“Negotiation in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree.”
–Dean Acheson
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Who’s Paying For These Racist Anti-Harris Sign Stunts?
BY: davebarnes
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: Colorado Pols
IN: Who’s Paying For These Racist Anti-Harris Sign Stunts?
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
some element of rationality (even if overshadowed by irrationality), and identifiable goals to which it is directed which are not in all ways mutually exclusive to the goals of other parties to the negotiation.
Throughout most of the Cold War, for instance, both the United States and the Soviet Union were locked into a highly antagonistic relationship. Rarely was either party more anxious to agree than to disagree. But at the height of this relationship, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a type of negotiation took place, securing the removal of Russian missiles from Cuba in return for the removal of American missiles from Turkey at a slightly later date (because both parties had an interest in not appearing to have negotiated). This was coupled with another, more stark (and dangerous) form of negotiation: The mutual threat of nuclear war.
Most relationships include some compatable goals: Heavily or comparably armed enemies generally have a mutual interest in not going to war. That does not guarantee that negotiations will be successful: While Israel and at least two of its neighbors (Jordan and Egypt) have broken out of their cycle of violence, Israel and the Palestinians have not, to their mutual detriment. But the success in escaping from such cycles of violence is not dependent on one factor alone (that the parties be more anxious to agree than to disagree), but rather on a net-balance of factors, which includes degree of intransigence.
Of course, the Acheson quote above could be interpreted to be a tautology: The proof of being more anxious to agree is coming to an agreement, while the proof of being more anxious to disagree is failing to come to an agreement. But then it would simply mean that successful negotiation depends on the negotiation being successful, which is a pointless thing to say. If, however, you define “anxiousness to agree” as something other than “willingness to negotiate,” then it is only one factor among many, and, though a weighty one, not decisive in and of itself.
Relatedly, I’m working on a model I call “political market solutions,” which examines how multiple parties to a negotiation, dealing with multiple issues, can come to collectively preferable outcomes without any bilateral exchanges taking place. The idea is to simulate a marketplace for political outcomes, so that each party can “sell” concessions to another party in order to “buy” other unrelated concessions from a third party. Success in such negotiations only depends on parties rationally pursuing their prefered outcomes, and that the costs of bargaining, monitoring, and enforcing compliance is less to each party than the benefits of the exchange.
Just as completely disagreeable and belligerent people go to the marketplace of goods and services to buy what they want, there is no reason to assume that completely disagreeable and belligerent parties to a political negotiations can never be persuaded to go to the political marketplace to “buy” what they want.
Despite the obstacles, it’s worth the effort.
http://www.editorandpublisher….
MediaNews Announces Furloughs in New Mexico and Texas
The Rocky just needs to hang in there for another month or so. Dinky is on the ropes.
from thestar
from the Honolulu Advertiser
My mom was one of those voting for it!!!! (And she will get primaried for doing so.)
Awesome…
That’s the gist of the WSJ argument, that corporate tax cuts puts money into the economy because banks can lend and money circulates.
We just dumped billions into the banks, and they aren’t lending.
WSJ has a point about transfer payments but that money does surely get spent.
least surprising headline ever.
These are the guys who published this piece of crap, featuring my favorite curve fitting ever:
![](https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/upload/2007/07/ED-AG112_1corpt_20070712182433.gif)
Normally people try to hide their blatant abuse of any sort of mathematical facts. Good to see they are willing to come right and declare that they are willing to live in a fantasy world where the data fits their point.
And the theories of the WSJ have worked out so well for us… oh wait.
Republicans want socalist protection for stockholders while Democrats are asking to let the market have it’s effect on stock price. From HuffPo
Steele’s Slush Fund is under federal scrutiny:
And he wants to lecture Democrats on fiscal responsibility? Play on player.
Barack o’Bummer
Its not even funny.
Sick of it the first time already. What’s even the point? Why don’t they just talking about freaking cars or something?
Haven’t seen the ad myself, though.
They are the only advertiser on AM 760, I think.
although, honestly, I had to Google “AM 760” to find out what kind of radio station it was, since I never listen to it.
It actually has some positive aspects, and lists a bunch of things on the Obama agenda (free health care, bailouts for banks). The main problem is that it’s annoying as hell, makes no sense, says nothing, and has nothing to do with cars.
Usually car dealers tend to be pro-Republican, in my experience. And, I read the comments on the following URL, where someone writes that the ad allegedly calls the President “Obambomber” and someone else writes, “The new ‘Obomer’ commerical [sic] is tastless [sic]”:
http://denver.citysearch.com/p…
Thanks for answering my question. Regardless, it sounds like a bizarre ad.
but that was mainly because I couldn’t understand what the hell it was trying to say. It sounded like it was scripted by Libertad. 🙂
Not with great success but compared with some dealer ads (Dealin’ Doug in his cheesy superman get up, for instance) The Rocky’s ads aren’t the worst.
To maximize profits. I saw the Rocky’s ad, and sort of had to do a double-take. But I don’t think it was intentionally political: Just a bad attempt at humor that was open to a political interpretation. I might be wrong.
One exception I noticed recently was the owner of American Furniture Warehouse (from whom I bought most of the furniture in my house) pontificating on the virtues of Amendment 47 (prohibition on mandatory payment of union dues). I’ll give him this: He was willing to alienate a significant portion of his potential clientelle in order to speak his mind on the subject.
My apologies if someone already posted this.
Roberts?!? Good lord, what if he’s learning?
I’m also a little alarmed to see him throwing around Stephens’ name. She reminds me of Palin, only somehow artful. When she walks around for some reason I always think she’s a Democrat, then she opens her mouth.
Did anyone else see Sen. M. Bennet on the chair during the economic stimulus bill debate in the Senate? I thought he did great!
I’m not looking for much in a presiding officer…just a little enthusiasm, please? 🙂
watching CSpan late into the night.
Don’t you think Bennet had to take that job, lat at night, because of lack of seniority and someone had to do it?
That’s a commonly used catch phrase by Republicans to decry any governtment spending, since hard working Americans are “tightening their belts” right now.
Except of course for the people who got into this mess in the first place: New York Bankers
It’s good to see they’re really stretching their seven-figure income while the rest of use suffer their faults.
Of course it’s hurting the expected demographic…. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/…
The Mac is back as a partisan hack hell bent on a failed strategy of failed ideology. So much for being an independent that he told voters during the campaign.
Vitter is in lokc-stop with Limbaugh and Durbin just punked his ass.
from ABC News
though I think David Vitter is auditing it.
Remember, 36 of the Senate Republicans voted for a DeMint proposal to strip ALL SPENDING out of the stimulus and just throw massive tax cuts at the economy. That, plus McCain and others who criticize, “This isn’t a stimulus bill, it’s a spending bill!”
Grover Norquist has been slipping hallucinogens into the punch for decades and now they simply can’t distinguish reality from their campaign-trail ravings.
I understand conservatives need ideological affirmative action to get jobs, but does SNL really need Republican writers?
The joke on the opening sketch was that the Senate vote was bipartisan, “if by bipartisan you mean three Republicans!” Uh, yeah, that happened. Simply mentioning it doesn’t make it particularly funny.
It’s obviously the exact same writer who wrote last year’s bailout sketch, with the same sort of C-SPAN format with no particular imagination. “As a Republican, I am somewhat offended by Democrats. If I get people to dress up like Democrats and say what Democrats say, that’s parody, right?”
It feels like watching “Date Movie,” in the sense that it’s all reference to something you might recognize, and that’s the joke. Unwatchable.