combat by a group of visionaries who saw what the rest of the world are still failing to see. The objectives then for the war may have been legit, or, may be not. That is no more relevant. What should be the focus for the people of USA is what its long term objective is now, not what it should have been then. Discussions about the war should revolve more around what is the most optimal Iraq strategy in the long-term given today's scenario, and not whether the war was justified to begin with.
But what do we get from both sides of the aisle? Between the two Presidential nominees, one argues for an immediate pullout of all troops from Iraq and the other for staying the course indefinitely. It serves both parties well, in the short term (campaign year etc.), to take those stands and in that sense they are just seeking (sub-consciously) their respective local optima. They have chosen a popular stand (to their individual constituencies) with no regard or thought for what is right for the nation as a whole. In the process, they forgot that it is the nation, and not their constituency, that they will inherit as the President.
I have issues with both these positions. An immediate pullout will cause irreparable instability in Iraq that could potentially change the social and political dynamics of the middle-east forever. An indefinite war with no visible progress and no prospects is not something U.S could afford militarily, politically and more importantly economically. Unfortunately, in this case, there is no such thing as a middle ground. What is needed here is intervention. An intervention that will create prospects - prospects for all parties involved, and a solution that will replace the mistrust and animosity with hope and peace. That is what I would like to hear from the two Presidential candidates - how they are planning to intervene and alter the course of this war and pull us all out of this quagmire.
One who takes a stand (whatever it might be) without explaining his/her position and without stating the long-term vision and without deliberation as to the consequences of executing on that vision doesn't make a leader.
In my family's case, they forced me to state clearly and then defend my position on what my long-term goal is before I could put the house on the market. In the process, my family made me a leader. If only we could do the same with the Presidential nominees... If only Presidential debates were meaningful... If only news coverage was more objective... If only editorials didn't lose their importance... If only campaigns didn't get stuck in local optima...
Like my family was hoping to find an uneducated, comatose buyer for my house (before I talked them out of it), both the candidates are wishing the "average" voter will neither question nor seek clarifications on their positions. Let's talk them out of it...
2 comments:
Hi Goutham,
So far a good blog. I'm sorry to hear you want to leave us. I won't take any position against your buying high and selling low. It is your right to lose money.
I will of course point out a few flaws with your political points.
First, you mis-characterized McCain's position on pulling out of Iraq. He is taking the same approach that we took in Japan and Germany in WWII. Nobody at that time demanded a timeline to withdraw. Lo and behold, we are still there. We are not in a state of war but we have a presence. Our reasons for staying have shifted but it benefits all parties. McCain simply states that withdrawal is conditions based and not timeline based. It is like a very sick man in the hospital asking the doctor the exact date and time to be checked out. The doctor will observe until he feels it is safe to discharge.
I think you also mis-characterize McCain by stating he does not want to clarify his positions. Your attempt to pool the two together into the same lump is ludicrous. McCain has a long historical voting record. It is quote easy to tell where he stands by reviewing his record. His positions are clear. Where he has shifted his positions, such as oil drilling he has given clear reasons. McCain has also asked for 10 Townhall style debates where there is less control over the questions and format.
Obama on the other hand has no such lengthy voting record. In fact he is best known for his high volume of voting "Present" in many Illinois congressional votes. Obama also speaks in vague generic rhetoric calling for "hope" and "change". He does not offer many details, nor has the press demanded such details. In addition, Obama has done quite a number of flip-flops since the Primary ended. He does not give clear statements and reasons so we are left to assume it is for political expediency in his panicked dive to transform himself from a leftist socialist into a moderate centrist. Finally, Obama rejected the 10 proposed townhall debates and only agreed to 3.
Sorry Goutham but your attempt to paint the two equally with a broad brush does not work.
Charles
The main topic of the blog was to emphasize the importance of forcing a leader to explain his/her positions and future vision, and not to draw comparisons between the two candidates. I hope you will agree with me that none of them have done anything of "explaining the vision" sort of a thing. Stating that we should stay the course without spelling out his vision (the speech McCain gave recently on his Iraq strategy does not cut it, it is neither logical nor practical) is as good or even worse than pulling out now.
And about the 10 town hall meetings versus 3, it is not the number that matters, it is the substance. And honestly, I didn't see any substance to any speech, town hall or otherwise, given by McCain.
No, I am not taking sides and supporting Obama's positions... but if you want to draw parallels between Germany and Iraq, you (and the republican party and McCain) need to first do a lot more explaining (and convincing) how you plan to achieve political stability in Iraq the way the "whole world" has in Germany. This comparison is a long shot... nice try though;)
Post a Comment