Watchmen, the movie, is due to be released soon, and for those who don't know, it's a superhero comic gone superlative. It won a Hugo Award in 1988, and was named one of the 100 best novels of the 20th century by Time. But more importantly, Watchmen is a deeply philosophical work (among other things), raising complex questions about morality, justice and even the metaphysics of time.
Obviously i haven't seen the movie yet, and i don't know how closely it will follow the original comic/graphic novel. But that shouldn't be an issue here. The question i am going to ask is not directly addressed in the work. Still, i am going to have to ask for no spoilers here. It shouldn't be necessary, because there is no reason to discuss the story because the question is not in the story... but since the title has Watchmen in it, it is almost inevitable that some idiot will want to spoil it for others. So, again, i insist: no spoilers. In fact, don't discuss the plot of Watchmen at all.
----------------------------------
The title of Watchmen - and of this thread - comes from the Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", which can translate into "Who will guard the guards?" or "Who watches the watchmen?". It is an expression of the political question of sovereignty, which basically asks that if we assign leaders to protect us from harm, what is to protect us from the leaders should they wish to harm us?
Plato discusses this question in The Republic, and his solution is interesting, and pretty representative of classic Western thought. The assumption is that we cannot trust people to be good for goodness's sake, and that they must have higher motivations. If they consider themselves a part of the group they are watching over, then they can justify screwing the group using the reasoning that they are simply screwing themselves. On the other hand, if they consider themselves separate from the group, and the group is just a collection lesser beings they have a higher charge to protect, screwing the group is less like screwing yourself and more like a parent screwing their children. So what you have to do - according to Plato - is lie to the watchmen... tell them that they are superior to the people they are watching over, and that they have a higher calling to watch over them. Convince them that they do not want to watch over their charges, but that they must, because of this higher duty. In modern terms, what you are doing to the watchmen is a mix of reverse psychology and stroking their ego. The logic is:
- If they want to be watchmen, then they can choose to not do their job. But if they believe that they do not want to be watchmen, but that they must, despite what they want, they will grudgingly stick to it. It is the difference between playing a game and doing a job - we have no problem ditching the game, but we feel a great deal of guilt if we think about ditching a job we have to do.
- If they consider themselves as one of the people being watched, then they will consider any shirking of their duties a crime against themselves, which is no big deal. On the other hand, if they think of the people they must watch as "others", then any shirking of their duties will be a crime against others, which is far less acceptable.
- If they consider themselves as superior to the people they are watching, they will feel that any shirking of their duties is taking advantage of weaker people. On the other hand, there is little guilt with taking advantage of equals, and taking advantage of people who are superior is celebrated. Thus, you want to convince the watchmen that they are superior to their charges.
The more modern solution is to appeal to competition. This is why modern governments are bicameral (at least). Rather than a single group of watchmen overseeing the society, there are (at least) two groups of watchmen overseeing the society, and each group is responsible for overseeing both society and the other group. Thus, if one group shirks their duties, the other group will call them out on it. (Note, for those who are not familiar with the way modern governments work, i am not talking about political parties. i am talking about branches of government. In Canada - and probably most countries that follow the British model - that is the judiciary and parliamentary branches of government (and also the head of state, the Queen and the Governor General, who count as a third group of watchmen in certain situations). In the US it is tricameral, with the representative, judicial and executive branches. And on a smaller scale, there are still more subdivisions within some of these branches. In each case, these groups have powers over each other, and keep each other in check.)
What do you think about all of this? What do you think are the pros and cons of each option? Do you have any other options?
----------------------------------
After you've thought about this stuff, and maybe contributed to the discussion, take what you've picked up here and give a moment's consideration to it as you watch Watchmen. Assuming the movie follows the comic, you will find that it doesn't really discuss this question at all: instead, it takes one of the answers as given, and shows where it inevitably leads, and then challenges you with a new question about that. Maybe some time much later, after the movie has had time to filter through the public consciousness, i'll start another thread to discuss the question that Watchmen actually raises. But for now, please, don't spoil the movie (or the comic). It's not necessary, and it won't help the discussion. Indi, I have not read the story, so do not know what it is about. My comments are therefore limited to your discussion and I'm not sure I followed all of it well.
I think all democratic Governments have checks and balances built in along the lines you described. In the US you have two parties, Democrats and Republicans. When the one is in power, the other one will keep watch over them, and the other way round. We also have the media watching as well, some of it over the top, but there is scrutiny everywhere. I doubt that the Watchmen in the US could shirk their duties and get away with it. In fact, in order to become a watchman in the US, they have to go through intense scrutiny to start off with, by the media and by the people of the US.
I can't imagine that they could see the people they have to watch as "others", more as one of the people being watched, and so have to be vigilant all the time.
I would imagine that watchmen in general would have the perception that they are superior to their charges by virtue of their specialist knowledge and leadership abilities. They would never admit to it of course, but possibly would see it as a game that has to be played according to the rules, and that they got to be the watchman in that game by virtue of their accomplishments. Their focus would be to stay ahead of and if possible to win the game, and winning means being a good Watchman at all times and good ratings in the press. They would probably also want to go down in history as a good watchman, better than the previous watchmen, so perhaps competition is written in the game in that way.
What would be more effective than the checks and balances system that you mentioned (or as you called it, "competition")?
How about another form of competition? In my observations, people love to feel important. Hell, I'll admit that I even like to feel important. I have seen that people will often pick up extra work at their job for the sake of feeling important. The boss may ask for someone to volunteer to do an extra job and it is not that unusual for several people to jump in and volunteer because not only do they want to kiss ass and hope for a pay-raise, but it makes them feel important.
So... Another alternative for watching the watchman is to have competition for the watchman. I believe that that's what most governments do. I honestly think that the presidency is one of the crappiest jobs around. The president of the U.S. has a ninety hour work week, constant stress, etc. Sure you get paid extremely well, you get plenty of benefits, and you'll be financially set for the rest of your life, but it's probably the hardest, most stressful, and most requiring jobs around, yet people still spend millions of dollars trying to get the job. Why? Well... I'd say that part of it is wanting to feel important and having power.
The president also knows that he, or maybe in the near future she, can be thrown out of office for being inept at the job, lying, etc. and nobody wants that. That leads competition for the job. Not only is getting the job of watchman extremely hard, it's also extremely easy to lose. It's especially easy to lose if the country is religious, like the United States. I don't think a president would last much longer if he came out in public and said, "I'm an atheist. Oh, and I got wasted last night. By the way, I nailed my intern... but don't worry; she's on birth control (angering the Catholics)." In any democratic country, there should be a way to replace leaders that the public sees to be unfit. The mere fact that getting the job is hard and keeping it is hard, and that people can replace you at their will, should be enough to watch the watchman. The only downfall to this is that it leads to circuitous logic. People are often stupid. So who will watch over the people to make sure that they elect someone worth electing?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| People are often stupid. So who will watch over the people to make sure that they elect someone worth electing? |
Well there's one problem right there. ^_^; If the system has checks and balances, who checks and balances the checks and balances. ^_^; If the electorate is responsible for watching the government, who watches the electorate to make sure they are doing their job properly. Nazi Germany provides a clear example of how such a system can fail catastrophically, as does Palestine's election of Hamas.
Take the US for example. Fundamentally, all a cunning candidate would have to do is mislead the electorate. And then, despite your describing the job as "crappy", they would be functionally the most powerful man on Earth. Granted, they would not have it as easy as an out-and-out tyrant. They would have to continue to lie to the electorate, and be cautious to hide their underlying agenda while making it happen. But that's not even hard to do. ^_^; Just ask Göring: | Herman Göring wrote: |
| ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. |
The last 8 years in the US should convince you that he was right.
And unfortunately, the US's electoral system attracts exactly the wrong kind of people. As you say, the job is really hard, and getting it is a long and arduous task. Whoever wants it, will have to want it bad. You want to hope that they want it so bad because they so badly want to do what is best for everyone, even at their own personal expense... but what is the likelihood of that, hm? Furthermore, the one who gets the job is probably the craftiest of the candidates at manipulating the electorate. So what do you end up with? You end up with a president that is highly unlikely to be wanting the job for selfless purposes, and who is good at manipulating the people. Hm.
So if the electorate are the watchmen watching the government, and the government is clearly skilled at manipulating the electorate... what good are the electorate as watchmen?This is a recent article in the Toronto Star that is relevant here. i am highlighting it because it brings up the question in a non-political context. Who watches the watchmen is not just a political question, it has implications for anyone or any group who wish to protect the general public in some way.
In the case of the Star article, the topic is the economy. For those who are living in a cave, the US economy is in a bit of a slump, and since it is such a huge part of the global economy, it is affecting everyone. The Star article talks about the economists studying the current situation, and under the assumption that what they see is dire, it asks the following question in the byline:
| Quote: |
Amid a ceaseless barrage of negative numbers, are leaders obligated to communicate harsh reality ...
... or do they have a responsibility to convey what Plato called 'noble lies' in the name of order and the greater good? |
The "noble lies" mentioned here are Plato's solution to the question. As i said in the opening post: "So what you have to do - according to Plato - is lie to the watchmen..." That lie is Plato's "noble lie".
Now this situation - because it is a real-world situation - is complex. In this case, what the economists are trying to protect is not the public, but the economy. And the watchmen of the economy - those tasked with protecting it - is not them, but us, the general public (the economists study and observe the economy, we protect it by our participation in investments and stuff). So once again, in the classic version, there are a group of people in charge (the philosopher-kings) a group of watchmen protecting the people (the watchmen), and the people being protected. In this version the people in charge are the economists, the watchmen is the investing public, and the thing being protected is the economy. But other than that, the analogy holds.
The question is whether they should tell us the truth about the state of the economy, which would disincline us from investing and thus further devastate the economy, or whether they should tell us a "noble lie" to encourage us to invest and save the economy. (In this case, a bicameral solution would not work because it is too late now to set it up that way.)
In the article, the reasoning is that economists should not tell that noble lie because if they are caught, we would lose faith in their advice in the future. Is this the only reason why they shouldn't tell that noble lie? | Indi wrote: |
| For those who are living in a cave, the US economy is in a bit of a slump, and since it is such a huge part of the global economy, it is affecting everyone. |
Indi, I have been advised in another thread that the US economy being in a slump is not really having an affect on Canada. I know this is slightly off topic, but since you are of that region (I'm in the Middle East) would love to hear your views. I just cannot believe that if New York should have a financial melt-down, that Toronto could say its Banks are in great shape (thank you very much) and they are only having a slight recession (no depression). My brain cells can't work their way around this. If the UK and Europe are suffering similarly from US origins, how come Canada has not been infected by the same?
And "yes" I would love a Committee of Economic Watchdogs to act as BS Detectors. I want to see the exact details of the Bank Failures. The balance sheets, who are responsible for those debts, totals, etc., in other words an analysis of the problem as I cannot understand how bail-out packages can be voted without having reduced the problem into its finest details in a completely TRANSPARENT way to the people who have to bail the Banks out. I would love that Watchdog Committee to explain exactly how those Bail-Out packages will effect the people who will be funding the bail-out packages. What would the implications of nationalization be, and government getting involved in the business of running BIG Banks. The why, where, and when and again acting as a BS Detector of all the rubbish we have to hear from Presidents, Prime Ministers, Economists, people who seem to know a lot (or so they make us think they do) and no one to share us the real details so that truly informed decisions can be made. In fact, I believe that if the problem could have been analyzed more carefully, bit by bit, the solution may have been simpler and less costly. I can rant about this for ages! I was also shaking my head up and down while I was reading the Toronto Star article, being totally in agreement with the contents. The illusion of a naked Ceaser wearing clothing came to mind and the Banks and Economists in Canada letting everyone know what a wonderful outfit Ceaser is wearing 
This is a shortcut to the thread about the Canadian economy discussion:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-103283.html 
Last edited by deanhills on Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:28 am; edited 4 times in totalWell ... I'm thinking about going to cinema after watching the spoilers ... but I have to wait untill this move will be in my cinema in Poland 
| Indi wrote: |
| So if the electorate are the watchmen watching the government, and the government is clearly skilled at manipulating the electorate... what good are the electorate as watchmen? |
Well I'd like to think that the people who elect the leader can watch over each other. It's common for a few people to make a stupid mistake and elect a tyrant in disguise, but for a whole (or large amount) society to elect one?
Now you can laugh at my naive optimism and point out historical cases where what I just said failed (Nazi Germany), but I like to have some hope for this society. I tend to (wishfully)think that we're getting smarter as a society.
The watchmen can also watch the people who watch them. Hopefully there will be a time where enough good people are elected into office that they'll be the norm and majority and that they'll be able to point out tyrants to the people.
Of course this is all wishful thinking and optimism. I'm coming up with an ideal society here that doesn't exist. In reality, there isn't supreme watchman that watches all watchmen but that doesn't need to be watched themselves. It's all a system of checks and balances, which unfortunately, relies on the majority making right decisions. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | So if the electorate are the watchmen watching the government, and the government is clearly skilled at manipulating the electorate... what good are the electorate as watchmen? |
Well I'd like to think that the people who elect the leader can watch over each other. It's common for a few people to make a stupid mistake and elect a tyrant in disguise, but for a whole (or large amount) society to elect one?
Now you can laugh at my naive optimism and point out historical cases where what I just said failed (Nazi Germany), but I like to have some hope for this society. I tend to (wishfully)think that we're getting smarter as a society.
The watchmen can also watch the people who watch them. Hopefully there will be a time where enough good people are elected into office that they'll be the norm and majority and that they'll be able to point out tyrants to the people.
Of course this is all wishful thinking and optimism. I'm coming up with an ideal society here that doesn't exist. In reality, there isn't supreme watchman that watches all watchmen but that doesn't need to be watched themselves. It's all a system of checks and balances, which unfortunately, relies on the majority making right decisions. |
There is nothing wrong with optimism, but it should be tempered by wisdom.
Your system of virtually omnipresent checks and balances is not inherently flawed (that i can see), and i don't really see why such a society can't exist. i come to that by looking at your suggested structure, and asking "what would we need to get there?", and the answer i get is possible in practise.
The key is: "... we're getting smarter as a society." If we really are "smart" (as a society), can your plan work? i think so. So what would it take to be "smart"?
Well, first, we would have to educate people about the society. Because what good is a watchman that doesn't know how to guard his or or her charge? That's not a difficult task - simply include civics as a mandatory subject during education. (And, possibly, allow voting rights only to those who pass a civics test.)
You would also have to make people in general smart enough to not only know how to play the system, but to recognize when they are being played. That would require Saganesque bullshit-detectors in every citizen (or most citizens), which could be accomplished by mandatory education in critical thinking skills.
But there are still questions: is "smart" enough? It is possible to be both smart and an ass. Ayn Rand was quite smart, but she used her intelligence to justify selfishness and egocentrism - "me before us". That's not good for society (although it may be good - in the short term - for individuals).
So how would you turn society in general into a society of good watchmen?I was reminded of this thread last night while I was watching a news report on TV on the G-20 Summit in England, talking about needing some watchmen to check on regulatory bodies. That was quite interesting. Seems to be something that is very prevalent right now in politician circles about the economy.
I also came across a reference to the movie in the Movies Forum:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-104127.html I particularly liked the one review of a review | Indi wrote: |
The question is whether they should tell us the truth about the state of the economy, which would disincline us from investing and thus further devastate the economy, or whether they should tell us a "noble lie" to encourage us to invest and save the economy. (In this case, a bicameral solution would not work because it is too late now to set it up that way.) |
Okay I saw Watchmen, the first 10 minutes was perhaps one the greatest of all films IMHO.
Now on subject of economy. The whole point of a capitalist market oriented economy is to favour short term over long term - that is to spend, spend, spend and not think about the reprecussions of such actions - the philosophy of "in debt we trust".
I dont think there is a lie, or whatever you attempt to refer it. It is however the definition of capitalism. People with wealth have more poewr. What are they lying to us about? And the hardship around a capitalist nation is that since it is heavily involved in short term, it can't really make accurate predictions in the long term. I wouldnt say that policians, or the elitists are trying to lie to us: simply they made inaccurate predictions.
Like I said, for capitalism to be successful over the longterm, it needs a stimulus: and that stimulus is war. WW2 is the best example, where the United States emerged owning half the worlds wealth - no nation ever in the world before it had so much power - and did this from profiting from the blood spilt by Europeans. In fact, the United States were funding both sides of the war, American industries (Ford, IBM and GM Motors of the most prominent) were actively working alongside and within Nazi Germany.
That is the horrors capitalism has brought to us - and is the reason why the United States violently opposed communism: simply because it was a threat to their economical success. | deanhills wrote: |
Indi, I have been advised in another thread that the US economy being in a slump is not really having an affect on Canada.
[...]
This is a shortcut to the thread about the Canadian economy discussion:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-103283.html |
i think you misread that guy's point. He didn't say the American economic slump wasn't affecting us, he said it was. What he said was that our banks are not at risk of collapse (as the US banks are). Our banks are just fine - our economy is in a slump.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| I dont think there is a lie, or whatever you attempt to refer it. It is however the definition of capitalism. |
i didn't say that there was some inherent lie in capitalism. i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? | Indi wrote: |
| The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
Who are "they"? in "they are asking themselves"? And who are "we"? in do we lie to boost confidence ...?
| Indi wrote: |
| i think you misread that guy's point. He didn't say the American economic slump wasn't affecting us, he said it was. What he said was that our banks are not at risk of collapse (as the US banks are). Our banks are just fine - our economy is in a slump. |
Amazing that the world still has zero specifics about the US Banks that were supposed to fail and did not fail. No official record anywhere of the exact toxic debts, the loans to the banks, etc etc etc. I would at a minimum have expected to see a Website on this giving exact details of at least the toxic debt, and the loans against the toxic debt. Amazing how a country like that can just give its Government a virtual blank cheque of 1.2 trillion dollars and not ask for specific facts, and insist on regular updates of information. Probably good then that the majority of its population is religious, as if they were people of science and only dealt in specific facts, its population would have demanded much more accurate reporting of the facts.
I am almost certain that quite a large number of Canadians were banking with those banks in the United States that had toxic debt. It would make sense to me as they were in essence transfer banks too. Bottomline is that we are treated like idiots on a "need to know" basis, along the first quote above of ... "so they are asking themselves do we lie ...." .... who are they? 
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
Who are "they"? in "they are asking themselves"? And who are "we"? in do we lie to boost confidence ...? |
I would imagine "The Watchmen" 
In this case, "they" = federal government and "we" = first person federal government (as in the federal govt is asking themselves which of the options they should take). At least that's how I understood it.
Or replace federal government with economists. | liljp617 wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
Who are "they"? in "they are asking themselves"? And who are "we"? in do we lie to boost confidence ...? |
I would imagine "The Watchmen" In this case, "they" = federal government and "we" = first person federal government (as in the federal govt is asking themselves which of the options they should take). At least that's how I understood it.
Or replace federal government with economists. |
It still does not say who "they" are. Who in the federal government and which economists? Specifically who are THEY? | deanhills wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
Who are "they"? in "they are asking themselves"? And who are "we"? in do we lie to boost confidence ...? |
I would imagine "The Watchmen" In this case, "they" = federal government and "we" = first person federal government (as in the federal govt is asking themselves which of the options they should take). At least that's how I understood it.
Or replace federal government with economists. |
It still does not say who "they" are. Who in the federal government and which economists? Specifically who are THEY? |
You know, this speculation could be solved very easily by referring to the original article that i was talking about. The link is there.
Or... you could simply look at the previous sentence:
| Indi wrote: |
| i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
| Indi wrote: |
Or... you could simply look at the previous sentence:
| Indi wrote: | | i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
|
Which economists? This is still a generality. There must be millions of economists in the US, and thousands in decision capacities. Still who are they? For example with the bail out package, who specifically were the economists who cried wolf? Which economists specifically recommended 1.2-trillion? Specifically how is this amount being raised, specifically who has benefitted from it to date, specifically how much is left, etc. etc. Specifically who were bailed out, and for how much?
It would appear that the watchmen and those robbing the people in the street are the exact same people, so definitely whoever is in charge of making these decisions are liars. Most of the lies are based on lack of full and open information available to all. The lies are hidden behind a great blur of less than transparent information. | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | Or... you could simply look at the previous sentence:
| Indi wrote: | | i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
|
Which economists? |
The ones being discussed in the original article.This is an interesting problem, and it's one I've thought about for a very long time. Obviously, there is no clear, fail-safe solution. Some ideas work better than others, but there isn't any perfect way to be governed in the real world, as long as there are people who want to screw other people.
Ideally, the populace should watch the watchmen. People should be engaged in what the governing bodies are doing, and take a proactive role in guiding their own governance. The watchmen can only screw their population so much before it backfires, which is why I believe it's necessary to have an armed populace. In the States, we have around 300 million people, and if only 50 million are legally armed, then the government would have a tough fight, should they decide to blatantly start a dictatorship.
Of course, this doesn't work when the screwing is done very subtly, or is being sold to the public in such a way that they feel what is being done is necessary. The past 8 years has been a good example of that. A healthy dose of distrust/skepticism on the part of the populace in regards towards their government would help. Unfortunately, if you go back to 2002 and interview Americans on the streets, most would have said that we should just trust our leaders to do the right thing.
I think this is a mistake, especially during a time of crisis. History teaches us that during tumultuous times, a government is actually more likely to become corrupt than to "do the right thing". I think this is because of what Indi noted about governing bodies feeling that they are separate from the populace. Sadly, that's our own fault. We allowed the system to morph in such a way that we elect only the elite, the rich, career politicians. Instead, we should be electing people from our own ranks, who feel a deep connection to the rest of us, and would feel more of an obligation to do right by us.
Ultimately, I really think that we the people should be the ones watching the watchmen. We should be the checks and balances. After all, it is our lives they are governing, and that should be taken seriously by every citizen.
| Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Or... you could simply look at the previous sentence:
| Indi wrote: | | i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
|
Which economists? |
The ones being discussed in the original article. |
Think this is something that does not appeal to my intelligence. Specifically who are the economists who make this decision and how do they do it? Is there a Committee of them? How can one discuss information that is being withheld when you do not know the people who have the power to withhold that information?
For example who specifically were the economists who came out with the need for 1.2-trillion dollars to bail out banks? Exactly what is the factual evidence for justifying the fear for the repeat of the depression of the thirties?
1. Who were the economists who made the proposal for a bail-out package? How did they arrive at 1.2-trillion dollars.
2. What information did they base their suggestion on and why do we not have the same full information in front of us? The information I would like to see is the exact values of "toxic debt" and the financial statements of the banks that need bail-out in order to "believe" that they would really have gone bust if the toxic debts were not rescued. CitiBank showed a profit in the first quarter of 2009 for example. How come if they needed to be bailed out a few months before? And will the value of them not needing to be bailed out be subtracted from the 1.2-trillion dollars?
3. Exactly what is the position today? Are those banks really threatened, or is it more a case of bailing their toxic debt, it being separated from their main business accounts? Nobody in the US asked why Canada is not needing a bail-out, yet the US does. Exactly where are the differences, and why should the US taxpayers be held responsible for those differences to the extent of 1.2-trillion? And more important who exactly will the benificiaries be?
I think the people of the US should request an independent international audit team to assess the whole "crisis", its origins, the people involved in requesting a bail-out, the exact accounts and the exact beneficiaries of the bail-out. An independent Watchdog team is needed in this case. Would appear that the people have given a bunch of rogues a blank cheque on the basis of very unspecific information. Most of all they have to ascertain exactly "who are the economists who provided this advice"? | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Or... you could simply look at the previous sentence:
| Indi wrote: | | i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
|
Which economists? |
The ones being discussed in the original article. |
Think this is something that does not appeal to my intelligence. Specifically who are the economists who make this decision and how do they do it? |
The article answers those questions.
| deanhills wrote: |
For example who specifically were the economists who came out with the need for 1.2-trillion dollars to bail out banks? Exactly what is the factual evidence for justifying the fear for the repeat of the depression of the thirties?
1. Who were the economists who made the proposal for a bail-out package? How did they arrive at 1.2-trillion dollars.
2. What information did they base their suggestion on and why do we not have the same full information in front of us? The information I would like to see is the exact values of "toxic debt" and the financial statements of the banks that need bail-out in order to "believe" that they would really have gone bust if the toxic debts were not rescued. CitiBank showed a profit in the first quarter of 2009 for example. How come if they needed to be bailed out a few months before? And will the value of them not needing to be bailed out be subtracted from the 1.2-trillion dollars?
3. Exactly what is the position today? Are those banks really threatened, or is it more a case of bailing their toxic debt, it being separated from their main business accounts? Nobody in the US asked why Canada is not needing a bail-out, yet the US does. Exactly where are the differences, and why should the US taxpayers be held responsible for those differences to the extent of 1.2-trillion? And more important who exactly will the benificiaries be?
I think the people of the US should request an independent international audit team to assess the whole "crisis", its origins, the people involved in requesting a bail-out, the exact accounts and the exact beneficiaries of the bail-out. An independent Watchdog team is needed in this case. Would appear that the people have given a bunch of rogues a blank cheque on the basis of very unspecific information. Most of all they have to ascertain exactly "who are the economists who provided this advice"? |
This is not an economics forum. | Indi wrote: |
| This is not an economics forum. |
Perhaps the discussion of a movie also belongs in a different forum? We're discussing it anyway as it has relevancy to philosophical issues that you picked out for the discussion. So has economics when you mentioned "economists".ther wives watch the watchmen...
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | This is not an economics forum. |
Perhaps the discussion of a movie also belongs in a different forum? We're discussing it anyway as it has relevancy to philosophical issues that you picked out for the discussion. So has economics when you mentioned "economists". |
The discussion of a movie does belong in a different forum. But we're not discussing a movie. We are discussing the philosophical question that a movie is named after.
We are also not discussing economics. The economics of the economists mentioned is off-topic and irrelevant. Bail-outs, toxic debts and CitiBank are all off-topic and irrelevant. The only thing we are talking about regarding the economists is whether or not they should tell a "noble lie". And "noble lies" are part of the philosophical question that is being discussed here. | Indi wrote: |
| The only thing we are talking about regarding the economists is whether or not they should tell a "noble lie". And "noble lies" are part of the philosophical question that is being discussed here. |
Thanks Indi, I get the point. I went back to the "noble lie" debate:
| Indi wrote: |
This is a recent article in the Toronto Star that is relevant here. i am highlighting it because it brings up the question in a non-political context. Who watches the watchmen is not just a political question, it has implications for anyone or any group who wish to protect the general public in some way.
In the case of the Star article, the topic is the economy. For those who are living in a cave, the US economy is in a bit of a slump, and since it is such a huge part of the global economy, it is affecting everyone. The Star article talks about the economists studying the current situation, and under the assumption that what they see is dire, it asks the following question in the byline:
| Quote: | Amid a ceaseless barrage of negative numbers, are leaders obligated to communicate harsh reality ...
... or do they have a responsibility to convey what Plato called 'noble lies' in the name of order and the greater good? |
The "noble lies" mentioned here are Plato's solution to the question. As i said in the opening post: "So what you have to do - according to Plato - is lie to the watchmen..." That lie is Plato's "noble lie".
Now this situation - because it is a real-world situation - is complex. In this case, what the economists are trying to protect is not the public, but the economy. And the watchmen of the economy - those tasked with protecting it - is not them, but us, the general public (the economists study and observe the economy, we protect it by our participation in investments and stuff). So once again, in the classic version, there are a group of people in charge (the philosopher-kings) a group of watchmen protecting the people (the watchmen), and the people being protected. In this version the people in charge are the economists, the watchmen is the investing public, and the thing being protected is the economy. But other than that, the analogy holds.
The question is whether they should tell us the truth about the state of the economy, which would disincline us from investing and thus further devastate the economy, or whether they should tell us a "noble lie" to encourage us to invest and save the economy. (In this case, a bicameral solution would not work because it is too late now to set it up that way.)
In the article, the reasoning is that economists should not tell that noble lie because if they are caught, we would lose faith in their advice in the future. Is this the only reason why they shouldn't tell that noble lie? |
My take on this. There is nothing remotely "noble" about lies. Economists, by virtue of their training are expected to tell the truth. Agreed that if they did not tell the truth, that they would not be trusted or believed in future statements that they would make. However, I don't think that that should be the only motivation for telling the truth. I believe they have a fudiciary and professional ethical duty to tell the truth.
For example there are laws for trading in stocks and shares, that all stock/share holders or potential stock/share holders should have fair and equal access to all the available information about the company so that they can make informed decisions about for trading in share/stock trading. For me it would be much of the same if the economists of the country would tell "noble lies" when they are withholding information. It is understood that by virtue of their position as economic consultants (and Watch Dogs) that all people would be provided with fair and equal access to economic information so that they can make informed decisions. If they did not do that, it would be unethical.
So getting back to what has happened with the bail-out, I believe that important information has been withheld from the public along the lines described by you, that that is unethical. The consequence is of course that your intelligent person would no longer believe in the information that they are being fed. There aren't "noble lies". These are common lies, unethical and unprofessional. | deanhills wrote: |
| My take on this. There is nothing remotely "noble" about lies. |
There are tons of situations where lying is more noble than being truthful. These can range from cases where you are trying to protect someone's feelings, to cases where you are trying to protect someone's life. Would it be ignoble to lie to a drug lord about whether there is a law enforcement agent undercover in his midst?
| deanhills wrote: |
| Economists, by virtue of their training are expected to tell the truth. Agreed that if they did not tell the truth, that they would not be trusted or believed in future statements that they would make. However, I don't think that that should be the only motivation for telling the truth. I believe they have a fudiciary and professional ethical duty to tell the truth. |
Everyone is expected to tell the truth under normal circumstances. The dilemma of the economists in the article is that these are not normal circumstances. Telling the truth would probably result in more harm than telling the lie. What is more noble: to be honest, or to prevent harm?
| deanhills wrote: |
| For example there are laws for trading in stocks and shares, that all stock/share holders or potential stock/share holders should have fair and equal access to all the available information about the company so that they can make informed decisions about for trading in share/stock trading. For me it would be much of the same if the economists of the country would tell "noble lies" when they are withholding information. It is understood that by virtue of their position as economic consultants (and Watch Dogs) that all people would be provided with fair and equal access to economic information so that they can make informed decisions. If they did not do that, it would be unethical. |
That... really doesn't have anything to do with this problem. That is a matter of giving advantages to one group over another.
To put it another way - the example you just mentioned is about making sure that every person running in a race is on equal footing. When information is withheld or selectively leaked, certain runners get an advantage over others... which is bad for the race.
The problem in the article about the noble lies is completely different. It is not about making the race fair, it is about saving the entire race. The economists in that article have a choice: be honest and risk the race being shut down, or tell a noble lie and save the race (that is, save the economy).
| deanhills wrote: |
| So getting back to what has happened with the bail-out, I believe that important information has been withheld from the public along the lines described by you, that that is unethical. The consequence is of course that your intelligent person would no longer believe in the information that they are being fed. There aren't "noble lies". These are common lies, unethical and unprofessional. |
That also has nothing to do with any of this. i don't know what information you think is being withheld or not, but philosophically speaking there is nothing interesting about the bailout. The economy would (allegedly) collapse without it, so they did it. End of story. Whether or not the economy really would have collapsed - and whether or not the bailouts worked - those are economic questions, not philosophical ones. And whatever lies were told with respect to the bailout - if any - were hardly noble in nature. It's a completely unrelated issue. | Indi wrote: |
| The dilemma of the economists in the article is that these are not normal circumstances. Telling the truth would probably result in more harm than telling the lie. What is more noble: to be honest, or to prevent harm? |
The perception of "not normal circumstances" can be completely delusional. How do we know that their evaluation of "not normal circumstances" will pass the test of time? And that the withholding of truth will have the desired result of creating less harm? How many Presidents in the history of the United States have acted in that way, completely convinced that their lie (withholding the truth) was not really a lie, but a "noble lie" for protecting the citizens of the country in abnormal circumstances. And then when the media got hold of it the lie (the truth that was withheld) the "noble lie" changed into a most damaging lie with serious ramifications for millions of people. | Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | I dont think there is a lie, or whatever you attempt to refer it. It is however the definition of capitalism. |
i didn't say that there was some inherent lie in capitalism. i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
[/quote]
Governments lie (or conceal truth) all the time. This is nothing new. They put it under "protecting National Security.
Of course, they would never say how bad things exactly are: they have to finish on a positive note. For instance, Iraq is a failure, WE ALL know that. But our govts would persist in stating progress is being made. The same is with the economy. Over 2 million Britons are now unemployed, and one Labour MP a month back had the urge in stating "a few green shoots" of recovery where visible when unemployment rate was rising, and on that very day there were severe job cuts.
Don't tell me you believe EVERYTHING the govt states? | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | I dont think there is a lie, or whatever you attempt to refer it. It is however the definition of capitalism. |
i didn't say that there was some inherent lie in capitalism. i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
Governments lie (or conceal truth) all the time. This is nothing new. They put it under "protecting National Security.
Of course, they would never say how bad things exactly are: they have to finish on a positive note. For instance, Iraq is a failure, WE ALL know that. But our govts would persist in stating progress is being made. The same is with the economy. Over 2 million Britons are now unemployed, and one Labour MP a month back had the urge in stating "a few green shoots" of recovery where visible when unemployment rate was rising, and on that very day there were severe job cuts.
Don't tell me you believe EVERYTHING the govt states? |
I'm pretty sure this was the exact meaning of the question. Hence, "do we lie and build confidence or tell the truth and risk things worsening?"
Nobody said they believed anything the government states (certainly not in Indi's quote right there)...I don't think Indi even attempted to answer the above question based on what you quoted/replied to. | liljp617 wrote: |
| I'm pretty sure this was the exact meaning of the question. Hence, "do we lie and build confidence or tell the truth and risk things worsening?" |
The problem for me is the perception by those who are pondering this decision. Maybe they are wrong? Maybe things won't worsen and because they had not shared this information openly, there is some information (feedback) that they may have missed out in. Or maybe they are simply wrong. Their perception of the circumstances as being detrimental could be self-delusional. I have to agree with ThePolemists though, this is not new. This has been going on all the time. As a result people in general do not trust their "Watchmen". | liljp617 wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | I dont think there is a lie, or whatever you attempt to refer it. It is however the definition of capitalism. |
i didn't say that there was some inherent lie in capitalism. i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
Governments lie (or conceal truth) all the time. This is nothing new. They put it under "protecting National Security.
Of course, they would never say how bad things exactly are: they have to finish on a positive note. For instance, Iraq is a failure, WE ALL know that. But our govts would persist in stating progress is being made. The same is with the economy. Over 2 million Britons are now unemployed, and one Labour MP a month back had the urge in stating "a few green shoots" of recovery where visible when unemployment rate was rising, and on that very day there were severe job cuts.
Don't tell me you believe EVERYTHING the govt states? |
I'm pretty sure this was the exact meaning of the question. Hence, "do we lie and build confidence or tell the truth and risk things worsening?"
Nobody said they believed anything the government states (certainly not in Indi's quote right there)...I don't think Indi even attempted to answer the above question based on what you quoted/replied to. |
I don't see the point then. If we know the govt lies for their personal benefit, and we know that no govt in the world would ever reveal the whole truth (for national security or personal gain), y should govts be inclined to tell the truth when little benefit (if any) can be gained from it?
And the people have little trust in the govt anyways (esp. after this MP expenses fiasco), so does it matter? | deanhills wrote: |
| The perception of "not normal circumstances" can be completely delusional. How do we know that their evaluation of "not normal circumstances" will pass the test of time? And that the withholding of truth will have the desired result of creating less harm? How many Presidents in the history of the United States have acted in that way, completely convinced that their lie (withholding the truth) was not really a lie, but a "noble lie" for protecting the citizens of the country in abnormal circumstances. And then when the media got hold of it the lie (the truth that was withheld) the "noble lie" changed into a most damaging lie with serious ramifications for millions of people. |
Once again. As the article says...
Those studying the economy know that it is confidence-based. They also know the economy is in serious trouble.
That is one group. Follow? That is group A. That is the professors at the universities that study this phenomenon. i can't remember which ones they were, except that one was U of T. They are not government. They are not distributing or withholding any truths. They are not delusional (and why would they be?).
Then there is group B - the government. They want to protect the economy. They know (by their own studies, and corroborated by group A) that the economy is in trouble. They know (again, by their own work, and group A too) that confidence matters.
Group B has to decide whether to lie to us to raise our confidence - and save the economy - or tell us the truth and risk destroying the economy.
There is no media involved.
There are no "ramifications" other than the survival of the economy.
There are no "bailouts" involved, or anything else of the sort.
It is a simple problem. There is nothing complex or sinister about it. It is the exact same problem you deal with very often in your own life: you discover a friend cheated on his wife once in the past but has been faithful since... do you tell her and risk the marriage, or keep silent and protect the marriage.
The government has discovered the economy is falling apart, and it needs our confidence in it to survive... does it tell us the truth and risk the economy is falling apart, or lie and save the economy.
Why does everyone get so shirty whenever the word "government" is introduced? The moment the word "government" comes up, everything spirals out of control into a web of conspiracy theories about corruption and evil intentions. Hey, the government may not be perfect, but why is it so bloody crazy to simply accept that they want the economy fixed, and they're trying their best to do it?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | i didn't say that there was some inherent lie in capitalism. i said that economists are weighing whether or not to lie to us about the state of the economy. The US economy is confidence driven, so they are asking themselves: do we lie to boost confidence, or tell the truth about how bad things are? |
Governments lie (or conceal truth) all the time. This is nothing new. They put it under "protecting National Security.
Of course, they would never say how bad things exactly are: they have to finish on a positive note. For instance, Iraq is a failure, WE ALL know that. But our govts would persist in stating progress is being made. The same is with the economy. Over 2 million Britons are now unemployed, and one Labour MP a month back had the urge in stating "a few green shoots" of recovery where visible when unemployment rate was rising, and on that very day there were severe job cuts.
Don't tell me you believe EVERYTHING the govt states? |
Nothing in this thread involves Iraq. And i have no idea where your British "green shoots" fits in.
And don't tell me you're going to make a bunch of ridiculous crap up that has nothing at all to do with anything i've said, and then try to pretend it was my idea.
All i did was provide a real-life example of the Platonic Watchmen problem:
- The US economy is confidence driven. Fact.
- The US economy is in dire straits. Fact.
- The US government wants to fix the economy. Any objections?
- If they tell the truth about 2, the economy will get worse (see 1).
- If lie and they pretend everything is good to boost confidence, that should improve the economy (see 1 again).
- So what should they do?
It's as simple as that. | Indi wrote: |
| Why does everyone get so shirty whenever the word "government" is introduced? The moment the word "government" comes up, everything spirals out of control into a web of conspiracy theories about corruption and evil intentions. Hey, the government may not be perfect, but why is it so bloody crazy to simply accept that they want the economy fixed, and they're trying their best to do it? |
Simply because I do not trust Government's ability to interpret information from their advisors correctly, I also do not trust information from the advisors as it could be self-serving and manipulative. Government does well on "fearmongering", anybody coming to them with a scary scenario of the economy that may fall apart would get their attention. | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Why does everyone get so shirty whenever the word "government" is introduced? The moment the word "government" comes up, everything spirals out of control into a web of conspiracy theories about corruption and evil intentions. Hey, the government may not be perfect, but why is it so bloody crazy to simply accept that they want the economy fixed, and they're trying their best to do it? |
Simply because I do not trust Government's ability to interpret information from their advisors correctly, I also do not trust information from the advisors as it could be self-serving and manipulative. Government does well on "fearmongering", anybody coming to them with a scary scenario of the economy that may fall apart would get their attention. |
The article does not ask you to trust any government or their advisers. The interviewees are all economics professors, some not even American. The problem being described has nothing to do with the judgements you keep casting on any government (or all governments) - they can be incompetent, evil, greedy, whatever you like. This is a simple economics scenario described by economics experts, and the government's only involvement is as the theoretical actor in the moral dilemma.
If you can't handle considering the problem calmly while the government is involved in it, then take them out of it:
Economics specialists say the economy of Middle Earth depends on how confident the Hobbits feel about the economy. The wizards know the economy is in trouble, so do they tell the Hobbits that and risk economic collapse, or do they lie to the Hobbits to build confidence and thus save the economy? | Indi wrote: |
| Economics specialists say the economy of Middle Earth depends on how confident the Hobbits feel about the economy. The wizards know the economy is in trouble, so do they tell the Hobbits that and risk economic collapse, or do they lie to the Hobbits to build confidence and thus save the economy? |
They tell the Hobbits the truth. If it takes a lie to keep the economy from failing when it is clearly indicated to happen, maybe the economy needs to fail. | Indi wrote: |
The US economy is confidence driven. Fact.
|
True.
| Indi wrote: |
The US economy is in dire straits. Fact.
|
Questionable, I certainly would be relunctant to use the term "dire straits". For how many years since WW2, has the US faced a recession, and how long did this recession last? A minor dip in year on gdp is certainly nothing compared to a huge growth on gdp in the golden years. I believe in some cases a recession can be good as it leads to competitiveness and efficiency, and the recession the United States is facing now is a healthy recession.
Like I said, the US economy is weakening. I would hesitate to use "dire straits" especially when looking at the global economies chiefly Iceland, Ireland, Japan and uK. (maybe China/India too).
| Indi wrote: |
The US government wants to fix the economy. Any objections?
|
Questionable as it depends who exactly they wish to protect and which parts they wish to fix.
The you and I consumer: Consumer debt is extremely high. Govt debt as percentage of gdp has been increasing ever since the Bush administration took office. The gap between the rich and poor is widening - roughly 40% of Americas wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population. The US used to have the highest standards of living per head/capita, but this is no longer the case (albeit still high).
The corporations: FOr the first time in 2006, the richest 400 US people each had wealth of at least $1 billion dollars. American Oil companies have benefitted from a rise in oil prices to the extent that oil companies were the profitable companies of the last decade. Since the WW2, tax rates on the wealthy (the top tax rate) has fallen substantially.
Further note (the good - automobiles vs the evil - banks) : The US spent trillions on bailing out the banks. Did the automobile industry receive a similar kindof gesture? I don't think so - they were counting their dollars down to the last cent when it came out bailing the car companies. Yet they both employ a similar percentage of the population (roughly 8%). I understand that without banks, a nation is effectively bankrupt - but how much of the bank bailout was effective? They simply handed out the money without a proper plan in place. The same is the case for the bailout of Northern Rock in Britain. Over 30 billion of tax payers money, which the govt has admitted has simply been lost.
| Indi wrote: |
If they tell the truth about 2, the economy will get worse (see 1).
|
Does the govt actually need to tell its people the state of the economy - or wouldn't the statistics speak for themselves. They cannot fudge statistics. If I wanted to know about the state of the economy, I would look at at least the inflation rate, interest rates, budget/fiscal surplus/deficit, monetary policy and govt debt. The last people I want to hear it from is the Politicians themselves - and I'm sure 90% of the population would think the same. And even when the govt does speak out - it would be when the entire population has known for several months that the economy has become in such a dire state.
| Indi wrote: |
If lie and they pretend everything is good to boost confidence, that should improve the economy (see 1 again).
So what should they do?
|
Like I said, how can they lie when we have the statistics ourselves? If we know the interest rates, inflation rates, cost of raw materials, budget deficit, etc etc would we want to hear the words of politicians? I get my business news from business newspapers/media, I don't get it from a spokeperson paid by the govt to keep his mouth shut to avoid a consumer frenzy - Shadow Chancellar in England was accused for opening his mouth too much regarding the Northern Rock incident as it would have affected consumer confidence. I don't think any else gets their information this way either.
