Words as Signals and Nothing Else

The old saying goes “A man is only as good as his word.” Wrong, the correct saying is “A man is only as good as his actions.”

Words are simply signals for action. If someone acted like your mortal enemy but said I love you, which side would you err on?

If someone said they were sorry and they did it to you all over again, which side would you err on?

Think of this in a different context: Man asks cute girl on a date. Cute girl says that she will be at coffee shop ‘A’ at 11 am. Man shows up and hours upon hours tick away. The man can see the whole store, so when the girl says later “Oh, I was there. Where were you?” It would’t hold.

Saying that you are somewhere doesn’t make you there and the same goes for love and apologies.

When thinking about politics the key is to say the right things. “Hope, Change, Political Correctness, etc.” But this is completely backwards compared to the rest of society. The whole problem with everything else in the world is getting people to live up to what they say. Or in other words, make people follow their words through with action.

Why is it that human society has based their politics based upon what people said and not what they do? And do not go off yet, it is on both sides.

If someone stated that Congressman Joe Wilson who shouted “you lie” when President Barack Obama stated that his health care plan wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants had in fact supported a previous bill that did, would many of Wilson’s supporters know the real answer?

And I understand that people are rational ignorant when it comes to politics. But why is the equlibrium at what they say? Why isn’t it at zero? Could it be possible that no listening to a politician at all would give people a better chance at guessing what policies they promote? For example, if you ran the experiment, two citizens in 2001. George W. Bush is elected and now we are in 2002. By the end of his administration, who has a better chance of predicting if George W. Bush will support Medicare expansions? The guy who watched the news and listened to the speeches or someone who paid no attention at all?

The obvious answer here is the person who paid no attention at all. Why? Well, Bush expanded Medicare with part D while claiming to be a fiscal conservative.

There you have it, I support rational absolutely ignorance over rational speech listening only ignorance.

I mean how else are we going to stop the Barack Obamas and the Nancy Pelosis of the world from talking about a bill that hasn’t been finalized… I mean you wouldn’t trust a car salesman who had never seen the car, would you?

~PCCapitalist

Economics of the English Language

There is a funny joke in Europe and it goes…

“If you call someone who knows two languages “bilingual” and someone who knows three languages “trilingual,” what do you call someone who knows only one language? —- An American.”

Yesterday, I was having a discussion about someone I know that lives in Central American part of the year and here the other part.

He was saying how when he speaks Spanish to customers who are Latino or Hispanic they seem to want to do more business.

This is beginning to make it economically beneficial to learn Spanish as an American. Most of our parents did not know more than one language unless they have heritage from somewhere that needs it.

Europeans think we are ignorant for not knowing more than one language, but if you think about it, it hasn’t been beneficial to know more than one language.

We are mostly isolated, unlike Europe and we have invented much of the technology that has been vital to our economy.

When you visit places in Europe they all speak English because their parents and school systems realize that one day they might want to study in one of our non-socialist colleges or get a job in our booming economy.

Our because they have to deal with tourist. A true sign of wealth is when you are so wealthy you can travel the world and people have to adapt to you to be more efficient.

As the world is getting smaller we will incorporate more languages in our schools, but my generation got caught in the transition and I hope people realize that it’s pretty hard to learn a language later in life.

In conclusion, it has been rational for Europeans to learn English and other languages. In the U.S., it was rational not to learn other languages but that is changing.

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on December 8, 2007 at 8:46 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,