TM Lutas’s thoughtful post is worth reading, as is this post by Thomas Barnett, to which Lutas links. I don’t agree with Barnett’s conclusion but he makes his version of the “soft kill” case well.
UPDATE: Barnett comments on Lutas’s post.
Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
TM Lutas’s thoughtful post is worth reading, as is this post by Thomas Barnett, to which Lutas links. I don’t agree with Barnett’s conclusion but he makes his version of the “soft kill” case well.
UPDATE: Barnett comments on Lutas’s post.
Comments are closed.
I admire Barnetts work. But there is something missing in his idea of connectivity. It only works in a market economy. When a government becomes independent of the taxes of it’s citizens, by relying on the natural ressources (like oil), this government is not interested in opening up the country – and it doesn’t need to do it.
This is the case with Iran. There is no chance to co-opt and integrate the country into the core, as long as the regime is in a position to corrupt the countries elites by spreading oil wealth.