- 3/7/14 11:29 am
-
Thanks for taking the time to reply - you have faultless English, by the way.
I have taken another look at the site, and I'd like to explain to you why I take the, perhaps shallow, view that its language displays an irrationality - and possibly an unwarranted aggression. You see four or five years ago I would have taken the same view as you because my worldview was broadly standard - okay I was to the left but within the usual parameters. I considered myself reasonably rational (I still do actually - not completely: I give emotions and imagination some free rein - I would go nuts otherwise), I have a science background, and I liked to have a good laugh with my friends at wacko ideas - usually coming from the southern states of Yank land.
Then what happened? Well, I started to take an interest in the banking system - quite a big interest: sure, I started with some youtube videos - actually some served as a good introduction - but then I continued further: I moved on to academic papers, I would trawl through the educated comments in debates on the below-the-line section on articles in economics sites with a dictionary of key terms close to hand, and occasionally (ha!) I would express myself in public.
Which is not for the faint-hearted. Most of my circle of friends believe(d) I am/was crazy. I was (and probably still am) called a 'crank', a 'loon' and, wait for it... a 'middle-aged obsessive' (which actually is fair) - basically, someone not to be taken too seriously. That's tough to take (okay there are harder things in life), but it was the first time in my life when I felt quite removed from the consensus.
But then, slowly, I began to become more confident. I had long talks with economists I know, including the chief economist of a Latvian bank. I engaged in a debate with an ex-consultant to the UK treasury - and... do you know what? They confirmed my crank views were essentially correct. Now, even mainstream financial journalists will, for example, use the term 'ex nihilo' to talk about the now-accepted ability of banks to create money out of nothing. You should have read the internet abuse and scorn heaped on to the heads of those who suggested such a thing in the past.
Another interesting thing I want to mention here is that the draw to belong to a consensus view is terribly strong. I had a guy studying for his doctorate who after a 3-hour conversation on the banking system (I had been proofreading a report of his), told me 'Yeah, but John - if I talk about how the banking system actually works, it would be suicide for my career'. The chief economist also trailed off in similar fashion. A good friend of mine down in Oxford (a mature student studying PPE)answered my queries about how the banking sector was covered in his studies and about the conspiracy theory related to All-Souls College, with a sigh - "Well' he said, 'I can't confirm anything, but I will tell who is teaching us Micro - Prof Vickers (who wrote the very-same Vickers report into the UK banking system) - but...' again, he trailed off.
So, to conclude, I will not be looking at the rationalwiki site (unless some new conspiracy theory scares the beejeezus out of me and I want to get a dose of an opposing view) because although some of what is written there may be true and well-researched, it has a motive - namely (with a cynically rational air) to aggressively discredit views outside their consensus. As someone who has moved through that and has felt it power, I regard its bullying tone to be unhelpful.
One more thing, I still think I in the 'steady-as-she-goes camp' because I am sure of very little. I reserve the right, however, to judge and sift through evidence at my own pace and in my own way.
Cheers.