The World We Should Know

Between iPhones and Androids, tablets, laptops, smart watches and the nearly antiquated, yet ever present, PC, we have come to understand the world in an intimate and instantaneous relationship. Hardly is this a new idea, nor are the realities lost on anyone living in the 21st century. The world has already begun its big change, but the big change will have its progress impeded by people who will inevitably lose at the result of the changing climate. Denzel Washington may not have been the first person to say this, but certainly the most famous, “To not watch the news is to be uniformed. To watch the news is to be misinformed.”


The message is succinct in that it subtly conveys the proliferation of deceit through profiteering. It was quickly realized that providing a medium to distribute local and national news to people allowed somebody else to make a lot of money. In fact, this idea is anything but novel. Napoleon Bonaparte is considered one of the relatively recent great conquerors; albeit a failed one, but infamous nonetheless. In June of 1815, the pivotal battle at Waterloo commenced. The Duke of Wellington had been defeated and retreated to Waterloo. There another stand by the Seventh Coalition, with numbers that exceeded those of Napoleon’s by almost 2:1, effectively ended the First French Rule and Napoleon’s triumphant preceding victories. In fact, Napoleon’s army was crushed, and with that many countries stood to retain their sovereignty. As a consequence of some good news for the coalition that included The United Kingdom, the news that would reach Britain would be approached with glee. As such, one could expect stock prices and other various assets to go up, then as now, where euphoria is a very strong catalyst for asset price appreciation. Unfortunately, in 1815, there was no fiber optic cable nor were there satellites; just horse, buggy, and plain old fashioned walking (steam locomotives were such new inventions barely scaling the landscape). Instant gratification was delayed. We, Millennials, do not understand this. However, Nathan Rothschild understood very well the opportunity for speed.

Nathan Rothschild was a Jewish-German banker who started his career as a textile merchant. Surely after acquiring larger amounts of wealth, he decided to extend and expand that growing wealth over different asset classes. He invested in government bonds and made loans to institutions and businesses. So, the story goes on about the battle at Waterloo. Nathan had large amounts of money invested in the Seventh Coalition, and more importantly, the British government. As the battle ended, news of the victory would be on its way back to Britain. Couriers for the Rothschild’s apparently had routes, established during his success as a merchant, that were much faster than that of anyone else. The good news broke to Nathan first, who subsequently purchased large quantities of British bonds. Obviously, the purchase would indicate to everyone that Nathan Rothschild somehow knew before anyone else the outcome of the battle was positive for Britain and they began to buy as well. This leads to price appreciation: higher demand equals higher bids for the same thing. If everybody wants your lemonade and you only made a little, you can start charging more and more for that same lemonade. Economics prevails at the basic level similarly with complex financial instruments.


Nevertheless, the Rothschild’s supposed timely investments isn’t one of deceit or distractions, yet it is a clear example of a person or persons’ ability to make substantial capital gains with the dissemination of ‘information’. The information was true, no doubt, and in this case no evidence suggests dissuasion. It was opportunistic, pure and simple. However, it has undoubtedly led to the development of using, or now creating, public deliverance or disdain.

I chose to use Nathan Rothschild as a great example because of his family’s reputation and subsequent participation in the creation of the Federal Reserve, its coercive and deceitful development, and that is something that has evolved to polarize political parties, break down congressional discourse, and distinguish our differences down to the most common denominator known: the Almighty Dollar.

The idea that I have writing this blog is to write about some of the disparities that I see, as an average American, pervasive in this modern society of information dissemination. I am no expert. Certainly no Rush Limbaugh nor Barack Obama with vivid imaginations of the ramifications of current conflict. I just use simple visual and audible dexterity to determine that news that has been fed to me has, in sometimes carefully and other times carelessly, been presented in ways that promote the agenda of the deliverer. Hence, refer to the picture below:


I am neither Democrat nor Republican. To most of us severely marginalized Millennials, I am one of those self-proclaimed Independents. So I read and interpret the news with an open mind. Fox News, as some know, is the Right-leaning major news source. Many of their views I find myself agreeing, however, just like many of the other news outlets, they perpetually let me down. Note the picture. A seemingly innocuous report on the approval rating of President Trump, and his past rival, Hillary Clinton, attempted, by the author, to show a difference that does not exist. Using large, clear numbers, the author basically wrote that 97% of Trump voters approved of him. The article mitigated Hillary Clinton by stating that only 3% of Clinton voters disapproved of her. Well, that seems the same to me. I guess it’s like going to the grocery store and seeing an item for $9.99. It’s not 10 dollars…it’s 9.99. Instead of listing the price at a big, two-digit number, they’ll stick with 9.99, although it’s the same.

Discontent is a great motivator. When we experience unhappiness with an aspect of our lives, we find a way to express it and/or change it. That is how this great country evolved, as an expression of discontent. Representative government. Taxation with representation. Limited government. Unbiased media.


As long as discontent prevails, I will not rest. The past election definitely demonstrated the discourse of government and media disdain; a disdain held by the very individuals that are supposed to be represented. But how can we represent ourselves when our mediums of information exchange are controlled by the few that fail to represent us? Each week I intend to highlight my view on the political and economic discussion going on in our country, one that is not biased nor ideologically slanted. I stand for sound monetary policy and limited government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s