Knowledge is a weapon. Knowing how the world actually works is empowering.
So why do legacy media outlets continue to perpetuate ignorance when it comes to economics?
Pollsters ask and journalists report "Voters see Biden (or Trump or Obama or Bush) as mishandling the economy!" This is a perception rooted in absolute ignorance.
"Voters …
Knowledge is a weapon. Knowing how the world actually works is empowering.
So why do legacy media outlets continue to perpetuate ignorance when it comes to economics?
Pollsters ask and journalists report "Voters see Biden (or Trump or Obama or Bush) as mishandling the economy!" This is a perception rooted in absolute ignorance.
"Voters believe that X party would do a better job handling inflation..." Based on what objective evidence? Especially when the opposition party has no stated plan or policy about how they would handle the economy better. We all know how supply side and trickle down economics were marketed to voters, who took a gamble on them, made tiny gains in the short run and long run devastating consequences for the middle and working classes.
Of course administrations don't help much by claiming economic good times as their own because even ignorant voters can make the logical connection that if the administration is responsible for the good then they must also be accountable for the bad outcomes. Irrationality compounding irrationality.
Which brings me to JVL's masterful recapitulation of Noah's wonkish piece that helps illuminate the reality for those of us who are not economists.
But then perhaps I am too sanguine to believe that voters can be educated--- especially by media dependent on conflict and disaster as it's principal revenue stream.
I remember watching and being inspired by Jimmy Carter's speech, wearing a cardigan, and trying to reassure us that the energy crisis would not last forever, that we could learn ways to become more energy independent and that in the meantime we all could join him in making economic choices around conservation to help ease the pain we were experiencing. The media response? Mostly mockery. Carter was "out of touch" with the American public. Real Presidents "man up" and pull and push the levers of power to alter reality. Americans were ready for an authoritarian moment. A year later they chose Reagan.
If voters could be educated, the last four years -- or six -- or 22 -- would have done it!
I'm reading a disturbing dystopian novel which defines ideology: "an imaginary relationship to a real situation." The author posits that everyone is an ideologue.
That's the least disturbing sentence in this novel so far!
The use of ideology/ideologue in this particular context is not apropro, I think.
This is a phenomenon I have talked about repeatedly--the fact that human beings are creatures of narrative (it is this which is what actually separates us from the lower animals) and live within a "reality" that is the product of that narrative.
Each and every one of us lives in an imaginary relationship to a real situation. It is just that, for many of us, the imaginary relationship doesn't get in the way too much because it is either less harmful or more functional (or both). It is this imaginary relationship that is the core of our identity.
What is the novel, BTW? You tease your insight from it but don't tell us what it is ;)
We posit that the world works in particular ways. We posit that certain cause/effect relationships exist. We posit that people behave in particular ways for particular reasons. This all occurs inside our heads, based upon the things that we have observed, experienced, and been taught.
The things that we posit may be more or less accurate or totally inaccurate--and the reality is that we cannot know for sure about some (indeed many) of these things... about the ACTUALITY. We also tend to simplify things a great deal even when we actually do have an accurate understanding or assessment.
Our relationship with the world and with each other IS imaginary in that we rely upon gross simplifications of not fully understood things and we weave these things into a narrative that makes sense even when reality, itself, does not make sense. It exists and is made manifest WITHIN our imagination.
The story that you start with influences all the stories that come after it--even if you end up totally rejecting the story that you started with.
We use narrative and fit things into narrative in order to gain comprehension (and control or the illusion of control)--because we inherently see the world and our passage through it as a narrative.
Some narratives are "better" in that these narratives can be used to predict things because they resemble actuality closely enough within the realm of our perceptions. Some narratives are preferred because we find them comfortable or comforting or they increase our own value in our own eyes. For some people THAT comfort is the overriding reason to choose the narrative that they choose.
Some narratives are so discordant with reality that the holder of them cannot survive in reality.
Narratives about purely human factors/events are far more plastic and able to cover a wider range of "realities" without critical failure (without killing you outright).
The author is correct that pretty much everyone is an ideologue.
Perhaps in shorthand "Ideologies are like assholes--- everybody has one."
It takes a lot to consciously discard ideology especially when it is "inscribed" in our language.When "all men were created equal" was formulated it had an entirely different ideological meaning than it does today.
Some Buddhists and the Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti succeeded a little in getting people to detach, at least momentarily, from their ideological filters.
In my college days over 50 years ago we used to joke that "Reality is just a crutch for people who can't handle drugs."
Today I really do believe that "Ideology is just a crutch for people who can't handle reality."
Knowledge is a weapon. Knowing how the world actually works is empowering.
So why do legacy media outlets continue to perpetuate ignorance when it comes to economics?
Pollsters ask and journalists report "Voters see Biden (or Trump or Obama or Bush) as mishandling the economy!" This is a perception rooted in absolute ignorance.
"Voters believe that X party would do a better job handling inflation..." Based on what objective evidence? Especially when the opposition party has no stated plan or policy about how they would handle the economy better. We all know how supply side and trickle down economics were marketed to voters, who took a gamble on them, made tiny gains in the short run and long run devastating consequences for the middle and working classes.
Of course administrations don't help much by claiming economic good times as their own because even ignorant voters can make the logical connection that if the administration is responsible for the good then they must also be accountable for the bad outcomes. Irrationality compounding irrationality.
Which brings me to JVL's masterful recapitulation of Noah's wonkish piece that helps illuminate the reality for those of us who are not economists.
But then perhaps I am too sanguine to believe that voters can be educated--- especially by media dependent on conflict and disaster as it's principal revenue stream.
I remember watching and being inspired by Jimmy Carter's speech, wearing a cardigan, and trying to reassure us that the energy crisis would not last forever, that we could learn ways to become more energy independent and that in the meantime we all could join him in making economic choices around conservation to help ease the pain we were experiencing. The media response? Mostly mockery. Carter was "out of touch" with the American public. Real Presidents "man up" and pull and push the levers of power to alter reality. Americans were ready for an authoritarian moment. A year later they chose Reagan.
If voters could be educated, the last four years -- or six -- or 22 -- would have done it!
I'm reading a disturbing dystopian novel which defines ideology: "an imaginary relationship to a real situation." The author posits that everyone is an ideologue.
That's the least disturbing sentence in this novel so far!
The use of ideology/ideologue in this particular context is not apropro, I think.
This is a phenomenon I have talked about repeatedly--the fact that human beings are creatures of narrative (it is this which is what actually separates us from the lower animals) and live within a "reality" that is the product of that narrative.
Each and every one of us lives in an imaginary relationship to a real situation. It is just that, for many of us, the imaginary relationship doesn't get in the way too much because it is either less harmful or more functional (or both). It is this imaginary relationship that is the core of our identity.
What is the novel, BTW? You tease your insight from it but don't tell us what it is ;)
The Ministry of the Future.
I certainly hope the core of my identity is not an imaginary relationship... .
We posit that the world works in particular ways. We posit that certain cause/effect relationships exist. We posit that people behave in particular ways for particular reasons. This all occurs inside our heads, based upon the things that we have observed, experienced, and been taught.
The things that we posit may be more or less accurate or totally inaccurate--and the reality is that we cannot know for sure about some (indeed many) of these things... about the ACTUALITY. We also tend to simplify things a great deal even when we actually do have an accurate understanding or assessment.
Our relationship with the world and with each other IS imaginary in that we rely upon gross simplifications of not fully understood things and we weave these things into a narrative that makes sense even when reality, itself, does not make sense. It exists and is made manifest WITHIN our imagination.
The story that you start with influences all the stories that come after it--even if you end up totally rejecting the story that you started with.
We use narrative and fit things into narrative in order to gain comprehension (and control or the illusion of control)--because we inherently see the world and our passage through it as a narrative.
Some narratives are "better" in that these narratives can be used to predict things because they resemble actuality closely enough within the realm of our perceptions. Some narratives are preferred because we find them comfortable or comforting or they increase our own value in our own eyes. For some people THAT comfort is the overriding reason to choose the narrative that they choose.
Some narratives are so discordant with reality that the holder of them cannot survive in reality.
Narratives about purely human factors/events are far more plastic and able to cover a wider range of "realities" without critical failure (without killing you outright).
TY for the book info I will check it out :)
The author is correct that pretty much everyone is an ideologue.
Perhaps in shorthand "Ideologies are like assholes--- everybody has one."
It takes a lot to consciously discard ideology especially when it is "inscribed" in our language.When "all men were created equal" was formulated it had an entirely different ideological meaning than it does today.
Some Buddhists and the Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti succeeded a little in getting people to detach, at least momentarily, from their ideological filters.
In my college days over 50 years ago we used to joke that "Reality is just a crutch for people who can't handle drugs."
Today I really do believe that "Ideology is just a crutch for people who can't handle reality."
Interesting. Thx.
(From my college days way back when I remember a dorm room poster "Is there intelligent life on earth? Yes, but I'm only visiting."