Category Archives: Politics

Stop the press: All news is propaganda!

We should be all really worried, seriously concerned. This has the potential to shake up western society in its principle fundament: the News media is dying! Newspapers are folding in droves, television companies are on the ropes and hordes of journalists are walking the streets looking for a job.

We are being reminded of the role journalism executes in western democracies: exposing agendas in the democratic discourse, revealing offences against common sense, debunking false prophecies in finance and sciences. Without journalism, how would we know what’s going on in the world beyond our immediate perception? Who would grill the politician trying to sell us the next tax hike or the next humanitarian military invasion? Who would drag paedophile devoutness from its rose-glassed dungeon?

Thanks to the analytically trained minds of journalists, the media can also point to the root causes of their own demise and, hey ho, found the culprits! The Tubular Interweb, with its truck-driver-the-road-is-mine mentality, fast-food-thought pseudo-media 5-clicks-and-you’re-out culture, produced by self-centred bumptiousness and giving evidence that brain-cell-corrosion exists. Email subscription lists and Blogs! Citizen journalists! Twitter! Oh, and Google! Freely giving away their content and carving away on their advertising revenue.

So why are you still reading this blog? Go to the NYT, make your subscription/donation and do your effin’ part in helping these temples of liberty, defenders of your freedom of speech. Go!! While you’re there, don’t forget to click all their banner ads!

No? You think there should be something more? Oh, yes. The title does suggest that I don’t really buy into the view that I’ve just expressed. Here’s my theory on why the news media is haemorrhaging: they’ve stopped doing their job and we’re no longer buying it.

Once upon a time, journalists used to be eager to give you the facts, to the best of their abilities, unbiased and without prejudice. The quality of a journalist was measured in his investigative ability to give you more detail about and insights into the subject matter. Opinion pieces were confined to marked columns. It was not unusual to find people subscribing to a newspaper that expressed opinions in its commentary that differed from the reader’s, for appreciation of the quality of the factual information.

Today, most facts come from agencies and their news feeds.  Tom on CNN works from the same facts as Dick on Fox and Harry on the BBC. What differentiates them is how they package these same facts, how they tell their story to get the reader, listener or viewer engaged: they have moved from appealing to the rational to appealing to the gut, which makes subscribing a political brand endorsement.

News media needs eyeballs to justify its existence. Competition within a limited audience forces market segmentation. News organisations attract their audience by resonating with the cultural, social and economic values of their targeted segment, thus amplifying opinions. Whereas a news organisation used to stand for a certain value segment out of its own choosing, nowadays the majority of media outlets are designed to fit a niche defined by a “business model” determined by its funders. Where such interests are commercial, the model is designed to create revenue. Where they are non-commercial, the outlet is designed to carry out a political function, but in various degrees there are always overlaps between the two.

Journalists always were aware that they could influence how their audience forms its opinions. If it is revealed that candidate X was doing sleazy deals with a gangster, you’d no longer vote for him. If they uncover evidence that product Y causes cancer, you will no longer buy it. Whereas opinion-forming required journalists to find facts and figures that would support their view, they have learned from PR experts and psychologists how they can massage the message.

For example, priming is a popular “technique by which a stimulus is used to sensitize the subject to a later presentation of the same or similar stimulus”. Headlines or a lead into a report, often accompanied by imagery, are used to invoke a point of view before the facts are presented. Tone of voice is used to resonate with the audience on an emotional level.

When we’re consuming news, we rarely have the leisure or poise to disseminate and reflect upon the packaging of the facts. This makes us susceptible to the non-verbal content of the communication and can influence our response. (The Daily Show capitalises often brilliantly on this by its witty deconstruction of spin from fact and is worth watching just for this entertaining art of media education.) We’re no longer being informed: we’re being formed.

Television with its distinct advantage of “coming live to you” has also opened the door for the journalist celebrity. A news event now becomes not merely a fact worth of being reported, it becomes an opportunity for a reporter to make her mark. If the non-verbal aspect of the reporting strikes a cord, the tie with the audience is strengthened. It is not surprising that therefore reporters often seek to portray events from the perspective of the victims of the event. We will empathise with victims and through that not only feel more obliged to accept the angle of the reportage, but also to bond with the reporter. The focus on this emotional bond with the audience has lead to a change in preference from relevance to arousal. Traditional news outlets are still reluctant to completely sell out to the prostitution of satisfying a craving for emotionally charged packaging, but Rush Limbaugh is a formidable example that this format has a growing market.

By sacrificing relevance, journalism has started to slip into irrelevance itself. Increasingly, the news media fails to uncover what’s going on before it hits us. The GFC has shown how the media’s political and economical entanglement has prevented them from bringing the immoral practices in finance to our attention before the event.  Similar failures happen in conflict reporting, where journalists are willing to restrict themselves for the sake of “reporting from the epicentre”.

It is in this state that the Internet is hitting the media’s monopoly of providing information. Its mishandling of the Internet might prove to be this media culture’s final and fatal act.

Phil Bronstein on the Colbert Report described the situation for newspapers as

“You are on a ship and it’s taking water, the engine house is on fire and the life boats are out at sea. And maybe even the captain is out there, you probably are going to yell louder about the ship sinking than people on the shore.”

He admits that it’s not the Internet as such that is killing newspapers. He argues that news provided by newspapers is what’s effectively being read by people who look for news via Google, who’s getting its content for free, but then charges advertisers on the generated hits. He goes on, like many others do, to quote the case of the “predatory behaviour of clerics within the Catholic church”, which would not have come to the public’s attention without investigative journalism because of the cost and required political weight to publish such stories. However, flashing a dinky piece of investigative journalism does not suf
ficiently distract from the big piles of camel dung that go uncovered and have gone uncovered even at the height of prosperity of media outlets.

During the crisis in Burma, as now in Iran, the real news is on Twitter, where individuals tweet the facts as they can document them or hear them. It is correct to remind us that these Twitterers often do not have a background that qualifies them to report objectively, but where is the qualitative balance between an eyewitness reporting the event from her perception and the tailored message being delivered by media professionals? The media has long ago forfeited the claim of being an innocent mouthpiece and has succumbed to the benefits of having influence and weight. When it attempts to discredit the trustworthiness of new forms of news reporting, then it is just trying to defend its turf.

Here is how Stephen Fry describes this:

I’m not someone with press offices and all that kind of thing, but those like me in the public eye who have, have discovered it’s a magnificent way of cutting out the press. If people want to announce their new this or their new that, they’re going “I’m not going to do an interview, I’m not going to sit in a Louis Quelle-que-chose chair in the Dorchester for seven days having one interviewer after another come to me. I’m just going to Tweet it and point them to my website and forget the press”.

And the press are already struggling enough. God knows they’ve already lost their grip on news to some extent. If they lose their grip on comment and gossip and being a free PR machine as well, they’re really in trouble.
So naturally they’re simultaneously obsessed because they use it, as it fills up their column inches, but they’re also very against it. So you’ll get an increasing number of commentators going “Aren’t you just fed up with Twitter? Oh, if Stephen Fry tells me what he’s having for breakfast one more time, I think I’ll vomit.” They really will have a big go at it because it attacks them, it cuts them out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7934941.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7926509.stm

I believe we are seeing the demise of the predominant news culture, not journalism itself. Where I’m critical of journalists, it should be seen as directed at those journalists who have bought into the described philosophies of “how to make news”. There are still plenty of journalists, and even some news media products, who subscribe to the old ideal of striving to report unbiasedly and without prejudice. They’re few in comparison and mostly carve out their existence not because of the wonders of modern media brands and their operational methods, but despite them. There will always be plenty of us who will listen to good reports, because there are plenty of us who care about what’s going on. It is for those journalists that we have to make ourselves available to new ways of financing their professional existence.

Wherever you choose to get your information, you will have to learn to be critical and try to unravel the motivation behind the reporting. There is no going back to the virginity of just reporting the facts.

Quoting Wikipedia on Propaganda:

Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, often presents information primarily in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”

End Quote.

I ask you to go and watch some news and let me know if you can find reporting where this description does not apply. I find it increasingly difficult. In an enlightened culture, it is supposed to be the job of media outlets to inform us without trying to manipulate us. The media has chosen to aim for celebrity, money and influence. As we’re learning to compensate for their manipulation, we have found that we can apply the acquired skills just as easily to other information sources. Those, who in the old paradigm would have been sources to the media, are now publishing themselves. Traditional news media will become obsolete. I don’t think we need to be overly sad. All news is propaganda, but people have shown that they can handle it.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Society

Oh bummer, there’s a gap | Gravitational Roughening

A Sheepish Story

One day, as she was grazing, a clever sheep contemplated the fact that as the herd kept eating away the vegetation for years, aside of water, nothing ever was supplied to the soil. She concluded that everything that sheep were eating must be coming from the soil.

A few days later, when she noticed that her favourite patch was really exhausted and there was nothing left to eat, just when she decided to move to a more promising patch, she had a shattering revelation: Food grows from the soil and as she was eating away the grass, she was really eating away the soil!

This excited her so much that she had to inform the herd of her revelation. Although the other sheep didn’t really get what was wrong exactly, after all it took her several days to comprehend the connecting facts, they all accepted that the issue was clearly disturbing her sufficiently to be of serious matter. They asked her, what they should be doing and she said that they must try to not eat. Or well, at least eat less!

So they stood around for a while pondering this. About two minutes to be exact. Two minutes is a long time for a sheep to keep thinking. OK, let’s try this and let’s not eat. After all, there is lots of other things sheep could do. Like what? What do sheep do when they don’t eat? And while they were pondering that thought, imagining themselves walking up a path, jumping over a small spring, bumping into a fence, they started to eat again.

Even our philosophical sheep realised that not eating wouldn’t really work. She kept a small worry that someday the soil might be gone, but she couldn’t really do anything about that.

Until the next fall. Late, winter approaching. The wind was cold with prickly rain drops whipping the face. Head down, she was grazing just within a small patch of forest offering some shelter. A gale blew through the trees, caught a big pile of leaves and lifted it fast in the air directly above her. That’s when she got really scared. She realised that if they kept eating away the soil, then one day, there will not be left enough of it and the wind will come and blow it away.

But what could she do about it? She had no idea and so she kept an ever deepening sorrow to herself. She started to look for signs of ground disappearing. There were definitely a lot of big holes in the ground. The rabbits seem to go in and out of them quite happily, sometimes disappearing in there for hours. There were a lot of them. She also thought she noticed them getting bigger. So she decided to keep watch. And for a couple of days, she kept grazing near a couple of holes that looked promising to her. She was hoping to observe when soil was disappearing.

Time passed and she already forgot why she thought these holes were interesting. She was lifting her head to see where the herd was. She couldn’t see them. She was considering at least to move to another group of holes and was looking around. That’s when she noticed the dog. He had his head stuck into a rabbit hole not far away from her. The dog seemed to move erratically in and out of the hole, always sniffing. That was curious. Suddenly he started to frantically move his front paws. It looked like he was trying to run, but only with the front paws, while the back paws kept him solid in place. How weird. But hey, what was happening now? Bits of earth started to fly from the hole, some quite large.

She couldn’t comprehend what the dog was doing, even though she could see well enough. But she kept observing as the dog continued doing his half running, every now and then quickly stopping to sniff at the hole, but then bringing up more soil, until he finally seemed happy enough with his job and ran away. When she was sure the dog was out of sight, she approached the hole and had a good look. There was a small mound of fresh soil at the entrance of the hole and there were bits of fresh soil all over the place. She was awe-struck. Fresh soil!

How did he do that? She remembered the half running and so she tried it herself. She didn’t quite manage to make bits of soil fly, but she thought she managed to make the small mound a bit bigger. She kept at it for a long time and the experience became deeply spiritual. But she couldn’t quite figure out what it meant.

Over the next days, every now and then she would try digging some more. It was an interesting experience for a while, but she couldn’t really see what it was accomplishing. The other sheep were giving her funny looks. She once thought that one other sheep was calling her crazy behind her back. And then winter came and the ground was frozen for weeks. So she stopped digging.

When spring came with its welcoming attractions, some soon “bucking around” and all, as the sheep smirkingly were telling one another, she came back to the place where she observed the dog digging. The place had some curious attraction on her that she didn’t understand at first. But there was nice grass and she started eating. And while she was chewing, she thought that this grass tasted better than others.

She wondered why that was and then remembered the bits of soil. She looked at the mound she helped making bigger back then. There was young fresh grass growing on it! And it tasted divine! She chew some more and contemplated, connecting the digging with the fresh grass. So this is how she could prevent the soil from disappearing. If you dig, you create new soil and that creates new grass. It all was crystal clear to her. She finally felt that she found the answer. And she ran to the herd and started to explain it all.

This is why you see sheep digging.. Well.. It appears that she wasn’t quite able to explain it well enough to start a fashion. But the story is still sometimes told amongst sheep and every now and then, you can spot one digging. They’re testing the theory, they call it gravitational roughening.

A Not So Much Sheepish Story

The Fox sues the Duck

In this case, it’s a fox who actually is supposed to support the duck. Duck being the outgoing administration and that’s really what they looked like in the past few months. They’re being sued by that right winged populist news channel’s business division, because the United States Treasury Department is unable to account for the whereabouts of the TARP. That is so scary on so many levels. 

Have they already spent more than they ought to? (Where has all their TARP money gone? The answer my friend is blow-oh-owing in the wind.) Is this going to a hearing and who will be held accountable? Obama better looks into the books on day one. And did the US media really had to wait for FOX to come along and dare to ask? I have to admit, I’ll be curious to see how they’re going to milk it. (Any excuse to watch light entertainment.) Or will we regret that we ever wanted to know? 

As Paul Krugman points out in his article about “The Obama Gap“, even if the high flying plans of stimulus packages are to be approved, that will not be the end of it. He indicates that if there must not be a depression … Funny that you only hear that attributed with “long” or “lasting”. Nobody ever talks about the possibility for a short or transient depression. As if using the term depression isn’t depressing enough! They have to add to our apocalyptic expectations, as if making sure that we’re scared enough when they present us with the bill. So Krugman indicates that if there must not be a depression, then governments have to inject a sizeable fraction of what is being lost. (Well, what’s true for the US in such fundamental matters should not be different for many other countries.)

The numbers that are bandied about say that for every buck your government spends, your economy will add another or two. So if your recessional shortfall is two point one trillion bucks (Krugman’s estimate for the US for a year), you need at least 650 billion bucks. Obama’s stimulus package is is above 700 billion, but half are tax cuts intended to stimulate consumer spending. That’s us, guys! We, who have just woken up to the fact that the overdraft on our credit cards is possibly something we should attempt to clear off with pulsating vigour, are asked to go out and shop as in the good old days (like last year). Sure we will, we’ll spend billions!  That is, if you give them to us.

The headlines have already announced it. They’re printing more money. That is a simplification of the matter, but not unwarranted. The correct term is “Quantitative Easing“. Governments will buy up bad dept from the markets, including the debts they just made themselves to finance their bailouts and stimulus packages. And to buy this all, they don’t really have to print money. They just add some digits on a balance sheet and then move the digits over to somebody else’s balance sheet and so forth until there’s a chain to the sheets with all the debt. It’s that easy! And why stop with the dept? Why not going on a spree! Buy all the ailing companies as well! Maybe some bankrupt third world country to boot. And can you please remove any debt from my sheets too while you’re at it? And why not?!

When asked about the Zimbabwe effect, experts (remarkably often ex-big-bankers) ensure us that it can’t happen here. “Chalk and Cheese!” Japan tried to cure their depression with Quantitative Easing with not much impact. Looking further into the Japanese experience, it all comes down to get business to borrow. Whatever they’ve tried, it didn’t happen. Could it be they don’t know how to fix it?

Breaking the Frame

As I wade through the murky waters of my newly found love for economics, there is a reoccurring theme that doesn’t quite fit in: confidence. Economists try to model our behaviour in terms of economic activities and transactions. And while their complex models, terminology and mastery of math instil awe and fascination, I cannot get where this confidence thing is coming from. Confidence being an important factor of my economic future is remarkable. Confidence borders closely on faith and belief. Voilà, There we have it again. Money for nothing.This only works if we believe in it.

And I do not. I operate in a different frame of reference. From my perspective, I don’t see how this is creating new prosperity, all the while I am worried that all they really do is making another hole bigger.

In an article in Prospect Magazine,  John Kay proposes to change the financial system by breaking the banks apart and to “separate the Utility from the Casino”. He doesn’t quite explain which bits exactly will fall into which of the two, but I think you get the picture. The Utility deals with the flow of money, moving it around, making it available. The Casino is where you go spend it on your future. And if you’re lucky, you will have one. What has happened is that the losses incurred in the Casino of the monetary system have drained the arteries of the Utility. In the current climate, the Utility is offering commodities. As a business model on its own, it offers little incentives. So let the nationalised banks become public services providing the plumbing and leave the gambling to others. That is an idea I get. I could even say, I have confidence in it. Although, I still can’t see myself going to a casino. And I have a hunch, that for this to work, you might send me there for my insurances and pensions. I hope they give me a good line of credit!

4 Comments

Filed under Politics, Society

Borrow from Tomorrow: The Big Three

The first economic issue since the American election that caught the attention is the first issue to measure what “change” is about. I first wondered if I sensed an attitude which, given the promise and expectations, looks almost defeatist: risk management. Obama has expressed that he wishes the Big Three to be saved.

I guess his motivation is based on the impact the disappearance of the American-owned automobile industry would have on the people whose livelihood is directly linked, estimated to be 3 million, rather than on any amount of faith in the ability of the industry’s managers to turn things around. Does this mean that Obama is in principle willing to spend a lot more to keep them going? It’s widely accepted that a multiple of the amounts currently discussed would be required to ensure their survival.

The size of the Big Three automakers and its dependant economy was grown and maintained by another debt cycle. Car companies created or joined with financing bodies and engaged in lending practices similar to the sub-prime markets to keep the demand going: selling cars to people who could not really afford them by offering risky, high-interest loans. Now, with the trickle of money dwindling, this business model is not sustainable. Not surprisingly the car markers presented the common strategy to adjust when prompted by the US Congress: efficiency improvements and product modernisation. Only, wasn’t that what they’ve tried in the past? Why would anybody trust them to achieve it now in an even tougher environment?

Surely Obama must understand that. Still, he thinks they should be saved? Paul Krugman offers some insight: he thinks the currently discussed package should be approved, giving time to figure out what do with this industry. That sounds all very reasonable, but only makes sense if there really is something that can be done to maintain the industry.

I really didn’t expect that any proposal from the car executives would offer a solution, because they are neither capable nor positioned to make systemic changes. As far as the US auto industry is concerned, business as usual is over. They can lament the unfortunate circumstances all they want, but investment in the old vision would at best allow them to play catch up with their more successful competition. The best vision they could come up with was “me too”: they too can now produce hybrids. They cannot see beyond to the next transformational step and therefore will lose that race as well.

So what for should we keep them going? Obama hasn’t said yet, but he will have to answer. So meanwhile, I am looking for my own answer. To just keep the industry going could cost in the region of $100 billion per year (they ask now for something around 25 and experts estimate that’ll last 3 months). This changes the question to “What should be done with the money?”.

My answer: Transform large scale personal transportation.

Car companies sell us a transportation ideology. It’s personal: I own my car, allowing me to go where I want to go and when I want to go. It’s individual: hundreds of models to choose from, equipped with mod-cons making it the mobile room of my home. Driving even offers social, yet anonymous experience: I let you join my lane. I can overtake you. Yet, I never have to know you.

Now the vision has started to pale: an hour in chockablock traffic to do 20 miles trying to get to the office on time; feeling guilty knowing that you’re puffing pollutants into the atmosphere; paying through your nose for taxes, rising maintenance costs and being yo-yoed by the oil price. To top it all, it can actually be quite dangerous. The longer we continue with this philosophy of transportation, the negatives will get worse. A good time to rethink the issue.

Classical solutions to mass transportation (buses, trains, etc.) work well enough in urban and suburban areas, but they are very limited in their ability to fulfil personal requirements, hence the success of cars. Thankfully, there is a way to combine the two. The proponents of RUF (Rapid Urban Flexible) envision a system where we still own cars, but cars with the ability to join together to build small train-like units that then can travel on fast rail-like “guideways”. The advantages that this system provides are overwhelming. The car becomes your transportation unit. You still own one and you can accessorise it to your liking. Where co-ordinated mass transportation is not efficient, it allows you simply to drive. But whenever you join real traffic, you connect to other units forming a train and being guided efficiently close to your destination. There you leave the guideway and drive your car the remaining way.

The system requires a lot of new stuff! Cars will have to have the ability to be “guided”, completely controlled by automatic means, while also providing those controls to the driver. For “train rides” an electric motor is needed – not far off a hybrid. Guideways have to be built and then, the probably hardest part of it all, creating the physical controls and guidance software that ensures the system is efficient and safe.

It would be really cool though! You drive yourself where it’s fun: where there is no or little traffic. But in traffic, where it’s boring to drive, you hand over controls. Read email, watch news, last night’s soap episode, have a coffee, chat with a friend, work even if you must. Meanwhile, you no longer pollute, your car battery gets charged and you’re quicker to boot!

To realise this vision requires government-scale investment and strategic policies, that and a large-scale industry starved for something to do. So how big do you want your change to be, Mr. Obama?

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Society

Money for nothin’ and bricks for free

When I came into my later teens, as many I imagine, I fell for the Rock Star image; band, gigs, drugs and all. I kidded myself, via some small amounts of musical talent that I was fortunate to harbour, that it was not purely for that tempting promise, nicely portrayed in this smash hit song. But with age I have to admit that it was at least a contributing motivator.

In recent years, that promise was best projected through a career in financial services. Add the fashion suits, high-tech muscle cars, jet besotted hedonistic weekend in Acapulco and you get Rock Star 2.0. But while the original Rock Star in his excess will overdose or wrap his sports car around a tree and slip away, the new breed displays a steely attitude. As John Spencer in the West Wing says, these guys don’t know the word “enough”.

I can’t help but wonder if we’re observing a time where a shared madness allows weird things to happen. And I feel a little abandoned by my lack of understanding of economic theory. I can bullshit you about politics, music, particle physics, the meaning of life if I must (oh go on.. just tempt me!), but don’t expect me to explain what is supposed to happen now! Bear with me, while I try to lay out in my very uneducated terms what is confusing me.

The rapidly growing financial sector has collapsed because it was forced to be fuelled by inappropriate customers. The World Finance was forced to take money from people who couldn’t really afford the deal they should have been given. So the banks had to give it to them for less, while still having to shave off some percentage to contribute to the bank’s business growth. At a high octane economy, that was not a problem. But then came the slow-down, the market potential was saturated and the trickle of money stopped. Is that a fair description?

So father state comes along and opens the pockets. Government must invest in the down cycle. We, the tax payers, have been convinced that propping up these lanky institutions is in our self-interest. But it’s not really our tax money that we’re using to do this, it’s just debt. Meaning, somebody else must be doling out the cash: The Chinese! (Just btw.: Maybe Rock Star 3.0? I know that gamers were already preparing to claim that title, but I think it’s going to be “to be Chinese”.) But hey, the Chinese are in trouble too! (Or are they?)  A very troubling article compares what’s going on with looting and it is us, tax payers, who are being looted. But I am trying to have a more optimistic approach. So if it’s not the Chinese, how are we all going to get our own and the ultimate bail out? It can’t be that we really will be asked to pay up?

One of the nicest ides of the Star Trek ideology is the total absence of money. Nobody would need to pay for anything, because we all would contribute enthusiastically to the common good. What nobody explains is how we get from our money obsessed culture to this Utopia.

As it appears, all countries will try, maybe even maniacally, to fight their economic troubles by making dept. Some exceptions apply and will surely result in some advantages later on. But overall, we seem to converge on a global consensus that in the future, there will be this near infinite amount of wealth and we’ll get there by allowing us all to go into debt.

You might think you’ve been naughty with your credit card and now you feel pinned down. But trust me, however bad you were, it is nothing compared to the debt that will be piled on to you over the next months, if not years. But don’t worry, we will all be redeemed in the next bubble. And it will be green and it will last. Amen!

Money really has always been a differentiator. You can afford this, but you cannot afford that. And because of that, the handling of the flow of money was a delicate subject for a long time. But these days, we seem to have endless hordes of people, who are experts and wholly (holy?) devoted to the art of manipulating these flows. And I think they have found the Golden Tap that flows eternally! It’s the new faith: if we all believe that all our debts will be redeemed then there is a way to make it happen.

We’ll just borrow from tomorrow! Time is eternal, tomorrow is a resource which never exhausts. So we can keep borrowing, and borrowing and build a whole new economy based on tomorrow.  The news all talk about how to restore confidence in the markets. Who doubts that there is a tomorrow? Seriously? And even if you have doubts? Do you really act as if there is no tomorrow? And why would anybody in their right mind want to? We all portray confidence in there being a tomorrow. A market based on tomorrow will have all our confidence!

If we can endlessly borrow from tomorrow, then we never have to pay back. Ever! Anything! And that’s where money becomes obsolete.

But cynic that I am, I think: Can’t be! Too good to be true!

Have I undone it with my disbelief? You tell me! 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Society