Savants Insular
I read Paul Krugman’s “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?” in the 2 September New York Times Magazine in which the Nobel Prize winner in Economic Science tried his best to bring us up-to-date on the latest battles within the ongoing Macroeconomics intellectual wars. I will bet the entire sum of the $787 Billion “Stimulus” that just the mention of Macroeconomics was enough to cause you to quickly look over what’s on TV tonight. Mr. Krugman’s riveting account of how our Economic Savants, who are in charge of the economy nowadays, mussed up nearly everything concerning the current financial crisis and his dissertation about this situation should be cause enough for citizens to once again examine the wisdom of permitting Insular Savants (the inward-looking community of Profoundly Trained Experts) to be at the helm of our economic or any other state ship for that matter. As I tried my best to understand all of the esoteric economic babble that was being sprayed about in Mr. Krugman’s piece, an old saw surfaced from my memory, to wit: War is too important to be left to the Generals. I believe the saying about war and the Generals came to mind because I saw a corollary between the practice of war and the practice of economics where the practice of war employs insular military Generals to guide and direct the combat and the practice of Economics employs Insular Economists to guide and direct the financial system. The reason that Generals and Economists are insular is because, by necessity, both profoundly practice their professions exclusively within their respective professional communities and this situation promotes an intellectual isolation (insular) that makes it very difficult for them to consider the entirety of the state when practicing their respective professions. So, I believe that it is just as profound to say, “The economy is too important to be left to the Economists.” I say this because the practice of war and a practice of economics can both be summed up very nicely by what Sun Tzu said about war well over 2,000 years ago, to wit: “War is a matter of vital importance to the state; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin.” Or, in other words, war, and/or the economy, both affect the entirety of the state in much the same way so the entirety of the state must either support the morality and justness of the two enterprises or failure and ruin will be the inevitable result. In the case of the economy, if the Economists are at the helm of the economy, it’s unlikely that the entirety of the state will be considered in their practice of economics and there is little doubt, that at some point in time, events will overwhelm the knowledge available and ruin will follow as surely as day follows night, to wit: War and the Economy is too important to be left to the Generals and Economists. A case in point about Economists and the Economy is that throughout the entirety of Mr. Krugman’s dissertation about the failure of the Economists to get it right, not one mention was ever made concerning money. This omission is both important and revealing because money is to the economy as electricity is to an electric motor, i.e., if you are to understand and design a predictable and workable motor you need to fully understand electricity and if you are to understand and design a predictable and workable economy you need to fully understand money. Money, that invention in antiquity to facilitate commerce (not to facilitate politics), is suppose to be a medium of exchange that represents real value, like property or labor. Money is the raw material of the Economy just like is electricity is the raw material that makes the electric motor work. Here is an example about the importance of understanding money. The Financial Services industry accounts for over 21% of our economy. The product of Financial Services is new money that adds no value to real money, in short, they only make money off of money and produce nothing of real value. This created money can only devalue real money, and thus release an infinite number of human responses into the economy. Today’s Economist’s are now trying to codify these infinite number of human responses into a workable economic theory by injecting a continuing load of psychobabble about human responses to changing economic conditions. This is the height of foolishness because without an understanding or control over the value of money (e.g., letting the Financial Services Industry continue to create financial derivatives, leveraging, claims on claims, etc., and thereby create and inject worthless money into the economic system) you have no control over the most important element within the Economy (the human response). In other words, you have a non-controllable and continuously variable element (human responses) that you yourself are creating by your lack of understanding and control of the most important element of all, the value of MONEY. Good luck with that. To read Mr. Krugman’s article for yourself, click the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=paul%20krugman&st=cse
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
SCARE du jour, Inc.
Scare du jour, Inc.
(Global Warming, Global Ice Age, Pollution, Nuclear Anything, Frankenfood, Dying Seas, Overpopulation, Violent Weather, Asteroid Mass Extinction, etc.)
Scare du jour, Inc. is not an individual but a loosely organized scare industry ably aided and abetted by the ideologues and moneygrubbers in the fourth estate. This industry makes money or promotes causes by scaring the crap out of people with an endless stream of scientific babble to support apocalyptic suppositions of calamity that is about to befall us all of one sort or another. The scientific babble is usually supported by enough of the ideologues and moneygrubbers within the scientific community that it seems like the entire scientific community is supporting the scare du jour by lending a measure of scientific credibility to the issue. The best example in this regard is the case made by that scientific giant and inventor of the Internet, Al Gore, in his explaining how Global Warming will destroy us all (Oh, by the way, Al Gore is chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management, a London-based business that sells CARBON CREDITS for profit, of course). Scare du jour, Inc. uses scare as an operational imperative in order to stampede public opinion into a desired awareness that will greatly aid in the eventual selling of a commercial or Governmental solution to the impending stated calamity. For example, in the case of Global Warming, Cap and Trade is the desired solution not only for Global Warming, but for many unrelated reasons as well. The scare industry, and it’s practitioners, have now gone scientific by designing “Choice Architectures” as a way of guiding decisions after scaring the people into an awareness of the chosen impending calamity. The Proletariat (that would be me and most others) will be amazed to discover that designing “Choice Architectures” is one of the ways that the Intelligentsia practices the discipline of “Heresthetics”. What’s that you say? What is Heresthetics? Heresthetics is the framing of a debate or issue so that one is always on the superior or winning side, or by saying it in another way, having one’s choices better received by others. Or better still, structuring the world so that you can always win. Doesn’t the above definitions give you a really good warm and fuzzy feeling? Perhaps you might even get an apprehensive feeling that you are being “nudged” to make a decision based solely on the merits of a “Choice Architecture” that has been presented by the Intelligentsia rather than subjectively examining the relevant facts and deciding the facts, as presented, don’t address your personal concerns on the matter. This is exactly what has happened in the current debate on Universal Health Care after regular people finally began to examine the details of the proposed new law. The people are now beginning to understand that the Universal Health Care program would be, in reality, a means for the Government to gain unprecedented power to implement social policy that would not be otherwise supported by a free people (that would be us). In other words, Universal Health Care is a “Trojan Horse” created (for the good of all, of course) to hide the real purpose of the Government and that is to gain unprecedented power to implement otherwise unacceptable social policy. The employment of “Trojan Horses” as an operational means to govern a free people is a despicable subterfuge and has no place in our or any other human society for that matter. All in all, it is always wise to become suspicious about other peoples motives when you discover that a “Choice Architecture” has been employed that will logically lead you to make a decision that might not be in your and your family’s best interest. In that regard, as the current Universal Health Care debate has illustrated, your and other Governments have now joined the scare industry as a fortuitous way to create “Trojan Horses” that can create consensus on a scare issue that can promote a popular decision that in turn can enable hidden social or economic policy to be implemented that otherwise might not be supported by the general population (that would be us Proletariat again). For example: Global Warming is the Trojan Horse, and Cap and Trade is the hidden agenda to gain power through taxation, regulation, fines and law to gain complete control over the economy in order to affect an unacceptable social policy. You can also make the same case that the “Broken Health Care System” is the Trojan Horse and Universal Health Care is the Government solution that will enable the hidden socialist agenda that will further Government’s Power to control. The financial crisis and immigration are also Trojan Horses and there will be others in the future as opportunities present themselves. After all, did not the White House Chief of Staff announce in a fit of arrogance “You never want a serious crisis go to waste”. If all of this sounds like something right out Orwell’s 1984, I’m afraid you are correct.
Note: The best ever and most definitive info yet on Global Warming: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
(Global Warming, Global Ice Age, Pollution, Nuclear Anything, Frankenfood, Dying Seas, Overpopulation, Violent Weather, Asteroid Mass Extinction, etc.)
Scare du jour, Inc. is not an individual but a loosely organized scare industry ably aided and abetted by the ideologues and moneygrubbers in the fourth estate. This industry makes money or promotes causes by scaring the crap out of people with an endless stream of scientific babble to support apocalyptic suppositions of calamity that is about to befall us all of one sort or another. The scientific babble is usually supported by enough of the ideologues and moneygrubbers within the scientific community that it seems like the entire scientific community is supporting the scare du jour by lending a measure of scientific credibility to the issue. The best example in this regard is the case made by that scientific giant and inventor of the Internet, Al Gore, in his explaining how Global Warming will destroy us all (Oh, by the way, Al Gore is chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management, a London-based business that sells CARBON CREDITS for profit, of course). Scare du jour, Inc. uses scare as an operational imperative in order to stampede public opinion into a desired awareness that will greatly aid in the eventual selling of a commercial or Governmental solution to the impending stated calamity. For example, in the case of Global Warming, Cap and Trade is the desired solution not only for Global Warming, but for many unrelated reasons as well. The scare industry, and it’s practitioners, have now gone scientific by designing “Choice Architectures” as a way of guiding decisions after scaring the people into an awareness of the chosen impending calamity. The Proletariat (that would be me and most others) will be amazed to discover that designing “Choice Architectures” is one of the ways that the Intelligentsia practices the discipline of “Heresthetics”. What’s that you say? What is Heresthetics? Heresthetics is the framing of a debate or issue so that one is always on the superior or winning side, or by saying it in another way, having one’s choices better received by others. Or better still, structuring the world so that you can always win. Doesn’t the above definitions give you a really good warm and fuzzy feeling? Perhaps you might even get an apprehensive feeling that you are being “nudged” to make a decision based solely on the merits of a “Choice Architecture” that has been presented by the Intelligentsia rather than subjectively examining the relevant facts and deciding the facts, as presented, don’t address your personal concerns on the matter. This is exactly what has happened in the current debate on Universal Health Care after regular people finally began to examine the details of the proposed new law. The people are now beginning to understand that the Universal Health Care program would be, in reality, a means for the Government to gain unprecedented power to implement social policy that would not be otherwise supported by a free people (that would be us). In other words, Universal Health Care is a “Trojan Horse” created (for the good of all, of course) to hide the real purpose of the Government and that is to gain unprecedented power to implement otherwise unacceptable social policy. The employment of “Trojan Horses” as an operational means to govern a free people is a despicable subterfuge and has no place in our or any other human society for that matter. All in all, it is always wise to become suspicious about other peoples motives when you discover that a “Choice Architecture” has been employed that will logically lead you to make a decision that might not be in your and your family’s best interest. In that regard, as the current Universal Health Care debate has illustrated, your and other Governments have now joined the scare industry as a fortuitous way to create “Trojan Horses” that can create consensus on a scare issue that can promote a popular decision that in turn can enable hidden social or economic policy to be implemented that otherwise might not be supported by the general population (that would be us Proletariat again). For example: Global Warming is the Trojan Horse, and Cap and Trade is the hidden agenda to gain power through taxation, regulation, fines and law to gain complete control over the economy in order to affect an unacceptable social policy. You can also make the same case that the “Broken Health Care System” is the Trojan Horse and Universal Health Care is the Government solution that will enable the hidden socialist agenda that will further Government’s Power to control. The financial crisis and immigration are also Trojan Horses and there will be others in the future as opportunities present themselves. After all, did not the White House Chief of Staff announce in a fit of arrogance “You never want a serious crisis go to waste”. If all of this sounds like something right out Orwell’s 1984, I’m afraid you are correct.
Note: The best ever and most definitive info yet on Global Warming: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Science, Science
Science, Science
(The Science Cheer)
Gimme a S…Gimme a C…Gimme a I…Gimme a E…Gimme a N…Gimme a C…Gimme a E…What does it spell?
Science, Science,
You’re OK,
Bring us a better life,
With each passing day.
When was it agreed to and decreed that only science can be the judge of fact and truth? How did that happen? How has science become the final say on subjects when science almost always gets it wrong on the way to getting it right? After all, making mistakes is one of the most important parts of the scientific method because mistakes and human misjudgments are the only way of discovering the final truth. By the way, it is virtually impossible to arrive at the “final” truth anyway because the final truth is like beauty, that is, it’s in the eye of the beholder notwithstanding the fact everything in this universe is constantly changing so such a thing as the “final truth” is probably not unobtainable in any event. This is true because the human mind is indeed a wonderful thinking machine but having complete knowledge of all things in order to discover the “final truth” is well beyond human cognition capabilities at this point in our development, even if it were possible. Of course, this means we must get it wrong before we can finally get it right, or as someone once said, “To error is Human.” So at what point should people believe that scientific method has ground out enough of the truth on the matter to be useful? When advocacy groups or Government quotes “Science” as having unequivocal knowledge about a certain matter, e.g., Global Warming, how do people know that enough truth has been arrived at by science to allow society to act in a responsible and knowledgeable manner? There are a number of problems facing society in this regard. First, science is a discipline, not an organization, and so there can never be unanimity on a subject regardless of the amount of time and effort spent to discover the truth. Further, because science is a discipline, no one speaks for all of science on a matter, but anyone or any organization can use or misuse scientific findings as they see fit without consequence to the discipline of science. Most important in this regard is the dark side of knowledge (see my piece, “The Dark Side of Knowledge”), e.g., making an atomic or hydrogen bomb from knowledge of E=MC2, practicing eugenics from knowledge of evolution, etc. Second, science is better at describing things while not truly understanding things, and if you don’t truly understand things, how can you know the full truth. For example, Maxwell’s equations fully describe electromagnetic fields to such an extent that engineers can use the equations to design many modern things such as electric motors, Radio, and on and on, but no one completely understands why there are propagating electric and magnetic waves associated with the spinning particles of matter. Third, science has always been susceptible to political manipulation and control. The classic example being, of course, the conviction of Galileo for heresy because of his scientific founded views. The modern politicization of science has now reached such a level that the discipline is rapidly losing credibility as a force for finding the truth. The politicization is occurring within the scientific community itself because of ideology beliefs held by the scientists and sponsors of scientific research. Published findings of research are often manipulated nowadays to be more compliant with the political views or competitive objectives of sponsors, be they government entity or commercial enterprise. The politicization of science colors research and subsequent findings with a desired political or competitive requirement rather than objective absolute scientific truth. These and other problems with the scientific community, makes the use of modern scientific research for Governmental policy justification and commercial enterprise suspect, at the very least. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a great believer in the scientific method of investigation because, in the course of time, science usually gets it correct. Science eventually gets it right mainly because of the peer review that has a vested interest due to good old fashioned human competition. But alas, there is also a growing problem with peer review because in today’s confrontational environment even peer review is being perverted by political groupthink and monetary objectives. The scientific community should be soundly reprimanded for squandering it’s hard earned credibility upon the alters of ideology and money and letting society to fend for itself in trying to decide the truth in scientific matters.
(The Science Cheer)
Gimme a S…Gimme a C…Gimme a I…Gimme a E…Gimme a N…Gimme a C…Gimme a E…What does it spell?
Science, Science,
You’re OK,
Bring us a better life,
With each passing day.
When was it agreed to and decreed that only science can be the judge of fact and truth? How did that happen? How has science become the final say on subjects when science almost always gets it wrong on the way to getting it right? After all, making mistakes is one of the most important parts of the scientific method because mistakes and human misjudgments are the only way of discovering the final truth. By the way, it is virtually impossible to arrive at the “final” truth anyway because the final truth is like beauty, that is, it’s in the eye of the beholder notwithstanding the fact everything in this universe is constantly changing so such a thing as the “final truth” is probably not unobtainable in any event. This is true because the human mind is indeed a wonderful thinking machine but having complete knowledge of all things in order to discover the “final truth” is well beyond human cognition capabilities at this point in our development, even if it were possible. Of course, this means we must get it wrong before we can finally get it right, or as someone once said, “To error is Human.” So at what point should people believe that scientific method has ground out enough of the truth on the matter to be useful? When advocacy groups or Government quotes “Science” as having unequivocal knowledge about a certain matter, e.g., Global Warming, how do people know that enough truth has been arrived at by science to allow society to act in a responsible and knowledgeable manner? There are a number of problems facing society in this regard. First, science is a discipline, not an organization, and so there can never be unanimity on a subject regardless of the amount of time and effort spent to discover the truth. Further, because science is a discipline, no one speaks for all of science on a matter, but anyone or any organization can use or misuse scientific findings as they see fit without consequence to the discipline of science. Most important in this regard is the dark side of knowledge (see my piece, “The Dark Side of Knowledge”), e.g., making an atomic or hydrogen bomb from knowledge of E=MC2, practicing eugenics from knowledge of evolution, etc. Second, science is better at describing things while not truly understanding things, and if you don’t truly understand things, how can you know the full truth. For example, Maxwell’s equations fully describe electromagnetic fields to such an extent that engineers can use the equations to design many modern things such as electric motors, Radio, and on and on, but no one completely understands why there are propagating electric and magnetic waves associated with the spinning particles of matter. Third, science has always been susceptible to political manipulation and control. The classic example being, of course, the conviction of Galileo for heresy because of his scientific founded views. The modern politicization of science has now reached such a level that the discipline is rapidly losing credibility as a force for finding the truth. The politicization is occurring within the scientific community itself because of ideology beliefs held by the scientists and sponsors of scientific research. Published findings of research are often manipulated nowadays to be more compliant with the political views or competitive objectives of sponsors, be they government entity or commercial enterprise. The politicization of science colors research and subsequent findings with a desired political or competitive requirement rather than objective absolute scientific truth. These and other problems with the scientific community, makes the use of modern scientific research for Governmental policy justification and commercial enterprise suspect, at the very least. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a great believer in the scientific method of investigation because, in the course of time, science usually gets it correct. Science eventually gets it right mainly because of the peer review that has a vested interest due to good old fashioned human competition. But alas, there is also a growing problem with peer review because in today’s confrontational environment even peer review is being perverted by political groupthink and monetary objectives. The scientific community should be soundly reprimanded for squandering it’s hard earned credibility upon the alters of ideology and money and letting society to fend for itself in trying to decide the truth in scientific matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)