Policy Is As Policy Does?
Following The Thought Police? to a logical conclusion, and staying within the boundaries or "between the lines" of our policy theme as it were, one of our three favorite rejoinders which seems apropos:
What are the ramifications of a dearth of info in the markets? Generally, your lost and loss. As all of our missives are tied to investing in the same manner, they are thematic.
Part of said theme, there is no incoherence regarding institutional policy, market causation and investing. One must be aware of policy and its applications to fathom potential consequences. When policy decisions are made, and especially when based in false doctrine or statistical falsity in econometrics, the affect of changes and distortions can effect every facet of life.
There are many types of best and worst practises affected through policy which have effect on viz. education, jobs, wages, income, spending, standard of living, macroeconomics, demographics, capital, markets, asset bubbles and asset investment. The Holy Trinity: Governmental (Executive, Legislative, Judicial), Corporate (Outsourcing, Capital Allocation, Trade Balance) and Monetary (Fiscal, Finance, Economic).
Since we do not live in a static world, all forms of policy have potential to be market movers and game changers, and one must be able to "critique" the potentials involved. By definition, a "critique" is critical thinking which is a necessary evil because it reflects upon and reveals likely motives and potential how's and whys of policy. Due to the scope, scale, breadth and spheres of influence, many times specific assets or investments cannot be readily determined or identified in such analysis.
Said granular level of subjective identification is in the eye of the beholder viz. up to the individual investor who has been informed or educated by the analysis and information provided. The exercise of critical thinking based upon said analysis, allows individual investors to discriminate between potential investments which may profit and those which may suffer due to a change in policy. This would be called an individual exercise in free will, critical analysis and due diligence.
And now our three favorite rejoinders:
Incoherent or Palpable?
At the top, we mentioned that our first rejoinder seemed "apropros". In The Thought Police? we mentioned "seemingly subjective and objective policy. " and "funny how the narrative of editorial policy which seems whimsical and incoherent, can work in a deceptive nature.." In keeping with our policy "theme", lets see if we can find the possible underlying theme of the policy narrative.
1. The crowdfunding piece To Be Takei II, The Wrath Of Crowdfunding; Part A; Part B; Part C; largely involved a well known actor, who is unabashed in to letting people know which way he swings or team he bats for.
What we have here is a positive affirmation of an individual with a lifestyle (LGBT), known to be less than popular with entities whose acolytes have "stricter" practices. We Nattered: Crowdfunding not liquid? Sounds a bit subjective, at least on the surface.
2. The governmental policy or military industrial piece, "The Dogs of War?" largely involved ineffective ISIS bombings which inflicted large civilian casualties, and a declassified US military document unabashedly proposing a "ruse de guerre" while "justifying" collateral damage under said "false flag" terrorism.
What we have here is a denouncement of military policy utilized to justify conflict and defend certain entities and their interests. We Nattered: A critique of policy effecting the military industrial complex that is not tied to investing? FY 2017 DOD budget of $582.7 billion and common sense says otherwise.
3. The "fair and balanced" political policy piece, The Candidate Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 (we are an equal opportunity annoyer which holds all parties in equal contempt), largely involved an unabashed bashing of Trump, Clinton and independent candidates.
What we have here is a denouncement of a political candidate, known to be more popular with acolytes of certain entities. We Nattered: Politics and who controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, which is the single largest GDP spending source, goes away from investor decision making? Just a bit outside comes to mind.
4. The judiciary policy piece "Trump And A Justice For All?", largely involved the error in granting juristic person-hood. We also unabashedly pointed out how justice "is for sale"; unlimited campaign contributions and the subsequent perversion of our democratic processes; and deleterious 1st and 14th amendment consequences.
What we have here is a denouncement of "money equals free speech" and the resulting Orwellian legalization of discrimination by certain entities, under the guise of religious and expressive freedoms. We Nattered: Too far afield from investment commentary? Disconnect? Again, governmental, political and judicial policy have substantial impact on macroeconomics.
Taking a Step Back?
Time to take a step back and be introspective. Is it just a difference in opinion or view point? Is it possible those missives were not ready for prime time, and the editors were just trying to be kind? Perhaps, and one must bare in mind the publisher is exerting their subjective preference (point of view) in a selective pecuniary fashion.
Were those editors acting in a incoherent manner per script? Is there a "Mangiafuoco" or for Disney fans, "Stromboli"; the puppet master of the Great Marionette Theatre (Gran Teatro dei Burattini), pulling marionette strings?
"This one's not for us, a no-go." Code for "stay within the lines, the lines are our friends"? or as is their editorial prerogative and constitutional right, they chose not to compensate for said commentary, analysis and information. At the same time, this author is free to shop those missives to others, post here on our blog or even on the publishers instablog.
In fact, if one asked the publisher point blank, "do you honestly think your readers and investors, wish to remain ignorant or in a void or vacuum, regarding "policy" in its many forms, and its potential implications on their investments?"
The obvious answer would be a big fat resounding, NO, why? do you take our readers and I, for fool's and their money? So why does everything touched upon in this sequel and The Thought Police? point to the diametric opposite?
And Then They Came For Me?
No, not the Thought Police or the Dream Police. In any event, the editorial practises or policy which determines an outlets narrative, might appear incoherent on the surface. Often, what seems illogical, ignorant, incoherent and idiotic is not by happenstance and quite by design.
Whether motivated by corporate, governmental, religious, political, monetary policy, individuals or those acting as "entities", matters not. The point is, whether you like, want or need it, or not, the ubiquitous "they" are quite consciously acting as a filtering mechanism designed to keep you in many respects, quite unconscious.
On a daily basis, laws and practices which contradict our constitution and violate our human rights, take away our right to free thinking. The contrived "culture" being confabbed can be so blinding, that it disables one from taking notice and making meaningful changes. The resulting nebulous state of stupor and conscious ignorance, is a large contributor to the following condition:
The Art of Fighting Without Fighting?
Our trademark style, including an apt cultural icon as metaphor, a commanding sweep of the monetary scene, a disdain for "conventional" wisdom, a rejection of the "received" narrative, an insouciant flair, and a grounding humility about the efficacy of econometric forecasting methods, is by design.
As a "skeptic" wrote the above paragraph in aptly describing us, tip-o-the hat to Montana Skeptic.
In closing, our missives are an effort to assist in the critical thinking process which is an essential component of analysis. We attempt to encourage "outside the box" thinking by bringing together conventional and non mainstream information and ideas, then stirring the pot. The resulting controversy can spawn questions deserving of answers, stimulate much needed healthy discourse and hopefully, bring about positive change.
Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest GumpBorrowing from Gump's infinite wisdom, for the uninitiated, a policy primer follows.
What are the ramifications of a dearth of info in the markets? Generally, your lost and loss. As all of our missives are tied to investing in the same manner, they are thematic.
Part of said theme, there is no incoherence regarding institutional policy, market causation and investing. One must be aware of policy and its applications to fathom potential consequences. When policy decisions are made, and especially when based in false doctrine or statistical falsity in econometrics, the affect of changes and distortions can effect every facet of life.
There are many types of best and worst practises affected through policy which have effect on viz. education, jobs, wages, income, spending, standard of living, macroeconomics, demographics, capital, markets, asset bubbles and asset investment. The Holy Trinity: Governmental (Executive, Legislative, Judicial), Corporate (Outsourcing, Capital Allocation, Trade Balance) and Monetary (Fiscal, Finance, Economic).
Since we do not live in a static world, all forms of policy have potential to be market movers and game changers, and one must be able to "critique" the potentials involved. By definition, a "critique" is critical thinking which is a necessary evil because it reflects upon and reveals likely motives and potential how's and whys of policy. Due to the scope, scale, breadth and spheres of influence, many times specific assets or investments cannot be readily determined or identified in such analysis.
Said granular level of subjective identification is in the eye of the beholder viz. up to the individual investor who has been informed or educated by the analysis and information provided. The exercise of critical thinking based upon said analysis, allows individual investors to discriminate between potential investments which may profit and those which may suffer due to a change in policy. This would be called an individual exercise in free will, critical analysis and due diligence.
And now our three favorite rejoinders:
Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump;
You can't fix stupid, no pill for it, it's fo'ever - Ron White ;
There are idiots, look around - Larry Summers ;
Incoherent or Palpable?
At the top, we mentioned that our first rejoinder seemed "apropros". In The Thought Police? we mentioned "seemingly subjective and objective policy. " and "funny how the narrative of editorial policy which seems whimsical and incoherent, can work in a deceptive nature.." In keeping with our policy "theme", lets see if we can find the possible underlying theme of the policy narrative.
1. The crowdfunding piece To Be Takei II, The Wrath Of Crowdfunding; Part A; Part B; Part C; largely involved a well known actor, who is unabashed in to letting people know which way he swings or team he bats for.
What we have here is a positive affirmation of an individual with a lifestyle (LGBT), known to be less than popular with entities whose acolytes have "stricter" practices. We Nattered: Crowdfunding not liquid? Sounds a bit subjective, at least on the surface.
2. The governmental policy or military industrial piece, "The Dogs of War?" largely involved ineffective ISIS bombings which inflicted large civilian casualties, and a declassified US military document unabashedly proposing a "ruse de guerre" while "justifying" collateral damage under said "false flag" terrorism.
What we have here is a denouncement of military policy utilized to justify conflict and defend certain entities and their interests. We Nattered: A critique of policy effecting the military industrial complex that is not tied to investing? FY 2017 DOD budget of $582.7 billion and common sense says otherwise.
3. The "fair and balanced" political policy piece, The Candidate Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 (we are an equal opportunity annoyer which holds all parties in equal contempt), largely involved an unabashed bashing of Trump, Clinton and independent candidates.
What we have here is a denouncement of a political candidate, known to be more popular with acolytes of certain entities. We Nattered: Politics and who controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, which is the single largest GDP spending source, goes away from investor decision making? Just a bit outside comes to mind.
4. The judiciary policy piece "Trump And A Justice For All?", largely involved the error in granting juristic person-hood. We also unabashedly pointed out how justice "is for sale"; unlimited campaign contributions and the subsequent perversion of our democratic processes; and deleterious 1st and 14th amendment consequences.
What we have here is a denouncement of "money equals free speech" and the resulting Orwellian legalization of discrimination by certain entities, under the guise of religious and expressive freedoms. We Nattered: Too far afield from investment commentary? Disconnect? Again, governmental, political and judicial policy have substantial impact on macroeconomics.
Taking a Step Back?
Time to take a step back and be introspective. Is it just a difference in opinion or view point? Is it possible those missives were not ready for prime time, and the editors were just trying to be kind? Perhaps, and one must bare in mind the publisher is exerting their subjective preference (point of view) in a selective pecuniary fashion.
Were those editors acting in a incoherent manner per script? Is there a "Mangiafuoco" or for Disney fans, "Stromboli"; the puppet master of the Great Marionette Theatre (Gran Teatro dei Burattini), pulling marionette strings?
"This one's not for us, a no-go." Code for "stay within the lines, the lines are our friends"? or as is their editorial prerogative and constitutional right, they chose not to compensate for said commentary, analysis and information. At the same time, this author is free to shop those missives to others, post here on our blog or even on the publishers instablog.
In fact, if one asked the publisher point blank, "do you honestly think your readers and investors, wish to remain ignorant or in a void or vacuum, regarding "policy" in its many forms, and its potential implications on their investments?"
The obvious answer would be a big fat resounding, NO, why? do you take our readers and I, for fool's and their money? So why does everything touched upon in this sequel and The Thought Police? point to the diametric opposite?
And Then They Came For Me?
No, not the Thought Police or the Dream Police. In any event, the editorial practises or policy which determines an outlets narrative, might appear incoherent on the surface. Often, what seems illogical, ignorant, incoherent and idiotic is not by happenstance and quite by design.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock HolmesOften, the seemingly whimsical, frivolous and capricious to the point of ignorance, easily give way to the conspicuous and palpable force majeure of unabashed censorship. When this sadly occurs, we are painfully reminded of history repeating itself.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.All movement to censor the internet, the one place freedom of speech truly remains, takes away our right to learn, weakens our democracy, and tightens the grip of those wishing to influence "mind share" and control "group think".
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me - Martin Niemoller
Whether motivated by corporate, governmental, religious, political, monetary policy, individuals or those acting as "entities", matters not. The point is, whether you like, want or need it, or not, the ubiquitous "they" are quite consciously acting as a filtering mechanism designed to keep you in many respects, quite unconscious.
On a daily basis, laws and practices which contradict our constitution and violate our human rights, take away our right to free thinking. The contrived "culture" being confabbed can be so blinding, that it disables one from taking notice and making meaningful changes. The resulting nebulous state of stupor and conscious ignorance, is a large contributor to the following condition:
No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks. - Mary WollstonecraftThat's not how we, nor would we suspect, our readers, roll. What's your style?
The Art of Fighting Without Fighting?
Our trademark style, including an apt cultural icon as metaphor, a commanding sweep of the monetary scene, a disdain for "conventional" wisdom, a rejection of the "received" narrative, an insouciant flair, and a grounding humility about the efficacy of econometric forecasting methods, is by design.
As a "skeptic" wrote the above paragraph in aptly describing us, tip-o-the hat to Montana Skeptic.
In closing, our missives are an effort to assist in the critical thinking process which is an essential component of analysis. We attempt to encourage "outside the box" thinking by bringing together conventional and non mainstream information and ideas, then stirring the pot. The resulting controversy can spawn questions deserving of answers, stimulate much needed healthy discourse and hopefully, bring about positive change.
And Now - The Gift... To avoid the pernicious global plague of stupidity, drink the Kool-Aid and become one of the innoculati. The Kool-Aid is available at [VIRUS REMOVED BY ECHELON UNDER ORDER OF PATRIOT ACT II ... transmission terminated]
Comments