Absolute Gains vs. Relative Gains

Absolute gain: mutual benefits (or mutual loss) through interdependence
 - Mutual benefit != equal benefit - depends on size and strength of economy

Relative (zero-sum) Gains
 - Win/lose scenarios
 - Some countries use this mindset (Cuba and US)

"Anarchic" operating environment
Search for security - pursuit of "national interest" (US - Iraq) - drives state policy
National interest's goal = power maximization
What are two sources of power?
 - economic
 - military

Why is there a concentration on military power and spending in impoverished countries? (i.e. India/Pakistan's nuclear weapons, African states)
 - sovereignty and security
 - "balance of power" (India and Pakistan) (and I would assume other places)
 - (ノ ゜Д゜)ノ ==== ●～*　ヽ(｀Д´)ノ

Examples of economic power
 - Japan after WWII - military power replaced by development of economic power (except recently, har)
 - Costa Rica (no military) but government policies active in bringing in investment from companies like Intel (or just Intel? I doubt it though)
 - Economic power also creates a venue for protection - I have lots of friends to protect me! Yatta!
 - Attracting foreign direct investments - both size and policy affect attractiveness foreign companies?

IGIGIGIGIGPE - where the rules are made
 - Investment rules are different from country to country: red or green?

Themes of IGIGIGIGPE
There is inherent tension between Market and State: Market - don't intervene! State - intervene! READY FIGHT
 - Methods of intervention: tariffs, export subsidies, etc.
There is inherent tension between national priorities and stability of international free market system
 - i.e. Iraq... again (how many times are we going to reference this today)
 - National priorities may not be in line with market stability
There is no certain mechanisms to force states to do what is best - no global cop
 - Hegemonic power of US (Pax Americana) ends 1971; Hegemon != superpower (current US?)
 - What does this mean?

POKEMON DIGIMON OLYMPUS MONS HEGEMOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

---

(Back to our scheduled programming - world views)
(Just kidding, apparently)

Social Contract Theory
 - Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau
 - Human nature and state of nature
 - Came up with ways to address the above
Hobbes:
 - Human nature is nasty, brutish, selfish, and ... something I can't read, it looks like "shack"
 - "Chaos and anarchy"
 - In market lingo? - necessity to be brutally competitive like in Mortal Kombat
 - To deal with this situation, necessity of an "Leviathan" (state with absolute power) to deal with lawlessness, yadda yadda
 - People must give up rights to absolute state for law and stability, and a better, functional society (and market, I guess?)
 - Development of nationalism from this (?)
Lockes, not Lobbes: ・⌒ヾ(*´_｀)
 - Human nature is rational, reasonable, loves liberty and freeeeedooooommmm
 - State of nature allows people to be peaceful (?)
 - Limited government is desirable, but humans can take care of their own interests and decide what is good/bad for them
Rousseau (writing during time of French Revolution):
 - "Noble savage"
 - "Men are born free but everywhere in chains"
 - Human beings - enlightened, love freedom, born free; but paradoxically in chains because of authoritarian states
 - Promoted "general will" (majority will, i.e. democracy)

Country as an "Inc" (pioneered by Japan?)
 - Nationalist policy
 - State/Bank/Business structural linkage
 - Economic planning and growth
 - Did Asian Tigers grow by market-driven logic? (No)
 - Conglomerates (plural, for competition) + channeled government-provided soft capital (from foreign aid)
 - "Target industries/companies/global markets"
 - Invisible hand, smivisible hand! - state-guided economic growth

Books referenced
Leviathan (But like hell I'm gonna read that)