Why I wrote EconSov Part 2: Defining the Problem Accurately

If You Want to Create…

All creation begins with a problem to solve. If we can’t identify the problem, and then define it sufficiently and accurately, then innovation is crippled or even worse – human energies are misdirected towards waste and deconstruction. Even the most banal postmodern art creation has a problem to solve.

In a sheer moment of honesty, the artist might admit to themselves, “I loathe myself, I seek no truth, symmetry, or beauty, but by doing something different from what came before me, I can play the part of contrarian and get attention for my talentless expression.” Sublimating psychological disorder is the problem they attempted to solve in their postmodern art creation.

A complex system of global economic disorder is a much tougher problem to define. The first article detailed the global economic interests that have already touched the lives of billions across the globe. But the Davos Clique and Piketty are only phase three of the global economic vice.

Prior to The Great Recession of 2008, I predicted the housing bust and collapse of the economy, very easily. I was also making observations about many of my peers in the metropolis, who were living lives fashioned like some combination of the movies Office Space, Idiocracy, and Fight Club. Without a mollified public, there would be no substrate upon which the Davos Clique could fester.

True, the reaction of our elected officials to the recession was abhorrent, but even more disheartening – the American citizen was complicit in ignorance, silence, or emotive absurdities that spoke exactly nothing to the fundamental problem. The policy response was accepted by all notable caucuses except for the conservative TEA Party.

That the stewards of our government could sacrifice our future on the altar of the present became the most cowardly and ignoble response I could fathom. That parents would rationalize betrayal of their own children by co-signing student loans, burning cash on luxurious international family travel (while claiming to be environmentalists), and touching up digital child photos on their overpriced phones, while they sold their nation into bondage?

These betrayals defined a nation of mindless functionaries upon whom every ounce of education was wasted as it seeped through their crumbled moral foundations. Thomas Sowell articulated the economic collapse perfectly in The Housing Boom and Bust. Who was reading his indisputable tome of wisdom? Would they spend five hours of one week watching journalists and politicians distort reality instead of just reading the book?

Then came Occupy Wall Street (OWS), blaming bankers who simply operated upon decades of “affordable housing” schemes dictated to them by the dirigiste politicians. Should the bankers have gone out of business by not complying with subprime coercion from the government’s “saviors of the poor?”

Should the bankers have crashed their retirees’ investments by not diversifying the government-coerced risk of the subprime loans? ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, HUD, the CRA, and all of the other major contributors to the mess seem like a distant memory, but the economic rot they left still wreaks from the pile of debt we carry on our backs.

During the height of the OWS lunacy, I met a young adult in New York with a graduate degree, a narcotics addiction, a job as a highly paid banker, a Democrat party carrying card, and a Guy Fawkes mask. When he attended OWS events, I asked him why he was protesting himself. He didn’t think my joke was funny. I still do. He assured me that the yield curve was the only thing that mattered, and if we wait long enough, the TEA Party might become right – nevermind the misallocation of resources and evisceration of innovation and production.

His Democrat-voting professors apparently were unable to teach concepts like financial repression, destructionism, and the array of macroeconomic indicators I published in Economic Sovereignty. Good functionaries of a machine don’t think for themselves – they follow canned formulae, if not authorized by the machine, then by their peers, in a gigantic solidarity circle of groupthink. After all, a consensus of unjustified but well-credentialed experts makes knowledge in the institutionalist society.

But immoral fools with graduate degrees were not the only OWS darlings. Some mighty intellectual power was present as well. Noam Chomsky’s obtuse denials could not hide his anarchosocialist ideology. This global mob of deconstruction already had its anarchosocialist epic poem in the movie V for Vendetta, which gave OWS and the Anonymous hacktivists their Guy Fawkes masks.

Dirigisme continues to crumble across the globe. The liquidity policy response of 2009, OWS, and the new round of taxation, immigration, and controls constitute its coverup and entrenchment operation. It is a slick production with armies of egotistical professors, entertainers, journalists, and emotional citizens. They blame capitalism, which is nothing more than an ignorant euphemism for “freedom,” as if it isn’t the government programs that induce failure and then scapegoat those whom they induced to fail.

Underneath it all, The Davos Clique steers the ship. Phase three began when Thomas Piketty starting writing his book, and I began writing Economic Sovereignty at the same time. Phase three can last a very long time, or it can be accelerated by a black swan event. If Economic Sovereignty beats Piketty’s paradigm of falsehoods, the world will become more peaceful and stable. The problem of dirigisme is well defined in the book Economic Sovereignty, along with institutionalist economic policy in general.

I love my fellow Americans and wish to empower them. After realizing they were so ill-equipped, and that the functionaries of The Davos Clique stood nearly uncontested by the facts and concepts, I concluded that a large part of the problem is the economic knowledge gap. I also realized that The Davos Clique has its hands in so many special interests, that hoping for an institutional approach would be infeasible. With a great awakening of the public and sympathetic philanthropists, the looming specter of dirigisme could be thwarted with liberty.

But what would it take and how could the darkest secrets of The Davos Clique be unraveled? In the next article, we will review the approach I took to research Economic Sovereignty, and how my knowledge and experience gave me such an advantage over hordes of economics professors.

3 thoughts on “Why I wrote EconSov Part 2: Defining the Problem Accurately

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s