Finance, Debate and the Agile Political "Porn" Narrative Fantasy

MSNBC Commentator Maddow

It seemed quite clear from last nights debate that no one is interested in the real financial problems facing the US.

Only once that I could see in the 90 minute debate did anyone mention the current Euro crisis.

Not once did anyone mention the Federal debt.

The annual budget deficit, though there would have to be an actual budge which there has not for the last three years, is about a trillion US dollars.  The most anyone would say about this was that no one wanted it to get bigger.

Education was mentioned a few times, but the details of paying for it were not.  Massachusetts is indeed rated #1 by SERI (Science and Engineering Research Institute) in this 2011 Hoffington Post article.  However, debt per student in Massachusetts averaged about $25,000 USD per student on graduation.

The trillion dollar educational debt held guaranteed by the US government was not considered.  Nor the current (as of 2009) default rate of about 13% (or supposedly at 13% chance that $130 billion will never be repaid).

No one mentioned that without jobs there is virtually no chance any of the debt currently being incurred will be repaid.

So, Jim Lehrer seemed to do a poor job of asking economic questions in my book.

Another fascinating thing was the narrative of the "five trillion dollars."  It was brought up in the debate numerous times.

Now I study finances daily and I had never heard of it - so I wondered what it was.

Post debate as I switched between the various news channels (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) it became clear.  MSNBC apparently had bought into some narrative that whatever Romney was planning on doing was going to cost five trillion dollars.

Apparently they had forgotten that the US Senate and House of Representatives would also have to be involved.

Apparently they had forgotten that Romney was not yet elected.

Apparently they had not realized that until placed in the position to affect the deficit anything said would have to be pure speculation.

Yet apparently there was a narrative, used by Obama and at least MSNBC (I did not hear it on Fox or CNN), about this "cost" of Romney's economic program.

It was fascinating to see the literal shock on the faces of the commentators like Rachel Maddow that the debate had not followed "the narrative" they expected.

This struck me as related to the "The Porn Fantasy" I wrote about a few weeks back - the idea that the fantasy is so "well used" that the reality is lost or forgotten and the fantasy becomes the only reality.

It would see that this was the case here as well.

There was other examples as well on MSNBC, a bizarre interview with Rudy Guiliani by some "panel" youngster with Buddy Holly glasses that also reflected the idea that his reality was the only one.  Instead of asking about the debate the interviewer ranted about some kind of supposed business arrangement the former mayor had presumably had with the Department of Homeland Security.

There was simply no "news" on the MSNBC program - only a discussion of the delta between what was seen in the debate and the narrative.

No one seemed interested in what was actually said by anyone other than to compare it to the narrative.

This also reminds me of the folks who drive off the cliff into the quarry because the GPS tells them too.

I find all of this dramatically disturbing.

There seems to be little connection between reality and the news and candidates.

There are many problems related to all this.  Even at the level of "Agile Software Development."

If we all "believe" then whatever we want will just "happen" seems to be the model.

Create the "narrative" - a story based on desire and wishes.  The same as a design for software in a domain about which we know nothing.

Then live (or develop) as if that is the reality.

Then plan on discovering the "delta" between the fantasy reality and the truth only when an irreconcilable difference appears.

This model also offers a good explanation as to why research is falsified as well.  Imagining what should happen, the research as if it is true, then falsify the results to ensure that it did even when it didn't.

I guess I would describe this as the "narrative delta."

The idea that "objective reality" is faux and that the story developed (the narrative) is instead the "reality."

Then you simply "believe" in the narrative as if its the truth until you're forced to believe otherwise - basically when the delta between the narrative and the objective reality becomes so great that you cannot continue to fool yourself any longer.

I suppose, like with Agile software, you simply create a new narrative and start over at this point...