Skip to main content

16) Economics

Economics is social science, not a science.  It's essentially a study of behavior and its various indicators quantify past data, form graphs and indices etc but cannot predict the future. They merely establish trends.  The human mind can use this data and, if applied in the right context, make a really good guess.  I could make a very good case for this complexity being seen for more than the sum of its parts but I'm not going to do that here.

Instead I'll put forward that from the earliest days of clashing civilizations the way the world has worked has been by defining interests and identity (based on indoctrination or nationalism, perhaps even cultural, religious, racial and socio economic factors) and forming agendas.  These agendas manifest by ambitions to  either own or influence territory, resources, diplomacy, media and establish strategical advantage in order to gain control rather than have these elements fall under the control of competing parties.

The competition is historically undeniable.

This same control establishes who wins and who loses and in my view modern economics, finance and currency were systems more relevant regarding what happened after the victory to quantify the spoils and assimilate them into what you already have.

Allow your economic institutions to fall under predatory influence from within and Introduce your economic practices into the fabric of world affairs as a global market parading as a free market working on your currency and your banking practices and you can instead use economics rather in a precursory fashion instead, as a FORM OF WAR, to sometimes avoid the battles even, and that is what my next post is about and it will make clear where my last few posts have been heading.

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…