HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Negotiations 101

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:22 PM

Negotiations 101

In the numerous threads concerninng the fiscal cliff negotations and the President's having put chained CPI Social Security adjustments (which are, effectively, benefit cuts) on the table for consideration, whenever anybody expresses any kind of displeasure with the President for having put such a proposal under consideration, those posts have been met by a flurry of "there's-no-deal-yet-so-you-are-really-panicking-over nothing" responses.

Yes, it is true that there is no final agreement as of yet. But this proposal was included as part of the President's opening bid in the negotiations. Those who protest that there is as yet no final agreement seem to hold out hope that by some mystical process a deal will emerge that is better than the President's opening bid. But that isn't how negotiations between adverarially-interested parties work. A negotiation between adversarial parties begins with each side staking out a position that is more or less close to what each party would consider ideal. From there, the two opposing parties try to work toward a compromise between the two respective "ideal" positions, hopefully through a reasonably equitable balance of concessions by each side. But what virtually never happens, because it is virtually impossible, is that the final compromise is one that either side would consider more favorable to its interests than its opening position.

That is to say, if the President makes what many of us consider to be an egregious concession in an opening negotiating bid, to suggest that such concession will not be included in any final deal (barring a large, loud and sustained outcry by voters) is to engage a level of fantasy that would make Lewis Carroll proud.

But hey, dont' let me interrupt your reverie. Oh, and ... please say "Hi" to Alice for me.

2 replies, 789 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply Negotiations 101 (Original post)
markpkessinger Dec 2012 OP
msongs Dec 2012 #1
John2 Dec 2012 #2

Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:29 PM

1. remember who won the election/has the mandate & public opinion? Boehner lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:22 PM

2. Boehner has no mandate because

 

he proposed to raise taxes on millionaires without spending cuts and Norquist approved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread