like giving a drunk another drink?

I don't for a second pretend to understand even the basic concepts of the insanely complex and confusing sphere of international economics. I know farking nar-thing. Does this mean I can't comment on economic policy? Does a lack of knowlege on any topic justify political apathy? Fuck that. Too many people refuse to have an opinion on economic policy because they 'don't know how the economy works'. Newsflash fuckface: neither do economists. Something so complex, so infinitely arguable, so intensely up-in-the-air, is never 'known' by anyone. There will nearly always be a massive amount of people, knowing massive amounts more, about any given anything, than you do. If the issue is the economy, more so than most areas, know that no-one knows best. There is no authority on the subject. Anyone claiming to know for certain the consequence of any piece of economic policy is lying. This is why letting somebody else do the thinking is dangerous. Especially in decisions of dollars and the potential levels of suffering and death associated with every such desicion. Open-minded, inquisitive criticism is necessary for all forms of education. Make your point, listen to the response, change your mind, repeat.

Criticising obvious flaws in things, ignoring 'the way of the world' rationalisations for blatantly unethical or illogical decisions, these things must be a matter of utmost importance; even for the idiot. Especially for the idiot. I'm an idiot, but I care. One of my main (covert) missions in life is to convince other idiots to care. Most people are idiots. Most people aren't willing to admit it. This is the problem with most people, as I see it. Convincing your average 'garden-variety' uncaring-idiot and, even more so, your average 'quasi-intellectual-arsehole-variety' of uncaring-idiot, to care about humanity is a tricky task. Convincing these people that they are an idiot is even trickier. The first problem to be faced by anyone attempting to undertake this 'immeasurable measure' is the struggle with self-consciousness.

The old adage that you shouldn't discuss politics, sex, or religion at the dinner table echoes around today's streets in silence. These echoes, carrying a modern meaning, have an entirely different resonance. 'Among the young', probably thanks to the popularity of South Park, or something, no topic is considered off-limits, nothing is taboo, anything is acceptable 'at the dinner table'. The problem comes if and when we actually form an opinion; as we celebrate an 'open slather on everything' style of comedy, it is entirely unfashionable to be serious about anything except yourself. It's fine to talk about religion, science, sex, or even south park at the dinner table; just don't spout an earnest political opinion about any of the above or you'll be cut down and laughed out of the room.

Fuck the idea that you can't criticise if you don't know better; exposing the illogical and criticising the stupid will lead to more people at least attempting to think. We won't solve shit, if we don't all think. There are plenty of awful processes and practices out there. Plenty of putrid pieces policy and procedure that are in place for no logical reason. The 2010 federal budget included an extra $1.4bn for blowing up Afghani's but only an extra $650mil for converting to clean energy technology. Shit like that makes me angry. Angry enough to tell someone about it who doesn't know or care. Angry enough to irritate friends and alienate others with uninformed, self-righteous ranting about what is right and what is not.

The reason I wax so lyrical and rant so rambling on the topic of saying what you think, economy-wise or otherwise: the big bail-out package being offered to the Greek banks by the EU. This article criticises the current trend towards the Keynesian mode of economics; a model that professes constantly propping up failing, chaotically volatile financial markets with massive, publicly funded bail-out packages. Remember folks, 'publicly funded' means that the money being given to the banks is taxpayer's money, worker's money, 'the people's' money. The argument runs that this process basically equates to global governments printing the money in order to fund a fairy-tale quest for unsustainable endless economic growth. Banks really bad, government bad, people not so bad. Bad government giving not so bad people's money to really bad banks: really, really, bad. Check it out:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/11/euro-bailout-like-giving-a-drunk-another-drink/
Sure seems stupid.
Time will tell.