P. Sainath on Mass Media v. Mass Reality: From Farm and Field to Wall Street Deals

[82abhilash]

The event went really well Sainath, he admitted to being a non-financial journalist and he was giving financial numbers anyway to make his case. Yet not one in his audience stood up and asked him why anyone should trust his interpretation of events in matters of finance. They where either stupid or else too polite. He on the other hand is smart, he knows his audience. Either that or the person who put up the video knows how to edit it well.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash What "financial" numbers does he use? How idiotic is it to assume that measures of inflation, food/commodity prices are exclusively in the domain of "financial experts". The same so called "financial experts" who have f**ked the world repeatedly and reduced it to the mockery. Sainath gives statistics, not financial statistics, but statistics. My advice is to NOT take "financial experts" seriously anymore. They have proved to be incompetent & horribly exploitative.

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Anyone can broadcast their opinion on these matters. There is no 'exclusive domain'. The question is why should anyone take him seriously. He admits he is not a financial expert. So why should anyone take him seriously even when he said the experts have fucked up the world? He seems to be lecturing to people who already assume that they have. And by the way Krugman whom you claim to take seriously is a financial expert. If I follow your advice I should not take him seriously either.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash Krugman is indeed a financial expert. I am glad you recognized it! ;)

Youtube's character limits meant that I couldn't clarify my point. There is a difference in being an "expert" and a mere glorified cheap *charlatan*. Wall Street & almost all of mainstream media are vastly exploitative charlatans. Krugman has gotten a solid few decades under his belt and so the mainstream media is forced to listen to him.

About not taking Sainath seriously - you are free to do that. [CONTD]

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Basically if you like someone you call him an expert and if you don't you call him a glorified cheap exploitative charlatan.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash Aah here I smell an endless debate which started off being sincere and ending into us trolling each other. No point going down that path.

I only wish to clarify that your interpretation of my motivations is entirely wrong. Beyond that, there isn't much to say. You are going to stick to your viewpoint. I have always and will always keep an open mind, but based on all I have seen/heard, I think its fairly clear that the world is severely screwed by socio-economic inequality.

Peace.

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf I have seen it too many times. There is not too many fundamental differences between these so called experts. It boils down to taste. If you like them they are experts, if not they are glorified charlatans. These people know that and thus spin the words to attract the kind of response that they seek. Its a living.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash you are perhaps on the brink of cynical infinity (TDK reference: "haha hoho hehe and I thoght my cynicism was bad")

By that standard, nothing and noone can ever be trusted. In fact, by that standard, there is no universal notion of truth and facts.

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Or maybe there is an universal notion of truth and fact which is as inaccessible to these guys as they are to us given that no one is omniscient. Which means it is just as important to know the ways in which they could be wrong as the ways in which they could be right.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash If they are inaccessible to us, then they cease to be tangible to humans, and therefore such perfect inaccessible truths are as good as "no notion of universal truths".

But ignoring that larger philosophical point, I agree in principle with what you are saying. I made the same point (truth discovery through introspection & reflection). However, if someone introspects in 2012 about whether the earth is the center of the universe, that person would likely be an idiot. [CONTD]

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Perfect inaccessible truths could be as good as "no notion of universal truths" or perhaps an imperfect understanding of them could be better than no understanding at all. "if someone introspects in 2012 about whether the earth is the center of the universe, that person would likely be an idiot." Agreed.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash Western conventional wisdom about socio-economics (the trumpeting of blind uncontrolled unregulated free market capitalism) has failed miserably and horribly. That is a fact backed up by evidence. That is the Gallileo moment which has been building up for the last 3 decades culminating in the sordid mess we see today. if you still wish to nitpick/question for the sake of nitpicking/questioning, then so be it.

And btw, this is turning out to be a pointless but interesting debate! ;)

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf There has never been an uncontrolled unregulated free market ever. Given that everything is connected to everything else and impacts everything else how could it be otherwise? There are problems with calling the world we live in today a mess. Not that I call it perfect, but it has never be perfect. As for being a pointless debate. I suppose that depends on what one is trying to achieve through it.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash semantic nitpicking is always irritating - there is something called emphasizing a point through sarcastic exaggeration. Yes there has never been 100% uncontrolled deregulation. My point was not about quantity but about qualitative aspects.

Anyone can notice that there has been two divergent threads in the world - a small group enjoying booms in microprocessor speeds and I-phone apps to scratch your ass and enormous liquidity and diversified portfolio in a basket of assets. [CONTD]

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Is that an unusual state of affairs? As long as man has walked this earth there have been those with more, those with enough and those with little. It has been true in all societies and all nations in all time. It seems to be the natural state of affairs whether anyone like it or not.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash I will address this point but I will first wait for you to respond to other points.

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf You could try now.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash Timeout dude. I just had a long hard day. I need at least 15mins to just unwind and then hit the sack and do the same crap tomorrow. I will post a reply tomorrow. Apologies. Have a good next 24-48 hours.

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Have a good night. It has been an interesting and enjoyable conversation so far.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash And the other much larger group has largely become indebted to the former group in a perpetual of servitude. All this has been brought about by a nexus of corporate interests colluding with government authorities. Anyone can notice that the world has only diverged in terms of social, technological, economic and political inequality. Any astute observer can scratch the surface and see that democracies are just namesake and are actually corporate oligarchies and lobbyist plutocracies.

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Being in the majority and being in the right are not the same thing. Majority can be right or wrong just like the minority. It is right that gives them might, those in the majority or those in the minority.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash

I strongly suspect you haven't read or seen enough. I could certainly recommend you material, but it will be a long and diligent process. And I suspect you might either understand how absolutely twisted it all is (and become hopelessly depressed), or you might still maintain that nitpicking introspective neutrality.

And btw, I believe introspection works to a certain point. Then it becomes imperative to pick a side. You can keep revising your estimates every few years.

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf It is always imperative to side with the truth.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash Nevermind man. Internet debates are useless. I am done with them. Every now and then I have a short burst of enthusiasm. And then I realize how pointless it is. Watch a good movie or read a good book.

Tc. Peace.

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf I rather enjoyed this.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash (Part2): However, if you are someone who still wishes to stick to the *conventional wisdom* of trusting so called experts (who in this case are almost all cheap charlatans masquerading as wise sages), then so be it.

It was one thing for the world to disbelieve Gallileo in the medieval times. But when modern science empirically proved he was right, anybody who still believed that the earth was the center of the universe, is obviously blindly following *conventional wisdom*. [CONTD]

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Why trust anyone? Not that one need to assume people are all liars. Why not evaluate their reasons yourself? Sure you could be mistaken, but then again you could be mistaken about trusting what others say. Like trusting what these experts say or what Sainath says or for that matter even what I say.

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash

Truth can only be derived through introspection and reflection and the humility to look at overwhelming evidence that proves that the world is not what the media claims it to be. If educated folks blindly subscribe to "conventional wisdom" without questioning its validity in context of the socio economic realities of the day, then we are doomed to keep repeating our mistakes.

P.S.: Apologies for the long reply. None of this is meant personally! :)

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf Why do you call people who subscribe to "conventional wisdom" educated? As for the media they provide certain interpretations to certain world events. They do not provide a representation of the world, never have and never did. Given that the Hindu is a mainstream newspaper and Sainath works for it what does that tell you about him given what you believe about the mainstream media?

[raigandalf]

@82abhilash Oh and just so you know, his views are more or less corroborated consistently by Paul Krugman & to a fair extent by Joseph Stiglitz.

If you still wish to consider the WSJ as a prime source of "financial expertise", then I am lost for words. Listen to the words of these wise men (Sainath, Krugman & others).

[82abhilash]

@raigandalf I have no recommendations for or against the WSJ. I do agree Sainath is wise. You seem like a fairly smart guy. It takes a wise man to deceive you.

[Liphippy]

Moving towards global consciousness, we are one, the universe is waiting.