5 ms·

Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational. Putin is clearly not objectively rational, at best subjectively rational within t

Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational. Putin is clearly not objectively rational, at best subjectively rational within the realms of his ideology (unite the ethnically Russian people). Add to that miscommunication within all sectors of government just to please your superiors and that's how you arrive at the, sorry, shit tier decision making surrounding this entire war. Anyone with half a brain should have seen the economic and geopolitical disaster resulting from this. And I firmly believe that many in military, intelligence, economy etc. DID SEE IT. But talking about it was never accepted and harshly punished. This war has ended Russia as we know it and will make it just another vassal of China. It's interesting and terrifying to observe the new fascist "Z" propaganda being pushed by Putin as well...

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Putin is clearly not objectively rational, at best subjectively rational within the realms of his ideology This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"? > Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational. Being rational as defined by your personal ideology is what economic models postulate when they assume rationality.
- alephnan 5y ago
  Yes and otherwise the prisoner’s dilemma wouldn’t be a thing.
- neuronic 5y ago
  > This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"? I really disagree. For starters, I would put "not tank your economy into the stone age" firmly into the objectively rational category of thinking. How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force and RUSSIA DOESNT EVEN HAVE ONE to begin with. They cannot at all maintain an occupation in the Ukraine. Incapable. This was a spear-head blitzkrieg operation aimed at replacing Selenskij within a week that was poorly planned and immediately failed and now they are completely and utterly screwed. Putin made this decision based off bad information fed to him - a downside when suppressing your subordinates, keeping bootlickers around and punishing differing opinions. The objective results are going to be really difficult for Russia at best if not outright destructive. And it was all voluntary.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Pretty good summary. Personally, I would have thought that Putin is smarter than this, I really did. Dangerous, deeply undemocratic for sure, but not stupid. He played the West, and NATO, for years as he pleased. He created opportunities for Russia and China that didn't even remotely exist before. And then he threw all that away for a pointless war, one he might very well be loosing, a war that will only drive even more of hos direct neighbors into the arms of NATO. A war that also creates the global climate that those countries can, without any big problems, actually join NATO. All that while isolating his country, destroying his legacy and utterly ruining Russia's economy, to a point where he might very well throw Russia back to the early 90s. No idea why he thought any of that was worth the risk...
  - alephnan 5y ago
    > How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force You're assuming an occupation of all of Ukraine is the endgame.
zpeti 5y ago
Is wanting to put your name in the history books not objectively rational?
- oblio 5y ago
  Not if it kills you and not if it's infamy. Especially since he has kids, he'll be leaving them an extra bad legacy, even in his own country.
  - zpeti 5y ago
    Oh come on, there are plenty of people in history who are willing to sacrifice their family for fame or fortune. You might not think it’s rational but it’s fairly common. Saying it’s irrational is explaining away pretty common behaviour with “they aren’t like me so they’re idiots”. Except it’s more your own empathy that’s lacking for understanding another perspective.
    - oblio 5y ago
      No, it's irrational :-) > The seven characteristics of life include: > responsiveness to the environment; > growth and change; > <<ability to reproduce;>> > have a metabolism and breathe; > maintain homeostasis; > being made of cells; and. > <<passing traits onto offspring.>> Putin is defective, he's making the lives of his own kids harder. I mean, I don't even need to say he's defective, it's obvious. He's a narcissist. There can be no empathy for autocrat narcissists. They don't have any and they don't deserve any.
    - Bancakes 5y ago
      You know what else is common, logical fallacies. You don't have to be one to know one, to know Putin's actions have brought poverty, misery, and death. Writing your name in history books 'just because' is not a well thought out motive, neither was the assault. Its irrational because it lacks rationality.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    Generations of Russians will build golden statues of Putin if he successfully conquer and holds on to Ukraine. It's hard to understate the significance of Putin's revanchist ambitions in relation to Russian cultural and strategic interests.
vkou 5y ago
I don't think his behaviour was particularly irrational, as much as he has been acting on a few pieces of intelligence that ultimately proved to have been incorrect. 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time. 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. Given how the first day of the invasion looked like the Russian army was driving westwards until there wasn't any gas in the tank, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time. 3. There is no 3, those were the two major contributors to the shit sandwich he's now serving to both Ukraine and Russia. All the crazy shit he says about eight-hundred year old history and nazis and so on and so forth isn't what he actually believes, it's intended for internal Russian media consumption. So no, from the perspective of someone playing at empire-building, starting this war was only 'irrational' for him with the benefit of hind-sight.
- neuronic 5y ago
  You are probably very right, I agree with all of your points. However, this is what I meant by "rational within his ideology". He created this situation by surrounding himself with bootlickers and punishing any differing opinions. He effectively built an information bubble for himself and he may act rational within that bubble but totally irrational for anyone outside of it - even players like China who won't publicly state that. After all, their benefit is breathtaking.
- misja111 5y ago
  > 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest. > 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g. in Chechnya. They eventually won after bombing the whole country to ruins, but it took several years.
  - 5y ago
HellDunkel 5y ago
I am convinced the narrative of Putin acting irrational is intended by the man. We are supposed to be scared of a nuclear war. This we cannot accept. A much better way is to see this as a game of chess with a sane opponent.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> Putin is clearly not objectively rational, at best subjectively rational within the realms of his ideology This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"? > Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational. Being rational as defined by your personal ideology is what economic models postulate when they assume rationality.

alephnan 5y ago
Yes and otherwise the prisoner’s dilemma wouldn’t be a thing.
neuronic 5y ago
> This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"? I really disagree. For starters, I would put "not tank your economy into the stone age" firmly into the objectively rational category of thinking. How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force and RUSSIA DOESNT EVEN HAVE ONE to begin with. They cannot at all maintain an occupation in the Ukraine. Incapable. This was a spear-head blitzkrieg operation aimed at replacing Selenskij within a week that was poorly planned and immediately failed and now they are completely and utterly screwed. Putin made this decision based off bad information fed to him - a downside when suppressing your subordinates, keeping bootlickers around and punishing differing opinions. The objective results are going to be really difficult for Russia at best if not outright destructive. And it was all voluntary.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Pretty good summary. Personally, I would have thought that Putin is smarter than this, I really did. Dangerous, deeply undemocratic for sure, but not stupid. He played the West, and NATO, for years as he pleased. He created opportunities for Russia and China that didn't even remotely exist before. And then he threw all that away for a pointless war, one he might very well be loosing, a war that will only drive even more of hos direct neighbors into the arms of NATO. A war that also creates the global climate that those countries can, without any big problems, actually join NATO. All that while isolating his country, destroying his legacy and utterly ruining Russia's economy, to a point where he might very well throw Russia back to the early 90s. No idea why he thought any of that was worth the risk...
- alephnan 5y ago
  > How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force You're assuming an occupation of all of Ukraine is the endgame.

zpeti 5y ago

Is wanting to put your name in the history books not objectively rational?

oblio 5y ago
Not if it kills you and not if it's infamy. Especially since he has kids, he'll be leaving them an extra bad legacy, even in his own country.
- zpeti 5y ago
  Oh come on, there are plenty of people in history who are willing to sacrifice their family for fame or fortune. You might not think it’s rational but it’s fairly common. Saying it’s irrational is explaining away pretty common behaviour with “they aren’t like me so they’re idiots”. Except it’s more your own empathy that’s lacking for understanding another perspective.
  - oblio 5y ago
    No, it's irrational :-) > The seven characteristics of life include: > responsiveness to the environment; > growth and change; > <<ability to reproduce;>> > have a metabolism and breathe; > maintain homeostasis; > being made of cells; and. > <<passing traits onto offspring.>> Putin is defective, he's making the lives of his own kids harder. I mean, I don't even need to say he's defective, it's obvious. He's a narcissist. There can be no empathy for autocrat narcissists. They don't have any and they don't deserve any.
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    You know what else is common, logical fallacies. You don't have to be one to know one, to know Putin's actions have brought poverty, misery, and death. Writing your name in history books 'just because' is not a well thought out motive, neither was the assault. Its irrational because it lacks rationality.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  Generations of Russians will build golden statues of Putin if he successfully conquer and holds on to Ukraine. It's hard to understate the significance of Putin's revanchist ambitions in relation to Russian cultural and strategic interests.

vkou 5y ago

I don't think his behaviour was particularly irrational, as much as he has been acting on a few pieces of intelligence that ultimately proved to have been incorrect. 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time. 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. Given how the first day of the invasion looked like the Russian army was driving westwards until there wasn't any gas in the tank, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time. 3. There is no 3, those were the two major contributors to the shit sandwich he's now serving to both Ukraine and Russia. All the crazy shit he says about eight-hundred year old history and nazis and so on and so forth isn't what he actually believes, it's intended for internal Russian media consumption. So no, from the perspective of someone playing at empire-building, starting this war was only 'irrational' for him with the benefit of hind-sight.

neuronic 5y ago
You are probably very right, I agree with all of your points. However, this is what I meant by "rational within his ideology". He created this situation by surrounding himself with bootlickers and punishing any differing opinions. He effectively built an information bubble for himself and he may act rational within that bubble but totally irrational for anyone outside of it - even players like China who won't publicly state that. After all, their benefit is breathtaking.
misja111 5y ago
> 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest. > 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g. in Chechnya. They eventually won after bombing the whole country to ruins, but it took several years.
- 5y ago

HellDunkel 5y ago

I am convinced the narrative of Putin acting irrational is intended by the man. We are supposed to be scared of a nuclear war. This we cannot accept. A much better way is to see this as a game of chess with a sane opponent.