There comes a time at the end of every
political Thesis where denial becomes so ritualized you feel like
your head is going to explode.
We have now reached this point with the
Nixon-Reagan-Bush “Thesis of Conflict,”
the political assumptions that have dominated this country since the
late 1960s, the
assumptions of our lifetime.
The Secretary of State denies Clinton
left a plan against Al Qaeda even after it’s published.
The Republican leadership denies an Intelligence Estimate calls the
Iraq War a failure
even after it’s quoted to them. (The “quotes” they want to use
which show things are rosy are all conditional – if this happens
maybe that will.) The proof of global warming is denied, and a report
showing hurricanes relate to it is suppressed.
Yet it’s still out there. Reality is
still out there.
It’s Washington that has gone all Red Queen on us.
And not just the powerful. The pundits and the press are acting in
the same way.
This morning, for instance, the lead interview on NBC (about the
intelligence report) was with Newt Gingrich. The lead interview on
CBS (about the same report) was with William Bennett. Does either
know anything about the subject? No. But they could be relied upon to
deliver White House-approved spin on the subject.
Liberals would like to believe this is
all part of some great conspiracy of evil, in which everyone in
Washington participates. It’s not. It’s the habits of a lifetime,
being shown to be lies. It’s people seeing that the rock they stand
on is actually sand, unable to comprehend it. A natural disaster on
this scale, like Katrina, will leave you to rage, to bitterness, to
depression, to suicide, but it can’t be denied. A political disaster
on this scale, on the other hand, can be denied, and will be denied,
until the votes come in.
The best protection against one reality
is to change the channel, and show another reality. That’s why we’re
seeing wall-to-wall coverage of the Dow.
The Dow is designed to go up. That’s why stocks are put-in and
taken-out – the laggards come out and faster-growing stocks go in.
Every number on Wall Street is prone to manipulation, and the
incentive is to always make things look better than they are. What
we’ve mostly seen since 2001 is compression, people paying
less-and-less for earnings. Money has been moving en masse into real
estate. Now the bubble has burst there, so we’ll see another bubble
in stocks until they’re proven not to work – that is, until
earnings fall. Which, given the importance of housing to the overall
economy, won’t be long.
Polls are about the easiest part of
reality to manipulate. There are many ways to manipulate them, but
the best way is with a “likely voter” screen.
Such polls can have an enormous impact on political reality, or
perceived reality. Candidates release internal polls which show them
with momentum, or dismiss those which don’t. Even the best polls are
becoming less-and-less efficient at predicting results, because they
miss people who have replaced regular phones with cell phones.
Again, history tells us that this
happens at regular, generational intervals. Few saw the 1966
Republican landslide coming. Few felt hope that Democrats were on the
road back before the 1930 election. The 1894 election saw both
Populists and progressives in a state of depression. And no one, in
1858, really believed that a great, long bloody Civil War was just
around the corner.
I think most people have intuited all
this, and are beyond manipulation. I believe most people are just as
afraid as their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were
that their votes won’t matter, but determined to vote their
consciences anyway. I believe the opposition is as paralyzed as it
was in those times, afraid to argue against the Thesis until voters
prove to them they no longer believe in it.
If the historical patterns hold, if the
election isn’t stolen as blatantly as any Third World despot might
steal one, the wheel is about to spin. Relief is less than five weeks
away. And then the game begins in earnest. Because then the next
generation will begin to seek myths, values and ideals on which to
base their lifetime.
I hope you’re right, but I wonder. It’s not like things were going all that great in 2004. There are so many disinfranchised people out there . . . Has anyone who actually votes changed their mind about anything? I don’t know a single person who voted for Bush who actually thought he was doing a good job. Hell, I’m not even sure that the people who voted for him the first time though he would do a good job. As I’ve said before, a real fan doesn’t change teams just because the season isn’t going well. I’m afraid that the voting public are more into being sports fans than they are into worrying about the government.
I hope you’re right, but I wonder. It’s not like things were going all that great in 2004. There are so many disinfranchised people out there . . . Has anyone who actually votes changed their mind about anything? I don’t know a single person who voted for Bush who actually thought he was doing a good job. Hell, I’m not even sure that the people who voted for him the first time though he would do a good job. As I’ve said before, a real fan doesn’t change teams just because the season isn’t going well. I’m afraid that the voting public are more into being sports fans than they are into worrying about the government.
-“Relief is less than five weeks away.”
God Almighty, I pray that this could be true, but my faith is being supremely challenged by my utter lack of confidence in either end of this country’s political dipole.
I have not always felt this way; I have not always considered my vote to be simply a choice for the lesser evil. I voted for Bush in 2000 with genuine optimism that he might represent the old-fashioned small-government sort of conservativism that I now fear extinct. Bush seemed simple, naive, even, I dare say, a little stupid, and the corresponding expectation of a weakened executive branch was downright thrilling to me. Plus, I despised Clinton(s), and by perhaps unfair proxy, Al Gore as well.
Of course I understand that it was I who was naive, and maybe a little stupid. My assupmtions about Bush, which I consider to be correct, should not in any way have justified my expectations. Especially not with Chenney smoldering beneath the pile.
The problem now is that our new neo-conservative President has gotten us into a situation in Iraq for which neither side (repubs or dems) has an answer. I believe with all my mind that utter disaster will befall the Iraqi people if American forces leave prematurely, as per the democrats’ current talking points. But on the other hand, who the hell knows what “prematurely” means in this context? Might we have to stay there for another ten years? Longer? My honest answer is yes, and the candidates who echo this answer are, to my complete horror, the same fools that dug this hole in the first place. So here, more than ever before, I really feel like I have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I must note here that I still haven’t completely made up my mind what the lesser of two evils is in this election cycle, and surely not in 2008. This is a struggle for me. Any thoughts or ideas for me, anyone?
-“Relief is less than five weeks away.”
God Almighty, I pray that this could be true, but my faith is being supremely challenged by my utter lack of confidence in either end of this country’s political dipole.
I have not always felt this way; I have not always considered my vote to be simply a choice for the lesser evil. I voted for Bush in 2000 with genuine optimism that he might represent the old-fashioned small-government sort of conservativism that I now fear extinct. Bush seemed simple, naive, even, I dare say, a little stupid, and the corresponding expectation of a weakened executive branch was downright thrilling to me. Plus, I despised Clinton(s), and by perhaps unfair proxy, Al Gore as well.
Of course I understand that it was I who was naive, and maybe a little stupid. My assupmtions about Bush, which I consider to be correct, should not in any way have justified my expectations. Especially not with Chenney smoldering beneath the pile.
The problem now is that our new neo-conservative President has gotten us into a situation in Iraq for which neither side (repubs or dems) has an answer. I believe with all my mind that utter disaster will befall the Iraqi people if American forces leave prematurely, as per the democrats’ current talking points. But on the other hand, who the hell knows what “prematurely” means in this context? Might we have to stay there for another ten years? Longer? My honest answer is yes, and the candidates who echo this answer are, to my complete horror, the same fools that dug this hole in the first place. So here, more than ever before, I really feel like I have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I must note here that I still haven’t completely made up my mind what the lesser of two evils is in this election cycle, and surely not in 2008. This is a struggle for me. Any thoughts or ideas for me, anyone?
Dana, although my comment here turned out to be a simple screed against the war in Iraq, I understand that your post is of much deeper stuff. Your assertion that the Thesis is nearing the end of its prominence – I hope you are right about that.
Dana, although my comment here turned out to be a simple screed against the war in Iraq, I understand that your post is of much deeper stuff. Your assertion that the Thesis is nearing the end of its prominence – I hope you are right about that.
Wow Dana. If the DJIA is just subject to manipulation and designed to go up, there is no excuse for you not to be wealthy! And it isn’t too late either, if you accept the premise that it is designed and manipulated to go up. Just throw all your money in a low-cost index fund.
I mean really, if you believe it’s just a conspiracy, why aren’t you taking advantage of it? Ignorance of how to invest is a fair reason, but that calls into question your understanding of how capital markets work. Maybe it’s ethics… you probably are far more ethical than run-of-the-mill Republicans who would no-doubt take advantage of this conspiracy in spades if they knew about it! For that, you are to be commended.
Maybe there’s something more sinister at work here. Perhaps the DJIA is a Republican trick. After 110 years of consistent long-term growth that beats 80% of professional money managers, Republicans are hoping that Democrats will realize it’s a Thesis that doesn’t change and will put all of their money into index funds. Then, the Republican Party sends out the memo, Republicans cash out, and they point at the suckers (Democrats) and laugh out loud. Yeah, I think that’s what’s going on. Be careful before you invest.
Wow Dana. If the DJIA is just subject to manipulation and designed to go up, there is no excuse for you not to be wealthy! And it isn’t too late either, if you accept the premise that it is designed and manipulated to go up. Just throw all your money in a low-cost index fund.
I mean really, if you believe it’s just a conspiracy, why aren’t you taking advantage of it? Ignorance of how to invest is a fair reason, but that calls into question your understanding of how capital markets work. Maybe it’s ethics… you probably are far more ethical than run-of-the-mill Republicans who would no-doubt take advantage of this conspiracy in spades if they knew about it! For that, you are to be commended.
Maybe there’s something more sinister at work here. Perhaps the DJIA is a Republican trick. After 110 years of consistent long-term growth that beats 80% of professional money managers, Republicans are hoping that Democrats will realize it’s a Thesis that doesn’t change and will put all of their money into index funds. Then, the Republican Party sends out the memo, Republicans cash out, and they point at the suckers (Democrats) and laugh out loud. Yeah, I think that’s what’s going on. Be careful before you invest.
Brad! It’s been a while hasn’t it?
Your sarcastic comment seems to take umbrage with the most mellow assertion in Dana’s post. Let’s have look, shall we?
-“The Dow is designed to go up.”
It’s hard to tell, but I’m guessing that this statement is the source of your disagreement. But do you have any bit of evidence or experience to counter it? I would argue that the mechanics of the major indices are married to the culture of Wall Street – the same culture that provides demand for Mad Money and a continuously running share-price ticker on every damn business channel on TV. In this role then, the Dow seems to serve largely as a marketing channel, and how would we expect a successful marketing tool to work? Perhaps by *going up a lot*? Perhaps the Dow is subject to the pull of conflicting interests, such as the marketeers on the one side and the dispassionate regulators on the other. This isn’t really a very big step, is it? Agree, disagree?
-“Every number on Wall Street is prone to manipulation, and the incentive is to always make things look better than they are.”
I don’t imagine that you’re disputing this assertion, right? This is how it’s always been; Wall Street has never worked differently, and we have regulatory agencies in place to limit the manifestations of exactly this fact.
As for your statement,
-“If the DJIA is just subject to manipulation and designed to go up, there is no excuse for you not to be wealthy!”
There are plenty of good reasons to avoid markets where you suspect manipulation. Just ask Warren Buffet why he avoided the dot.com boom; the answer has nothing to do with ignorance or ethics.
Brad! It’s been a while hasn’t it?
Your sarcastic comment seems to take umbrage with the most mellow assertion in Dana’s post. Let’s have look, shall we?
-“The Dow is designed to go up.”
It’s hard to tell, but I’m guessing that this statement is the source of your disagreement. But do you have any bit of evidence or experience to counter it? I would argue that the mechanics of the major indices are married to the culture of Wall Street – the same culture that provides demand for Mad Money and a continuously running share-price ticker on every damn business channel on TV. In this role then, the Dow seems to serve largely as a marketing channel, and how would we expect a successful marketing tool to work? Perhaps by *going up a lot*? Perhaps the Dow is subject to the pull of conflicting interests, such as the marketeers on the one side and the dispassionate regulators on the other. This isn’t really a very big step, is it? Agree, disagree?
-“Every number on Wall Street is prone to manipulation, and the incentive is to always make things look better than they are.”
I don’t imagine that you’re disputing this assertion, right? This is how it’s always been; Wall Street has never worked differently, and we have regulatory agencies in place to limit the manifestations of exactly this fact.
As for your statement,
-“If the DJIA is just subject to manipulation and designed to go up, there is no excuse for you not to be wealthy!”
There are plenty of good reasons to avoid markets where you suspect manipulation. Just ask Warren Buffet why he avoided the dot.com boom; the answer has nothing to do with ignorance or ethics.
There are plenty of good reasons to avoid markets where you suspect manipulation. Just ask Warren Buffet why he avoided the dot.com boom; the answer has nothing to do with ignorance or ethics.
Well, yeah Nate. But the dot-com boom was 5 years. The DJIA has a 110 year track record of consistent, long-term growth. You know the old nest egg building advice of throw 5% of your take home pay into an index fund and retire a millionaire? The math still works if you stick with it.
I’m just saying that if the DJIA is subject to manipulation and designed to be a bearer of good news (implicitly “gooder” than the underlying reality), and Dana knows this, then he has no excuse to not be VERY wealthy. Well, he might have one legitimate excuse, and that would be that he just discovered this conspiracy. In that case, if he has $1 in his pocket, he has no excuse not to be rich in 5 years. In Dana’s conspiratorial world, this is a simple arbitrage play — the cornerstone of Warren Buffett’s wealth, BTW.
There are plenty of good reasons to avoid markets where you suspect manipulation. Just ask Warren Buffet why he avoided the dot.com boom; the answer has nothing to do with ignorance or ethics.
Well, yeah Nate. But the dot-com boom was 5 years. The DJIA has a 110 year track record of consistent, long-term growth. You know the old nest egg building advice of throw 5% of your take home pay into an index fund and retire a millionaire? The math still works if you stick with it.
I’m just saying that if the DJIA is subject to manipulation and designed to be a bearer of good news (implicitly “gooder” than the underlying reality), and Dana knows this, then he has no excuse to not be VERY wealthy. Well, he might have one legitimate excuse, and that would be that he just discovered this conspiracy. In that case, if he has $1 in his pocket, he has no excuse not to be rich in 5 years. In Dana’s conspiratorial world, this is a simple arbitrage play — the cornerstone of Warren Buffett’s wealth, BTW.
Arbitrage, good word. I had to look it up.
Arbitrage, good word. I had to look it up.