Herman Cain is not a nitwit. Really. He's not a nitwit, even though he claimed that people seeking to audit the Federal Reserve were ignorant. Rather, Herman Cain, formerly a board member of the Federal Reserve, is thoroughly corrupt, as demonstrated by the fact that a recent partial audit of the Federal Reserve revealed $16 trillion in secret loans. Check out the following short video:
Herman Cain is the latest in a long line of political mouths calling a populist movement UnAmerican. He says Occupy Wall Street is an assault on capitalism and that capitalism and the free market system are what have made America what it is. Can’t argue with that, but his intended meaning is other than reality. Setting that aside for a moment, though, it’s his statement that protests in the street are UnAmerican that I take greatest issue with. I’ve been hearing that from more or less conservative people since I was old enough to be aware of political issues. During the Vietnam era, the antiwar movement gained the hatred of Middle America not because they were wrong but because they were unruly, in the street, loud, and confrontational. “You should work within the system,” people said, “that’s not the way to do it.” Except it was clear that working within the system was not achieving results. The system is so constructed that those who understand where the controls are can make it respond regardless of general public sentiment. The system is often The Problem, and today we have another example. But more fundamentally than that, it was a failure to recognize that people in the street is very much a part of the system. What do we think “freedom of assembly” is all about?
A ridiculous proposed new Italian law causes the Italian version of Wikipedia to shut down.
According to this article at MSNBC, the failure of U.S. consumers to spend lots of money has screwed up the U.S. economy:
For the time being, it looks like American consumers are AWOL. And until they come back, don't expect to see any real recovery in economic growth and the job market. Consumer spending typically accounts for roughly 70 percent of the U.S. economy.But here's another way of looking at things. Annie Leonard has made a good case that out-of-control consumer spending has been wrecking our society, as she explains in "The Story of Stuff." Leonard now offers a free school curriculum based on The Story of Stuff. It is called "Buy, Use, Toss?"
It's bad enough that we often have to listen to blowhards while we're out and about--I'm referring to people whose are rendering long strings of opinions even though they have no credentials, expertise or curiosity about the facts. Now what do you think when you hear those many experts pontificating about the future? I'm talking about those many experts the media provides to us, people talking with great confidence about upcoming catastrophes, including the prices of houses or stocks, or the consequences of social unrest (and, what the hell, let's add sports "experts" to the mix). Dan Gardner wondered about this, and he wrote a book titled: "Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Are Next to Worthless and You Can Do Better. I learned about Gardner in a well-written article by Ronald Bailey in Reason, "It's Hard to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future":
In Future Babble, Gardner acknowledges his debt to political scientist Phililp Tetlock, who set up a 20-year experiment in which he enrolled nearly 300 experts in politics. Tetlock then solicited thousands of predictions about the fates of scores of countries and later checked how well they did. Not so well. Tetlock concluded that most of his experts would have been beaten by “a dart-throwing chimpanzee.” Tetlock found that the experts wearing rose-tinted glasses “assigned probabilities of 65 percent to rosy scenarios that materialized only 15 percent of the time.” Doomsters did even worse: “They assigned probabilities of 70 percent to bleak scenarios that materialized only 12 percent of the time.”
The problem with experts was also discussed in a March 2011 issue of Scientific American, "Financial Flimflam: "Why Economic Experts' Predictions Fail," which offers this finesse to Tetlock's findings:There was one significant factor in greater prediction success, however, and that was cognitive style: “foxes” who know a little about many things do better than “hedgehogs” who know a lot about one area of expertise. Low scorers, Tetlock wrote, were “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters.” High scorers in the study were “thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible ‘ad hocery’ that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess.”
I suppose the bottom line advice is that you need a psychological profile of an expert before determining whether to believe him or her. But maybe a nice long impressive track record would be a reasonable substitute.