We are desensitized to the faults and failures of money through daily exposure. What has become the norm is like an existentialist play. Every time you enter the room, its dimensions appear different. At first, you think that you have arrived at the wrong place, but it is the right place and it is continuously changing. That, unlike the physical world wherein you can measure the room, in this world, there is no standard measure of length. What may be a tall and wide doorway today could be a mousehole tomorrow, or become a slot on the surface of a sphere which rolls around as you attempt to get a grip on it.
But you become accustomed to it, adapt to the fact that you can never know what money’s value is. It’s as if the definition changes randomly and you are regularly confronted with a new meaning. After being surprised a few times, you accept the pattern of your inability to know. This is very destructive.
Yet, we accept that, because we do not believe (any longer) that it is within our power to correct it. This is worse than not having control of your government. This is being deprived of a reasonable and logical framework in which to conduct you daily business (your life). This is liek being governed by the characters in ‘Alice in Wonderland’. I hope the Queen of Hearts wants the US Dollar to be worth a bowl of soup today 
Nothing could be more destructive of a free people than to deny them the ability to know the facts of their own daily lives. Yet, this has to have been accepted for a long period of time.
The value of money seems not to interest the Congress at all. When they ‘interrogate’ the chairman of the Federal Reserve, they ask advice about taxes and benefits they wish to bestow upon their constituents. this is just sleazy vote-buying anyway, so one could ask, why would you expect the congress to explore the details fo the working of the Federal Reserve? Well, there are a couple of reasons: first, it is the responsibility of Congress to regulate the value of money. (see US Constitution Article 1, section 8). Secondly, there are constitutional limits on the purposes for which they may spend ‘our’ money. If they care about that, they need to actually know what money is and how much they have before they can go out to buy those votes - which is also patently unconstitutional.
But, at the heart of the problem is the acceptance of the American people - of the illegal and immoral acts of congress and their complete and utter failure to even attempt to account for the money of the united States.
Here is an example of how a word can change meaning and become accepted. Some time ago the word ‘red’ was commonly used to denote communism. (Example ‘Red China’) In the past few years, somhow it has come to mean ‘republican’.
Now, you would think, from their rhetoric, that republicans would not accept that labeling. (red state/blue state) At least they should have insisted that it be applied in reverse, labeling the democrats (who they always claimed to have been communist-like or sympathetic to communists). But no, they gladly wear the ‘red’ label now (listen to any of dozens of right-wing radio hosts…).
This has had the insidious affect of associating republicans with the practices and philosphy of communism. That must hurt!
But, just as they have accepted the label red, the rest of us have accepted the fact of unknowable (and constantly decreasing) value for the ‘dollar’.
So now, we must square the fact of our impotence to regain control over the measurement of value (money and currency) with the notion of being a free people, self-governing - or at least representatively governed by people of our own choice.How could it be that we choose people who do nothing of the kind?
baaaaaa…
Interestingly, more people are investors today than ever, as a fraction of the whole population. The behavior of investors is very sheep like in some respects. Since I have been paying attention (admittedly a fairly long time now), there have been at least 3 instances of a major ‘market occurrence’ wherein a significant fraction of the wealth of most investors (mutual funs is the most common vehicle of retirement investing) has vaporized - disappeared due to a crash or correction or readjustment because of a major failure - such as the S&L failure. Yet optimism always returns to those who have been ‘robbed’ - not their money but their optimism.
Do you suppose that anyone has studied the psychology of investors and learned how to sell to them based on scientific knowledge? Or do you think that old fashioned ’salesmanship’ is all that is required to keep people pledging and allocating into a constantly ‘growing’ (in terms of constantly-decreasing value of dollars) market?
Here is an interesting article on this subject. In it, the
‘Computational neuroscientists would add that not only do the projects appear profitable on paper but also that dopamine is released into the brains of entrepreneurs as they anticipate future profits.’
describes how a physiological effect is known to play within an investor when he is told of a trend of gain and potential. It’s odd, but no matter what the news is, bad or good, the financial shows I watch every morning always emphasize the potential gains for investors. It seems overall that it would have to be dishonest to do that consistently when there are good periods and bad periods for individuals in these markets - it just seems that way to me.