Advertise | Bookmark | Contact Us | E-Mail List |  | Update Page | 

Commentary : Gold Review : Markets : News Wire : Quotes : Silver : Stocks - Main Page >> News >> Story  Disclaimer 
Latest Headlines

Freezing Temperatures Could Heat Up Natural Gas Prices
By: Frank Holmes

Asian Metals Market Update: Nov 20 2018
By: Chintan Karnani, Insignia Consultants

Gold Seeker Closing Report: Gold and Silver Gain While Stocks Drop
By: Chris Mullen, Gold Seeker Report

Ira Epstein's Metals Video 11 19 2018
By: Ira Epstein

Handicapping the Precious Metals Through Year-End
By: Michael Ballanger

Calls Intensify for Halting Interest Rate Hikes
By: Clint Siegner

Technical Scoop - Weekend Update November 19 2018
By: David Chapman

Gold: Still Money For a Reason
By: Rory Hall

GoldSeek Radio: Bill Murphy and Rob Kirby, and Chris Waltzek

SWOT Analysis: M and A in the Goldfields
By: Frank Holmes


GoldSeek Web

Beware of packaged thinking

 -- Published: Sunday, 6 April 2014 | Print  | Disqus 

By George Smith

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is colloquially defined as insanity, per a quote attributed to Albert Einstein. Call me insane, but I wince whenever I hear this. As a rule of thumb itís fine but it can be slippery. Iím reminded of another quote from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus who is alleged to have said, ďA man cannot step into the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man.Ē

Heraclitus, in other words, would say it is not possible to do the same thing over and over. We may think weíre doing the same thing, but on closer inspection weíre not. We never are. He has a point: If couples took Einsteinís quote literally when trying to procreate, there would be far fewer of us around.

In matters of government there is a fundamental tension between Einstein and Heraclitus. Defenders of government tend to favor Heraclitus ó itís not the coercive approach thatís wrong, itís the particulars of the approach. Better people and more money will move us forward. The fundamentals of government per se are certifiably sound.

If we look at particulars we might get confused. A case can be made that the War on Poverty is the mother of all government programs in the extent of its failure, yet itís been around since 1964. How failed is it? Economist Walter Williams writes:

Since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, the nation has spent about $18 trillion at the federal, state and local levels of government on programs justified by the "need" to deal with some aspect of poverty. In a column of mine in 1995, I pointed out that at that time, the nation had spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, and with that princely sum, "you could purchase every U.S. factory, all manufacturing equipment, and every office building. With what's left over, one could buy every airline, trucking company and our commercial maritime fleet. If you're still in the shopping mood, you could also buy every television, radio and power company, plus every retail and wholesale store in the entire nation" ( Today's total of $18 trillion spent on poverty means you could purchase everything produced in our country each year and then some.

It would seem the Einstein theory of insanity has taken center stage, but defenders of government programs take a dissenting view. For one, the idea of poverty is a river that flows with the times. As Williams notes, todayís poor have many of the things not usually associated with poverty, such as air conditioning and computers. The poor are simply responding to a market that makes these things affordable for more and more people ó but theyíre still poor. One of the engines of poverty is divorce, and the divorce rate, though trending downward since 1981, is much higher today than it was in the 1960s when Johnson launched his program. More evidence of a changing river. Einsteinís insanity doesnít apply.

Coercion fails, over and over

Defenders of free markets might say that any government attempt to interfere with the choices of individuals is a recipe for failure. From the point of view of an economist, the various kinds, shapes and sizes of government programs or agencies, or the level of rot in the culture, are all irrelevant. You do not solve problems with coercion. Government through its forced involvement in our lives is in fact committing the same error over and over and expecting positive results. In Einsteinís sense it is insane.

Worse, the voters are insane for putting up with it.

Year after year they go to the polls, and year-after-year government gets worse. Why do they do the same dumb thing over and over? If voting changed anything theyíd make it illegal, said Emma Goldman. But thatís unnecessary. Rather than make it illegal and cause a stir they simply screen out candidates that threaten the system.

In many ways weíre still free but this is not a matter of voters drawing a line and telling government donít cross it. Voters donít talk about freedom anymore. What freedom we have comes from a sober realization on the part of the parasitic class that they need to avoid killing their goose.

Thomas Paine observed this principle over two centuries ago:

The portion of liberty enjoyed in England, is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism; and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is therefore, on the ground of interest, opposed to both. Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, p. 284

When given an unprecedented opportunity to vote for someone who actually opposes coercive means, they go along with the bought media and kick him like a dog. Voters are insane.

More precisely, theyíre graduates of government schools.

It is said that central planning has failed over and over, and this is the reason for its abandonment. Central planners therefore are not insane. But central planning has not been abandoned. It is enthusiastically endorsed by economists the world over in one area especially, central banking. This one exception apparently refutes Einstein. Establishing a committee of bright people to force their monetary decisions on millions of market participants is better than allowing those participants to make monetary decisions on their own.

It is better, but only for a privileged few.

In politics, the Einstein - Heraclitus distinction is useless because whatís good for the ruling elite is usually bad for the general public. Communism imposed misery on millions but not on those holding the reigns of power. As counterfeiting by another name, central banking is a means of piling up money and power in a few hands while draining wealth from the rest. But the cheat is invisible to the populace so it stays, and with the blessings of economists it stays as a prestigious institution.

The Fed inflates over and over, and the ones connected to it get richer, over and over, while the ones least connected to it get impoverished, over and over. Itís only insane from the losersí perspective, provided they understood the cheat. But they donít.

Aphorisms such as those attributed to Einstein and Heraclitus represent packaged thinking that takes critical thinking to unwrap properly.

| Digg This Article
 -- Published: Sunday, 6 April 2014 | E-Mail  | Print  | Source:

comments powered by Disqus


Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizeE-mail Link of Current PagePrinter Friendly PageReturn to >> Story

E-mail Page  | Print  | Disclaimer 

© 1995 - 2018 Supports

©, Gold Seek LLC

The content on this site is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and is the property of and/or the providers of the content under license. By "content" we mean any information, mode of expression, or other materials and services found on This includes editorials, news, our writings, graphics, and any and all other features found on the site. Please contact us for any further information.

Live GoldSeek Visitor Map | Disclaimer

The views contained here may not represent the views of, its affiliates or advertisers. makes no representation, warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of the information (including news, editorials, prices, statistics, analyses and the like) provided through its service. Any copying, reproduction and/or redistribution of any of the documents, data, content or materials contained on or within this website, without the express written consent of, is strictly prohibited. In no event shall or its affiliates be liable to any person for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided herein.