Status Updates From Teoria della politica inter...

Waltz judges that the US has 'probably' overmanaged world affairs since WW2 - so, obviously a similar view as Mearsheimer's! I wonder if this is a necessary feature of realist thought.

A further insight is that the US's credibility is other states' problem, not the US's (similar to 'Our dollar, your problem' I think) - however I still think this misses the problems of long-term credibility decline.

Great states have the luxury of more autonomy in their actions, small states do not. Negotiations for great states are a choice of their grand strategy; for small states it's a choice between life or death.

Same as for people!

Rich kids have the luxury of choice, to pursue the meaning of life; poor kids do not.

As of 1978, Waltz still thought that China would never catch up with the US and the Soviet Union. Aged like milk.

Tbf, he was already cautious of it as a 'future superpower', but he doubted that they would either i) increase production or ii) acquire a large & modern military capability. And surely not both. (Oof!)

He thought that Western Europe was the 'only candidate' to catch up with the US and USSR.

Kissinger, as SoS, noted that throughout history, to be powerful, a nation had to be strong in all 3 dimensions - military, economic, political; but he observed, these dimensions had diverged in his time. A nation could be powerful with just .

Somehow this meant that you could 'infer a nation's status from the US's policy towards it'. Have no idea why this is, and how it even follows from the 'schism observation'.

Some Chapter 6 takeaways:
1) Machiavelli expounded realpolitik but did NOT develop ideas of balance of power (fascinating!)
2) Scholars have found numerous diff statements of the BoP theory in the literature. E.g., Haas discovered 8 distinct meanings; Wight found 9; Morgenthau used 4 diff definitions.
3) A great brief history of BoP is Wight (1973) (I hope to find a recent work).
4) Hume was a BoP realist.

Waltz now makes some interesting yet repetitive points that I'll figure out later.

His central point is international externalities, which supposedly casts some issues on microtheories of politics. This calls for a need of a macrotheory of politics like macroecon, but he notes that it's hard to do so both in theory and practice.

This seems contradictory to his stance of rejecting reductionism for systems.

It's clear now why Waltz contemplates Hayek - he conceives of the international order as ANARCHY (this even goes as far as to mean 'no IO'!) Can see how Waltz influenced Mearsheimer.

The central question - 'how to conceive of an order without an orderer'? Interestingly, polisci has no tools to tackle this yet, so Waltz reasons by analogy from microecon.

W assumes the state goal is SURVIVAL, while M assumes POWER.

Waltz, for no apparent reason, digresses into a Hayekian monologue. It's notable that Waltz seems to be a believer in spontaneous order.

Also, Waltz observes the Anna Karenina principle. 'Those who survive share certain characteristics. Those who go bankrupt lack them.' (Referring to firms)

Finally, diff causes may produce the same effects; same causes may have diff effects. So, what gives?

Kissinger as SCHOLAR had a circular conception of international order: legitimate IO = peace; revolutionary IO = war. Revolutionary states make the system revolutionary; a revolutionary system is that which has revolutionary states. Morgenthau agrees with Kissinger as SCHOLAR, and thus advises intervention in foreign domestic affairs

Apparently, Kissinger as STATESMAN had dramatically diff conclusions.

Fascinating.

Recap:
1) Think of reductionist theories as micro & systemic theories as macro.
R: Understand the economy by studying its parts; S: Study it as if it has a life of its own
2) J.A. Hobson anticipated Keynes - wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. Thus, consumption won't keep up with increase in production power. The rich won't spend enough.
3) Waltz concludes that R fails. What does that mean for micro ... ?

This epistemology + philosophy of science monologue that is Chapter 1, can be entirely applied to asset pricing. Also, ntg here hasn't already been said by Hume in the Treatise.

In light of recent developments, Andrew Chen made me wonder if post-hoc theorizing is optimal.

Also, 'an infinity of theories can be constructed for 1 phenomenon' ... so 1 theory paper, however mathematically robust, means ntg!