America’s Kobayashi Maru Moment
Mar 3rd, 2009 | 12 responses
For those who are not familiar with the term Kobayashi Maru I will offer a brief explanation. The term comes from the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and refers to an examination given to students at Starfleet Academy. On the surface it seems to be a character test of sorts. The student is supposedly on a routine patrol when he receives a distress call from a civilian vessel.
Unfortunately, the ship is in a restricted area and for the ship to go to the rescue would be a violation of regulations and possibly lead to war. So the student has to choose between sacrificing the ship in distress or violating the rules and putting his ship at risk.
However, as it turns out, the test is not what it seems to be. No matter what the student does, they will fail. If they enter the restricted zone, the ship will be destroyed and the distress call proved to be a fake. On the other hand, if they do not enter the zone, then the distress call is real and hundreds of people die. The point is to show the student that a no-win situation is always a possibility.
From its fictional origins, the term has expanded to become something of a term of art for students in a wide variety of real-world situations. It not only is used in the military and at other training academies but is also used in business seminars, self-help programs and the like.
I mention this because I think that in many ways the United States now faces something of a Kobayashi Maru moment when it comes to dealing with the myriads of our current problems. This is not to say that we face a complete no-win situation which will result in our destruction, but rather that, no matter what we do, there will be a bad result.
Looking to the economy for example, I am very concerned about the massive level of debt we have incurred over the last decade and even more so about the debt we stand to pile up in the coming decade. I am also uncertain about the degree to which we are shifting huge portions of our economy into government control. I think that these things could have very negative consequences for our future and for the future of our children and grandchildren.
At the same time, not acting would also have very negative consequences because we would see our already-weak economy deteriorate even further. In the long-term this might be a better solution in terms of working through the mess and eliminating the future debt but in the short term the suffering would be much greater.
In short, whatever we do, I think there will be problems.
The same could be said for the problem of resolving the health-care crisis. If we don’t do anything, then the current problems will simply escalate, if we do apply a major solution such as the current administration proposes we could simply find ourselves in a new problem.
I hope to discuss this problem with regard to a number of current problems over the coming weeks, and would welcome input and comment from our readers.
12 Responses to “America’s Kobayashi Maru Moment”
But remember, Captain Kirk actually beat the no-win scenario by creative thinking–by hacking the test and changing its parameters. He won a prize for it.
Whether Captain Obama can do the same remains to be seen.
Doing the wrong thing is as bad as doing nothing at all.
I have never advocated doing nothing as some on the right have. However Barak Obama's own projections:
2009: -1.2% -1.9%
2010: +3.2% +2.1%
2011: +4.0% +2.9%
2012: +4.6% +2.9%
2013: +4.2% +2.8%
Obama's prediction for growth on the left and a panel of Harvard economists who are not exactly a panel in bed with the GOP on the right.
What does this mean? Well a stimulus bill was passed that essentially did very little to stimulate the economy and yet Obama and friends are predicting that by next year the economy will go back to growing again. Perhaps the economy is not as bad as Obama is proclaiming…….CRISIS>>>CRISIS>>>>>CRISIS.
And what exactly is the right's solution to the three major problems that Obama is trying to address? Or the moderate solution for that matter. Or the liberal wing's answer?
We have a major Recession killing our economy, the Credit crisis killing world banking, and Health care issues staealing profits from our businesses. Each problem in isolation may well be discussed in an eco-philosophic way, but together, not so much. Use your Core values to develop a plan that solves these concurrently. If debt is your concern, show a plan that resolves the credit crisis without bumping unemployment another 10%, and I'm all ears.
If Obama's projections seem too rosey for you, tell me what happens to a consumer based economy that is told it's all downhill for the next five years. Consumers hunker down even more, the the economy tanks further. A plan has to be devised that doesn't fix one problem and worsen the other two. Deficit spending is a really bad idea, got any better?
The chess term is zugzwang, which is an awesome word.
Yes, it is entirely possible that we are damned if we do, damned if we don't – I've always felt that there is no solution to our problems, that no matter what we do is fraught with the stench of failure.
However – not all failures are equal. In some of the failure scenarios, we lose a little; in others, we lose a lot. The key is to find the solution where America fails *the least*. There's the rub.
KAAAAAHHHHHNNNN!!!!
HD – Since you asked tghe same question in two different threads, I will gave the same answer in both.
The 'solutions' for true Conservatives? Simple. No bailouts.
Take the relatively short-term pain of allowing the banks, car manufacturers, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, etc., and individuals to fail and use bankruptcy to provide either re-organization protection or liquidation. As as I said, painful, but necessary. Any other solution just keeps trying to push the day of reckoning out further, and makes things worse.
I think right now that all the bailout efforts cannot even accomplish the goal of pushing things out, so in the end they are robbing us of capital and setting us up for an inflationary period, maybe even a hyper-inflationary period, that will last 5 years or more unless we cut off the spigot now.
And despite the love affair with Socialized Medicine by the left, which is not shared by too many who actually live in places with Socialized Medicine, there really is no 'crisis'. There is just a 'feeling' that everyone deserves the same level and availability of health care irregardless of means, which while noble sounding just isn't a sustainable model. Just look at how the attempt at 'everyone should be able to buy a house' mentality has worked out for the US.
And while I don't necessarily feel we need tax cuts, I do think that any significant increase in tax rates will be, as they ALWAYS are, counterproductive.
And here is the crux of my response from the other thread: Allowing failure to thin the economic herd.
You want to allow AIG to fail? Fine. What do you do with the 13 Trillion in Insurance policies it is currently on the hook for? Let them default? Europe will not exactly be happy with that. Then you can help solve the World wide depression by not spending money.
Borrowing money from future generations does one thing right now that all the philosophic, fiscal conservatism does not. It attempts to guarantee a future at all.
I don't want to spend this money either, got any other ideas?
If my response seems the same in two threads, that's because the problem is the same in both threads. Philosophic discussion about any one issue must take into account the other two major problems we currently have. Partial solutions or partial criticisms really don't work right now.
AR says:And despite the love affair with Socialized Medicine by the left, which is not shared by too many who actually live in places with Socialized Medicine, there really is no 'crisis'.
I spend quite a bit of time in Canada, they love their health care system. I'm sure the same can be said of the Europeans. None of the single payer Western countries wnat our mess.
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/sweenyreport/catego…
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTV…
I love how those of the left love to nitpick others but do not want their own proposals nitpicked.
If the Obama Administration wants a huge stimulus package, then it needs to packoff on its coming regulatory changes. Uncertainity is bad for business and right now, every part of the private sector is facing a huge amount of uncertainity. There is no reason for any private enterprise to invest since everything could change in a couple of months.
If Obama wants to have the economy, he needs to back off the carbon regulation, new financial regulations, and new entitlements.
First to Patrick, this is one of the first columns I've read which recognizes the immense ambiguity Obama faces.
His biggest problem is recognizing and acknowledging the breadth and depth of these problems, while conveying some sense of optimism to the country. The next obstacle is simply dealing with the economy in a way that will shorten the depression/recession without leaving the nation bankrupt.
Then there is the deeper issue of whether or not there is any way that any government can pull us out of this mess. I accept that the Roosevelt attempts to end the depression were not, per se, successful. And, even the most sophisticated thinkers really don't know if the current policies will end this mess. I think, though, that even the most conservative observers will acknowledge that the alphabet soup of programs FDR initiated did mitigate the pain of a large segment of the population. This is an aspect of government action which has not been discussed very much. Extending disability payments may not create jobs, but, obviously, it can relieve some of the anxiety of unemployment. Both public works physical labor and white collar jobs will also help. A paycheck is a paycheck. This is no small thing. And, it might even keep the situation from getting worse.
Despair is the father of totalitarianism.
I wish some of the commentators would take this latter aspect of the stimulus into account.
I agree with you concerning the carbon caps. They would make sense only if there was a science that was provable outside the various global warming computer models that can't currently predict last weeks weather correctly.
Regulation, however, is an absolute for the very reason you say business is skittish, uncertainty.
Uncertainty of triple A ratings is how we got here. If you can't trust S&P or Moddy's ratings, you live in economic uncertainty.