The Bigger the Subject . . .
Apparently the powers that be are examining the evidence now to decide how big a fine to levy on BP for that Gulf oil spill—you remember that huge eruption of oil that engulfed the gulf, while BP executives sat around with their thumbs up their collective asses, trying to decide how to dodge responsibility? It occurs to me, maybe the bigger the better. Perhaps BP will have to go out of business. Of course, what would happen then? Their resources would be sold to a bank, who in turn will sell the oil company to some other bunch of incompetents, who will resume drilling without any clear idea of what they are doing. That’s the way in this world of ours.
And then we have the bankers and other assorted financial wizards, including especially the world of economists. I have finally been forced to conclude, with perhaps an exception or two, that economists are largely trained in sociology 101 and the fine art of statistical extrapolation. Bankers are trained in Monopoly.
And then there is our collective politician world. What can one say? They were trained in, hmmmm, what training could possibly explain their seeming total lack of knowledge about almost any subject deemed a subject? Well, to be fair, they seem adept at discovering what is pissing off the public at fixed intervals (every two years, say).
So the trend here seems to be something like this: As a people, we tend to employ a negative correlation model for placing people in various fields of endeavor. That is, as the field becomes increasingly more important to the survival of our species, we place increasingly lower IQ folks in those fields. So, the rule might follow the chart below:
For example, we apparently permit the world of finance to gamble with the world’s supply of money, with the explicit understanding that, when (not if) various of the global financial groups appear to be at risk of running out of the money we have given them to play with, we will give them some more money. And this is also with the explicit understanding that their games (it’s really only one game, called Monopoly) will result periodically in crashes of the world’s financial systems, resulting in further global depressions which cause thousands, sometimes millions, of people to lose much of their savings. That is the known outcome of the games. In between these crashes, of course, the world’s bankers, and other assorted financial managers, will make billions of currency units, which they are free to tuck away into offshore accounts in places that do not tax them.
The main question in my mind is, why . . . why do we the affected public allow such a system to exist? It would seem to me that, if we have the brain power to successfully land folks on the moon and then return them to Earth, we might be capable as a species of designing a global financial system that does not lead every few years to complete crashes. And that we would design that more stable system to include more of the world’s population in the benefits of the risk-reward calculus. Because that is the other peculiar characteristic of this system that the financial doofuses of the world have designed—the reward part of this system is targeted at fewer and fewer people, with the result that, now, a few hundred doofuses own more wealth than the rest of the multibillion global population.
At some point, surely, the collective will of the rest of humanity will begin to weigh in on the design of our financial system, and on the general lack of technical expertise within the various fields of energy. Maybe it is really time to halt for a time our exploration of that big space beyond our world, and to put some of that masterful brainpower to work trying to rescue the world from the collective idiots who now control many of the most important fields affecting the survival of our species on earth.
Just a thought.