As for Steve, I'm not sure what to think. His latest post seems to indicate he's given up on trying to directly influence key decision-makers with hard evidence and logic, which was his ostensible strategy ever since he showed up. Now he's turning to direct public outreach, possibly influenced by the "success" of Died Suddenly. (I was ab…
As for Steve, I'm not sure what to think. His latest post seems to indicate he's given up on trying to directly influence key decision-makers with hard evidence and logic, which was his ostensible strategy ever since he showed up. Now he's turning to direct public outreach, possibly influenced by the "success" of Died Suddenly. (I was about to abbreviate it "DS" but then... seems those initials are already claimed!)
If so, expect his messaging to become more exaggerated and inflammatory. Because that's how public outreach is done, everybody agrees. The general public is presumptively stupid and complacent on average, and one must aim for the center of mass.
We can ask two kinds of questions about that strategy: is it moral? is it effective? I'm certainly open to reasoning which would tie these two axes, but I don't grant that such a relationship is obvious.
This worries me. If Steve's aim is riling up an emotionally driven crowd, then we're more likely to see a bloody civil war prior to the bankruptcy of the military-banking complex. The profit obtained through such a war may float them forward.
I don't think Steve's trying to give Bill Gates his civil war, but I can understand how frustrated he must be after being so thoroughly stonewalled with his good-faith appeals to experts and fellow members of the executive class. Might be unintended consequences. He's always struck me a just a bit politically naïve.
Do you think that is one of the probability branches they are hoping for? This type of subject has come up frequently in the Market Ticker.org forum (Denninger) over the past 2 years because overbthere the relationship to geopolitics was always a part of the mix even if Karl doesn't have the patience for the depopulation arguments.
As for Steve, I'm not sure what to think. His latest post seems to indicate he's given up on trying to directly influence key decision-makers with hard evidence and logic, which was his ostensible strategy ever since he showed up. Now he's turning to direct public outreach, possibly influenced by the "success" of Died Suddenly. (I was about to abbreviate it "DS" but then... seems those initials are already claimed!)
If so, expect his messaging to become more exaggerated and inflammatory. Because that's how public outreach is done, everybody agrees. The general public is presumptively stupid and complacent on average, and one must aim for the center of mass.
We can ask two kinds of questions about that strategy: is it moral? is it effective? I'm certainly open to reasoning which would tie these two axes, but I don't grant that such a relationship is obvious.
This worries me. If Steve's aim is riling up an emotionally driven crowd, then we're more likely to see a bloody civil war prior to the bankruptcy of the military-banking complex. The profit obtained through such a war may float them forward.
I don't think Steve's trying to give Bill Gates his civil war, but I can understand how frustrated he must be after being so thoroughly stonewalled with his good-faith appeals to experts and fellow members of the executive class. Might be unintended consequences. He's always struck me a just a bit politically naïve.
Do you think that is one of the probability branches they are hoping for? This type of subject has come up frequently in the Market Ticker.org forum (Denninger) over the past 2 years because overbthere the relationship to geopolitics was always a part of the mix even if Karl doesn't have the patience for the depopulation arguments.
Which "they"?
I don't know what people/factions prefer war and which prefer waiting for their adversaries to bankrupt.
I get what you mean but in my mind they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I suspect it's a calculated risk on his part.