Pro-God, Pro-Human Life, anti-New World Order, Anti-Nefarious Secret Societies, Pro-Civil Liberties, anti-Torture, anti-National ID Card, Pro-Family, Anti-Neo Conservativism, Pro-Net Neutrality, Pro-Home Schooling, Anti-Voting Fraud, Pro-Good Israelis & Pro-Good Palestinians, Anti-Human Trafficking, Pro-Health Freedom, Anti-Codex Alimentarius, Pro-Action, Anti-Bigotry, Pro-9/11 Justice, Anti-Genocide, and Pro-Gun Control. My name is Timothy and I'm from the state of Virginia.
I am neither a conventional economist, psychologist, sociologist or historian; and frankly, in my opinion, there are no conventional economists, psychologists, sociologists or historians who -- in my opinion -- have the slightest expertise in the growth of a humane 'citizen' market psychology.
That there are plausibly a significant number of aforementioned with exceptional expertise in the growth of inhumane robotoids, automaton 'consumer' zombie market psychology (plausibly great fans of the insecure, manipulative passive aggressive psychopath Edward Bernays).
It appears plausible however that these passive aggressive, insecure, manipulative psychopath 'experts', educated by the 'speak with forked tongue' factories, and his mob of passive aggressive, insecure, manipulating mob followers, failed to include the exponential function's boomerang effect; of the day they are swamped by angry, passive aggressive, manipulative angry mobs; when the finite resources run out, to continue providing their growing mob of 'consumers' with 'consumer' opiates distractions.
With that said, herewith my opinions:
Based upon my definitions of the terms 'trust', 'restore' and 'economy';
I do not think it is useful to discuss restoring something that did not exist in the first place. As far as I am concerned there are very, very, very few people who 'trust' each other.
I will not disagree that there have been, and continue to be millions and billions who pretended to trust each other, when the going was going good; and that they now don't trust each other; indicates the possibility that the 'trust' was not real, it was fake, pretend trust.
Accordingly, if you are serious about encouraging sincere trust, then you would first be required to admit that what currently is interpreted by millions as 'trust' is not real trust, it is pretend trust.
The question then becomes why would you want to restore pretend trust? The only people who benefit from pretend trust, as those who have been benefitting from those they have been deceiving, with their 'speak with forked tongue' language, pretending that they knew what the hell they were speaking about.
There is only one CEO in America, I would invest any money in, should I have some to invest; based on my trust for him, and his product. I trust him, because he practices 100% honest, transparency, not only about his company's finances, but about his entire personal life, his sex life, everything. And NOT because he has to, or is obliged to, or because he is traded on the SEC, etc., etc., but because he believes in 100% honesty and transparency and he practices what he preaches. His name is Brad Blanton, and his company is the Center for Radical Honesty.
As for the issue of 'confidence', it is easy to display 'confidence' when things are going well; when the CIA's cheap drug money is flowing in from Colombia and Afghanistan, and Fortune 500 corporations can drug launder it through their books, as cheap low interest loans, and thereby generate 'confidence' that their stock price should be valued (not for any ethical or transparent management, or real need economic products) higher than it should be. All investors are 'confident' because their stock prices are soaring. Is that real 'confidence'?
And lastly, my opinions may not find agreement here, with individuals who have different interpretations for 'economy', than I do. Those who prefer to keep the definition vague, may not realise they are not discussing the same thing.
Finally I do not -- yet -- agree with anyone who says economics is an exact science, anymore than psychologists who say psychology is an exact science. I have met too many people psychologists call 'crazy' or 'insane' to whom I spent a little bit of time REALLY, REALLY ACTIVELY LISTENING AND ASKING QUESTIONS WITH A TOTAL MIND, to be able to TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE REASONS FOR THEIR ACTIONS, AS REASONABLE, BASED UPON THEIR EXPERIENCE.
I further don't recall meeting any economist who could explain to me how they could believe in economic growth living on a finite ecological resources planet.
The only ideas I believe in, are those whom I have asked myself the very serious question: DO I BELIEVE THIS IDEA AS TRUE, TO THE EXTENT THAT I AM WILLING TO TAKE A BULLET FOR IT? If yes, it's a belief. There are only a couple of 'beliefs' I believe, that I am willing to call beliefs; the rest are just ideas, or theories, sometimes useful and sometimes not; some may be true, some may be not.
1 comment:
Andrea Murrhteyn said...
I am neither a conventional economist, psychologist, sociologist or historian; and frankly, in my opinion, there are no conventional economists, psychologists, sociologists or historians who -- in my opinion -- have the slightest expertise in the growth of a humane 'citizen' market psychology.
That there are plausibly a significant number of aforementioned with exceptional expertise in the growth of inhumane robotoids, automaton 'consumer' zombie market psychology (plausibly great fans of the insecure, manipulative passive aggressive psychopath Edward Bernays).
It appears plausible however that these passive aggressive, insecure, manipulative psychopath 'experts', educated by the 'speak with forked tongue' factories, and his mob of passive aggressive, insecure, manipulating mob followers, failed to include the exponential function's boomerang effect; of the day they are swamped by angry, passive aggressive, manipulative angry mobs; when the finite resources run out, to continue providing their growing mob of 'consumers' with 'consumer' opiates distractions.
With that said, herewith my opinions:
Based upon my definitions of the terms 'trust', 'restore' and 'economy';
I do not think it is useful to discuss restoring something that did not exist in the first place. As far as I am concerned there are very, very, very few people who 'trust' each other.
I will not disagree that there have been, and continue to be millions and billions who pretended to trust each other, when the going was going good; and that they now don't trust each other; indicates the possibility that the 'trust' was not real, it was fake, pretend trust.
Accordingly, if you are serious about encouraging sincere trust, then you would first be required to admit that what currently is interpreted by millions as 'trust' is not real trust, it is pretend trust.
The question then becomes why would you want to restore pretend trust? The only people who benefit from pretend trust, as those who have been benefitting from those they have been deceiving, with their 'speak with forked tongue' language, pretending that they knew what the hell they were speaking about.
There is only one CEO in America, I would invest any money in, should I have some to invest; based on my trust for him, and his product. I trust him, because he practices 100% honest, transparency, not only about his company's finances, but about his entire personal life, his sex life, everything. And NOT because he has to, or is obliged to, or because he is traded on the SEC, etc., etc., but because he believes in 100% honesty and transparency and he practices what he preaches. His name is Brad Blanton, and his company is the Center for Radical Honesty.
As for the issue of 'confidence', it is easy to display 'confidence' when things are going well; when the CIA's cheap drug money is flowing in from Colombia and Afghanistan, and Fortune 500 corporations can drug launder it through their books, as cheap low interest loans, and thereby generate 'confidence' that their stock price should be valued (not for any ethical or transparent management, or real need economic products) higher than it should be. All investors are 'confident' because their stock prices are soaring. Is that real 'confidence'?
And lastly, my opinions may not find agreement here, with individuals who have different interpretations for 'economy', than I do. Those who prefer to keep the definition vague, may not realise they are not discussing the same thing.
Finally I do not -- yet -- agree with anyone who says economics is an exact science, anymore than psychologists who say psychology is an exact science. I have met too many people psychologists call 'crazy' or 'insane' to whom I spent a little bit of time REALLY, REALLY ACTIVELY LISTENING AND ASKING QUESTIONS WITH A TOTAL MIND, to be able to TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE REASONS FOR THEIR ACTIONS, AS REASONABLE, BASED UPON THEIR EXPERIENCE.
I further don't recall meeting any economist who could explain to me how they could believe in economic growth living on a finite ecological resources planet.
The only ideas I believe in, are those whom I have asked myself the very serious question: DO I BELIEVE THIS IDEA AS TRUE, TO THE EXTENT THAT I AM WILLING TO TAKE A BULLET FOR IT? If yes, it's a belief. There are only a couple of 'beliefs' I believe, that I am willing to call beliefs; the rest are just ideas, or theories, sometimes useful and sometimes not; some may be true, some may be not.
Lara
December 15, 2008 11:11 AM
Post a Comment