READERS’ FORUM

 

George Soros and astronomy as a model for economics

 

          George Soros’s message is essentially that an open society allows the freedom he loves.  But that is a delusion, for he manipulates it to skim profits from markets (thus denying freedom and closing it to others).  In his books he does not admit that for him to do so, the economy needs to be controlled lest it collapse and the closed society of National Socialism in which he grew up arise.  It is his point of reference.  Now, seeing that he is an expert in the system and how to manipulate it, he realizes that the neoclassical economic models of economic analysis, which use astronomical principles are rubbish, though he will not go so far to admit that they were merely a ruse used by operators as the Rothschilds to provide a smokescreen for their manipulative operations.  This, his Rothschild facilitator Dr. Franz Pick explained to me.  Thus, Soros’s very interesting books caused a fuss among the free market advocates who considered his ideas statist, or dirigist, and therefore irrelevant, even though not one faced the issue that in western financial systems, central banks manipulate and control through the issuance and contraction of credit, and that there is consequently no freedom here at all.  Thus, the free market advocates are useful idiots to the financial manipulators, at least those who are deluded and not hired whores.

          You have to understand that Soros is a Rothschild protégé, and that he is an expert in what he says.  He was one of the leaders of the wolf packs that collapsed the Asian currencies, severely damaging their economies and subsequently nearly plunging them into an absolute depression.  The packs also shorted the pound with insider information.  That Asian collapse, in turn, could have triggered a world economic collapse as in the 1930s.  It was resolved by concerted central bank intervention fostering demand in the west to resuscitate the Asian economies.

          Soros has written a number of books out of concern that actions such as his, when conducted by others without the proper central bank and economic controls, could lead to an economic meltdown.  (This was also noted by Warren Buffett.)  Their action could trigger an implosion in the derivative markets, which is equivalent of detonating weapons of mass destruction.  That, in turn, would collapse the world economy, and plunge the west into a depression, overturning the western political systems and their open societies.  At that point, concentration camps could be set up for Jews, perhaps destroying Soros’ family unless he is as agile as was his father when he did not conform to the thought-patterns of the Hungarian society that he was raised in more than 60 years ago.  The so-called self-correcting mechanism may come too late to save those that are crushed by this juggernaut.

          While his books do not admit his wrong doing, they do recognize that free, unregulated markets can self-destruct, and that theoretical models with self-correcting mechanisms—as in an astronomical model where the play of different gravitational forces balance out in predictable patterns—may not do so as they are subject to the (Heisenberg) indeterminacy principle of physics [entropy —Ed.].  That is, there is the influence of free will (which Soros calls reflexivity) as in the Heisenberg Quantum experiments where it was found to be impossible to both see a nuclear particle and determine its trajectory at the same time.  This happens because the action of observing it affects the particle’s motion by the light used in the observation.  In other words, markets are subject to reflexivity, or free will, and their wobbles may not self-correct as the market participants send these markets into uncorrectable tailspins.

          I would consider the claim that Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle is responsible for creating (in the words of Eddington, and more recently, Dr. Edward Teller quoted in his obituary) the permissibility of religion, which, in turn, opens the scientific path for free will, as ridiculous and fallacious.  For even though we cannot measure both the trajectory of the particle and its position at the same time because we influence it by the act of observation, it does not follow that its path is anything less than predictable.  This, Albert Einstein correctly pointed out when he said God does not play dice with the Universe.  We may not be able to precisely predict its trajectory because of the limitation of our measuring instrument, or even ourselves, but that does not mean it cannot be predicted.

          This is merely a manifestation of the age-old argument of whether man has free will or is merely the subject of predestination.  It is an argument that finite man cannot resolve except through faith.  God is infinite, and can predict the future, which we know by faith, while man is finite, and has free will to act, which we know by observation.  The two principles cannot be reconciled by man as his finite mind cannot understand the difference, for one side requires infinite capacity, that is, God’s, and the other finite capacity.

We can, however, predict the future in general terms in that if we observe the Bible we will be blessed and if we do not, then we will suffer.  That Biblical principle Mr. Soros does not understand.  The blessings he seeks cannot be found in an open society, but in the closed Biblical system delivered to his ancestors on Mount Sinai.  Mr. Soros recently asked a friend of mine why she was religious, and she said that the Hampton Society in which they were, in comparison to a holy society of the Bible, was tawdry and vile with their multiple divorces, mistresses, and other forms of moral disorder.  Mr. Soros listened raptly, and then moved on to the next of his friends to socialize.                                                        Best regards, David