http://joinbackmost.blogspot.com/

=======================

Along those lines I read the postings of a Wretchard at the Belmont Club. I have followed him for years. Sharp guy. The man is a genius at taking the most obscure information and making extremely insightful points with it. In this posting he ostensibly is discussing the phenomenon of how so many things can go wrong yet people seem to be OK with them. My take of his answer is that since so much of the economy now produces perception instead of things, one is going to find it difficult to justify producing things when perception drives public opinion and actions (Virginia Postrel wrote a whole book on it – The Substance of Style).

He puts it this way, “In recent years management literature has talked extensively about the “servitization of the products” The modern economy no longer produces “things”. It produces intangibles called services. Insurance, banking, government, tourism, retail, education, social services, franchising, news media, hospitality, consulting, law, health care, environmental services, real estate and personal services now dominate the activity of the Western world. We produce satisfaction. Perhaps the key difference between an economy based on things relative to that based on services is that the “truth” of things is self-evident while the value of services is often based on perception. Perception is often the proxy for value in a service economy. Indeed it often comprises the value itself, at least in the entertainment industry and possibly in news. It immediately follows that in a huge market for intangibles where “children’s programs”, sporting events, entertainment, academic degrees, derivatives, mortgages, ‘health care’, news and environmental indulgences are traded for vast sums telling the unflattering truth can be extremely costly. Stay away from the truth unless you absolutely positively have to.”

He asks the rhetorical questions, “Why have we become so indifferent to counterfeits? So willing to accept the clever facsimile for the ostensibly real?”, and answers, “In part because perceptions are now such a big part of the economy that for so long as perceptions appear to be OK, then the economy must be ‘OK’.”

People are so consumed with perception any longer that those who produce an actual thing are now considered expendable. It is the perception that you and I are wealthy (whether we are or not) businessmen who don’t really produce anything vital to the publics existence that makes it acceptable for us to be slowly but surely enslaved to the power of a State run amuck. As Wretchard says, “Whether the product is a sub-prime mortgage, a politician or the fantasy of a Michael Jackson comeback, facts must be kept subordinate to feelings, at least until the sale is consummated.” Perception is so all important anymore that the fact that this government’s actions to cultivate utopia on an unsustainable model is accepted as possible persists even when all realists and data says it’s not.

And I think you would agree, it’s not. Our businesses are being forced into the service industry mold even though we produce an actual thing. People are getting to the point that they just don’t relate to things. At Postrel’s suggestion I years ago changed my marketing direction to selling to vanity instead of, “this handrail will keep you from falling”. This was highly effective in increasing my business. You see it everywhere. Toothpaste gets you the guy or gal – it doesn’t just stop cavities.

So what are the consequences of this? What are the consequences of a whole society that has devalued the real for the unreal. They don’t see it coming yet but I believe you and I do. I’m not sure there is any other direction than the inevitable solution to getting people to face the truth that “a ton of steel is a ton of steel” other than it not being there any longer. Or getting people to face the truth that this scalpel will open you up so we can fix you only if you are allowed to make a living doing that – otherwise why do it? . And if it’s not there any longer, all the pretending that this fantasy of limitless entitlement on the backs of the real truth of the people who produce actual things will quickly grind to a halt. Maybe not quick enough to save us and our careers, but hopefully quick enough to save our children’s.

================

There is a lot of sadness for me to have to write this to a man I know well and respect. We are about done for and see little way out. Thanks to the BC for letting me vent.

C/192; agree, i’d've nominated doug too –points for tenacity, longevity, links, and overall helpful sunshine –also, about that long stretch at Alcatraz, he sez he’s not guilty.

Apparently I was not as clear as I had hoped to be. In this thread on truth, I intended my argument to be a defense of science. I argued that science, as verified by technology, proves that a single reality exists – that objective truth exists – and that science should provide a foundation in our search for truth. I observed that because each of us has limited time and resources, it’s useful – necessary even – to focus our search on those important truths which we have a reasonable chance to discover/uncover and understand. All else is “other stuff.” Gedanken experiments at the fringe of science, which are set up to have weird results, are fun, but, in my view, they are “other stuff” in the search for truth (for most of us.)

Now, I did answer the question posed by the gedanken experiment, implicitly acknowledging an intrinsic interest in the game. More than that, I related it to a real issue being addressed by astronomers today at the edge of the Hubble Sphere. Even so, in my view, this issue is at the fringe, and unless one is a specialist, not at the core of important truths worthy of our efforts, given our very limited time and resources.

A secondary intent was to call out the difference between such science that has been verified by technology as meaningful in our everyday lives – Newtonian Physics – from speculations in areas where confusion often abounds. In today’s world, many such speculations are made with the intention of abusing science. That was not the case in your little thought experiment, but your example did allow me to make my secondary point.

In #173 you raise another issue, which I cannot avoid commenting on, given the orientation toward truth in this general thread. I would like to point out that it was Kepler, not Galileo, who first published in support of Copernicus. It was Kepler, not, Galileo, who proved decisively that our solar system is heliocentric with his mathematical analysis of the orbit of Mars. It was Kepler, not Galileo, who provided the mathematical foundation that Newton built upon. It was Kepler who validated Galileo’s observations, not the other way around.

Galileo’s observations proved nothing by themselves. While Kepler was gaining access to the data library for which the Danish King had bankrupted his kingdom, Galileo was offending Jesuits and insulting the Pope directly. Galileo got the publicity. Kepler did the heavy lifting.

My studies have persuaded me that science would have developed almost exactly as it did had Galileo never existed, except, perhaps, that the Church would have found it easier to adopt the heliocentric solar system in Keplers time had there been fewer direct and personal insults to the Pope by its advocates. Had Kepler not contributed as he did, however, our history may have been very different.

Also for body of work I would have mentioned Doug… I always read his stuff well because its short. No heavy pedantry in Doug.It may not always be true that brevity is the soul of wit. But in Doug’s case it is. He’s talker.

“A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get it’s boots on.”

Mark Twain (maybe)