Of $erious Contemplation

For all folks think I'm a little nuts - yet I don't delve much into the worldly news, because I catch too much insanity spouted as logic and fact. The folks are usually sincere and serious, but they are what they've been taught. When folks learn from the same Book and fail to explore the origins of The Book, they will differ on points presented in it, but not on the Book itself.

Now - is that religion or economists?

I suggest the pattern of both is similar. There is a belief and minor factions that grow up in both, and fierce followers will defend The Book itself, even as they bicker between themselves as to the exact application of phrases. Ironically, in both religion and economics, the supporters fully believe they are the sophisticated, right-track thinkers, whether Bible-thumping or Economic Professor.

As devastating as it is to examine one's own religion and find gaps, as risky as it is to contemplate hell-fire if one dares questions, and as firmly one clings to this 'which has been taught life-long' - the folks that have been immersed in studying our economic structure are as enculturated with these beliefs as any devout religious student.

Both are firmly planted within the individual. Both take a huge amount of courage to face and possibly reconfigure one's beliefs if an error in Origin is discovered. Few have this courage, and the longer the study, it seems the harder to 'break tradition'. After all, one is surrounded by peers who validate the Beliefs, and one's very life is defined within these perimeters.

I would as soon argue a religious discrepancy with a priest as debate the premises upon which our economic system is built with an Economist. Both conversations will likely be unsuccessful, and serve only to horrify and panic the listener. In self-defense, they will shut out that which threatens these dearly-held beliefs, and I would be serving no useful purpose.

Yet on Economics, most of our teachings stem from one source, one text. Ironed in various ways, but the same 'Bible' - that originated in the last century. (Richard Kotlarz pointed this out to me; personally, I grew up questioning everything, so was a bit more skeptical than normal on all things.) Our schools, higher institutions, and learned professors teach economics along this same structure, pulling out supporting texts that are based on the same source. The Source itself is not questioned.

It is prevalent in our news today. Bail-outs, AIG, bonuses. The feeding frenzy, witch-hunting, sacrifices and bickering of religious history have a counterpart erupting in current, sophisticated times. Par for the course, the next level of subordinates are coming in for their pieces: i.e. the lawyers are gearing up. And the economists expound on their favorite passages, dissecting them to prove the validity of 'their point' against all others... from the same source. And the general public herds around their favorite leaders, absorbing the same beliefs and parroting the same script.

I have only one hope for Obama. I hope he fully understands the Original Error, and is playing the same game those of us have been known to do when we wake up to our own credit vultures. The personal struggle and defeat turns to cynicism, leading some to intentionally 'go for broke,' maximizing limits before folding their cards (literally, hm?). I sincerely hope Obama understands the Game and the Source. His huge bail-outs then would be an intentional max-out of credit before 'declaring bankruptcy against the Federal Reserve' and rewriting the very script by which our economic system operates.

I can only hope!


I received this comment recently: "N--- has made a comment on The System, defined by Marbles: What an amazing representation of how money works in America!!!"

The truth buried within this clip is that our 'national debt' is well over the $8 billion stated. It has expanded like a cancer out of control beyond one's ability to keep up with the growth. The original $8 billion was taken from statistics a few years old - only a few years old.

Now who's the psycho-babbler?