As Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, political blogs, and talk radio have proliferated to such a point that it’s becoming impossible to make sense of all the rhetoric as each tries to be heard over all the others.
Who are we to believe?
- Those who claim climate change is a hoax or those who insist it is very real and already well past a critical point?
- Those who insist that the free market is the best course for our economy or those who see a growing abyss between the 1 percent the rest of us?
- Do corporate tax breaks and incentives really create jobs or do they just put the tax burden on the backs of a shrinking middle class?
- Those who oppose an increase in the minimum wage and those who point out that worker pay has been relatively stagnant for nearly 40 years?
- Those who seem to put repeal of Obamacare a top priority, even over the health of their constituents or those who point out that we are the only advanced country in the world without universal health care?
- Those who favor corporate profits or those who are critical of the lack of job creation and increased productivity?
- Elected officials who continue to subsidize fossil fuels and who receive millions of dollars in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests or those who push for alternative, cheaper fuel?
- Do we listen to the saber-rattlers who want ever-growing defense budgets or do we listen to those who say we need to place more emphasis on education and infrastructure?
- Do we continue to allow voter ID laws whose proponents say are to prevent voter fraud or do hear the cries of those who say the laws are subterfuge for disqualifying certain blocs of voters, namely blacks?
- Elected officials who favor the special interests or those who stand on principle and continue to represent their constituents?
You get the drift. As a nation, we’re coming apart at the seams with everyone pulling in different directions. It’s a disturbing trend and is certainly not conducive to progress.
As a special service offered of LouisianaVoice, we implore you, our readers, to take 22 minutes out of your schedule to watch the Charlie Rose interview Jeremy Grantham, Chief Investment Strategist at GMO as they discuss the global economy and the future of capitalism in sane, rational, understated tones. You can watch the entire video by clicking HERE.
The only reason we’re doing this is because it’s important.
Thanks for the link, Tom. I’m not sure why sensible and rational discussion is so hard to find in media.
Maybe it’s because of your question: Who are we to believe?
“Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, political blogs, and talk radio” and many others are all selling something. Charlie Rose isn’t (much, anyways) and neither is Grantham (much, anyways). Why should we “believe” in someone(s) who are trying to sell us something?
Why put belief ahead of our own reason and ability to understand, instead of belief? The internet is an amazing thing, and you can find incredible amounts of information. However, what you do with that information is up to you. If you want to understand an issue, it requires nothing more than the internet and your own ability to reason through what matters to you.
If you and I (and all of us) want better media, we need to focus on getting better people: people who will use their own facilities to understand better, instead of searching for who’s better to believe in? Why do we turn non-faith questions into cults of belief? I understand it, but I disapprove strongly.
Of course, all of us have the limited capacity of time to follow my prescription. I understand. We all must choose what we care or need to care about most.
Which brings me back to selling. Those doing the selling want to change your priorities. Perhaps I should. But the seller has a reason to want me to change (beyond what’s openly admitted, often). And, if I change my priorities to include someone else’s, I will lose the time to understand something else that might be important.
As for me, I have my belief – all else are subject to scrutiny based on my willingness and ability to know and understand.
Sorry, Tom (and readers). I’ve spent a lot of time (priorities) thinking and reasoning about the above. Partly, it’s my own inclination; partly it’s in my job description (to me at least). You may have guessed I’m in education. I’m trying to make a better world for all of us one student at a time.
Great comment!
GMO has at least $100 billion under active management. Grantham focuses on bubbles and he has correctly called some of the largest. Early this year, GMO took a big hit, but all actively-managed funds do, from time to time, as do index funds.
While Grantham and Rose are not particularly charismatic and, if this interview is any indication, Grantham is an introvert, they are both trustworthy. I would trust Grantham’s financial advice and I trust Rose to sincerely deliver news and commentary consistent with what I believe. They are not flim-flam fast-talking deal-makers like He Who Will Remain Nameless here.
It is unfortunate greed rules the world, but there is a bit of optimism in what Grantham and Warren Buffett both say about the future. Even the greediest among the wealthy class will have to eventually realize they cannot survive in economies where people cannot afford to buy things because they can’t get jobs or don’t make enough money to do so even if they can. They will also turn to clean energy when its value exceeds its cost. So, there are bright sides here.
The question is how long will it take for the tide to turn? I don’t think it will in my lifetime, but I think it will by the middle of this century – If we have not managed to destroy ourselves, literally, before then. Perhaps HWWRN’s shenanigans will have the positive effect of hastening the change – that’s about the only hope I can have for his presidency.
P. S. to Tom: You left out the flat-Earthers, but I guess they are a subset of the climate change deniers.
…because if we “believe” in someone else, we don’t have to take personal responsibility for our position or decision. Just put your change in the basket (or the political campaign fund) when it’s passed around and you are absolved of all responsibility to actually do something.
“…because if we “believe” in someone else, we don’t have to take personal responsibility for our position or decision.
Exactly Erich Fromm’s reasoning for why Hitler was able to come to power in his ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM.
One of his many famous quotes:
“The danger of the past was that men became slaves. The danger of the future is that men may become robots.”
Grantham lacks consistency in what he says and what he does. He states that his overwhelming concern is for the environment—climate change. He heaps praise on China. He points out the high percentage of Chinese leaders who have PhDs compared to members of Congress and the President. He notes the high savings rate the Chinese government is achieving and their investment in infrastructure and sustainable energy. But he fails to mention the environmental disasters in China that are continuing and aren’t being addressed.
Grantham rails against the ever rising corporatism in the US, and fails to mention that it is this corporate influence over government action that has enabled these corporations to increase profits and grow their stock prices. These are the same corporations he invests in for his clients—following their wishes not his own.
(15:53) JG: I should say this up front. I’m a one issue voter. I would vote for almost any president who had a brilliant climate change agenda.
CR: Because you think it’s that essential?
(16:15) JG: Because it is that essential.
Then later . . .
(17:42) CR: Would you make an investment in a company who you didn’t approve of what they did but approved of the profits they make and their potential growth in stock and equity?
(17:54) JG: It’s kind of an unfair question. If you’re managing money [CR interrupts: Well we ask that question of universities today.]
JG: Absolutely. If you manage money for institutions, as we do, we’re just their agent. We have no right to impose our personal values on them. We don’t have the right to vote for them. They should make up their, and they do in many cases, they make up their own mind where the lines are that they would draw in the sand. It’s not for us to do that. It’s for us to listen to what they want, and then make as much money for some college endowment as we possibly can within their constraints, not ours.
Well, Mr. Grantham, isn’t that analogous to what the US voters have done? What should Congress and the executive branch seek to enact—the people’s will or their own?
I think you have put your finger on why there are no one-armed economists.