Most of us watch television. In part, we seek to be entertained, but,
additionally, we often seek to be enlightened as to “what’s going on.” In a
difficult era like the present one, in which some of the most prominent
countries are experiencing the onset of an economic crisis, virtual cartoon
characters are competing as choices in political contests, governments are
becoming increasingly rapacious and a police state is developing rapidly,
it’s not surprising if the average person questions, “What on earth are they
thinking?”
Well, there’s no shortage of media exposure to answer that question.
Today, there are a multitude of channels offering 24/7 “news,” from which we
may hope to glean some insight as to what the leaders of the world are
thinking. Yet, in spite of the endless folderol being offered, the leadership
vision remains about as clear as mud.
They don’t want war, but are invading more countries than ever before in
history. Political hopefuls are vague at best regarding their proposed
platforms for action, yet they attack each other as though they’re reporters
for the tabloids. Governments continually speak of their wish to lighten the
load on the common man, whilst heaping laws, regulations, fines and taxes on
him like never before, and whilst heaping billions in tax dollars on
their cronies in the financial industry. They claim to seek greater security
for all, but instead, create an endless stream of agencies that have the
authority to ignore basic rights and behave more like Mafia shakedown
operators than law enforcers. Governments claim to be pursuing a sounder
economy, but have created an unprecedented level of debt, that promises to
crush the economies of several of the world’s most prominent countries in the
very near future.
And so, many people look to the media, seeking answers. Typically a news
program will feature a “panel of experts”, who will debate the latest issues.
They rarely reach a conclusion, but do succeed in creating a general
impression that one political party is out to destroy the country and that
the other (which they represent) is out to save it.
In addition to the panels, the media go straight to the source on frequent
occasions, interviewing political and financial leaders. The list of
questions is invariably prepared well in advance and the interviewee is never
caught off guard. His handlers have prepared his answers for him and, on
every occasion, a full plate of predictable reheated rhetoric is served up to
the viewer for his consumption.
In these repartees, the interviewer is intended to appear congenial yet
probing, yet the questions asked are invariably bland enough for the
interviewee to either dismiss them or provide an easy retort. The interviewee
is intended to appear as though he is informing the public of policies and
procedures that, whilst too complicated for the viewer to fully grasp, are
well in hand and will provide solutions in the not-too-distant future. Be patient.
The fact that these solutions never seem to arrive seems to be less
relevant than the fact that a new solution is underway. In this manner, the
viewer, no matter how badly his life is being affected, continues to sit
tight and be hopeful, for, surely, better days are just around the corner.
Incredibly, the average viewer seems to be able to consume endless
quantities of this propaganda, year after year, and never say to himself,
“Something’s radically wrong here.”
If he were to actually turn off the television for a week or so, stand
back, and assess the propaganda as a whole, he might conclude that, in fact,
the media acts at the behest of the economic and political leaders, to
propagate their message. The “debates” and “pressing questions” are limp at
best and never lead to any significant change or improvement. Nor are
they intended to. They are pacifiers only.
Worse, the leaders themselves continue to not only fail the public, but to
steadily morph the governmental, economic and social systems in a direction
that will lead inevitably to a bad end.
It is true, of course, that the citizens of these leading nations are
becoming increasingly cynical about their leaders and their own
future, but their reaction to the pablum, after having a good grumble, tends
to be to “hope the next administration will be better.” This is very
foolhardy indeed. (Once the apple is thoroughly rotten, expect to see only
worms inhabiting it.)
But those who sense that they’re being shafted need to vent somehow. And,
for this we have political parties. Whether our country has Democrats and
Republicans, Tories and Labour, or any other such groupings, those who are
elected are under no illusion that they exist to serve those who elected
them; they exist to serve the major donors who pay for the elections. And the
major donors contribute to both parties, in order to ensure that their
objectives are carried out by the candidates who are successful, regardless
of their party. The overall plan will continue, full steam, regardless of
who’s in office.
But the parties do provide the electorate with targets at which to aim
their rubber-tipped arrows. Regardless of which party is in power, liberal
voters will complain that not enough is being done for their causes and
conservative voters will do the same.
Will one win out over the other eventually? Unquestionably not. The system
is designed to remain as is – with endless bickering encouraged, but no
actual progress planned.
The most prominent countries in the world are on the cusp of a major
economic crisis. With it will come political and social crises and, most
certainly, war. The television viewer, if he accepts this at all, will say,
“Well, that will teach them. Then they’ll have to admit that
our side was right.”
Unfortunately, no. After the inevitable economic crashes, after years of
pointless warfare, after increased totalitarianism at home, there will be an
eventual end to the strife. When the dust begins to settle, the average
person will turn on his television, hoping to see that some answers have been
reached.
Instead, what he’ll witness, if he turns on a liberal station, will be
pundits stating that, if only there had been more QE and more entitlements,
it might have all worked out, but that, instead, there was disaster, as a
result of the conservatives.
Likewise, the pundits on the conservative station will expound that all
the suffering could have been avoided if the entitlements had been kept in
check and the bombs could have been dropped on the enemy earlier. Both liberals
and conservatives will return to their corners to dress their wounds and
prepare for the next round of polarization against each other.
So, who is it that we blame for mankind’s debacles? Surely, we were
tricked by the leaders – the politicians, central bankers, leaders of major
industries, etc. Or was it the media, who did such a sterling job of
packaging up the propaganda that we were unable to see the forest for the
trees?
It will matter little, because nothing will be learned and we shall begin
the game anew. But if it’s a genuine solution we’re after, yes, that
is possible. But that solution depends upon whether we’re prepared to cease
to allow the media to provide our reasoning for us. We must be prepared to
study our leaders’ actions, to be prepared to be contrarian and, most
importantly, to question everything. If not, we ourselves are amongst
the blind and the clueless and we can expect an endless cycle of the same dog
and pony show.
|
Jeff Thomas is British and resides in the Caribbean. The son of an
economist and historian, he learned early to be distrustful of governments
as a general principle. Although he spent his career creating and
developing businesses, for eight years, he penned a weekly newspaper column
on the theme of limiting government. He began his study of economics around
1990, learning initially from Sir John Templeton, then Harry Schulz and
Doug Casey and later others of an Austrian persuasion. He is now a regular
feature writer for Casey Research’s International Man and Strategic Wealth
Preservation in the Cayman Islands, and grants Sprott Money Ltd. the right
to publish content for the Sprott Money blog.
|
The author is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by Sprott Money
Ltd. The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the
author or guest speaker, are subject to change and may not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Sprott Money Ltd. Sprott Money does not guarantee the
accuracy, completeness, timeliness and reliability of the information or any
results from its use.