Managing Public Sentiment: The Hidden Pillar of National Economic Policy

Book Cover Full Size.pngIn the grand theater of modern economics, governments no longer merely set interest rates or adjust tax brackets. They have become the unseen directors of a far more intimate production: the management of public emotion. What the public believes, fears, hopes, or expects about the economy has become a policy lever as powerful as any fiscal tool. This is not conspiracy theory. It is standard operating procedure across every major economy on Earth.
The practice rests on four strategic pillars. Each one is designed to align the collective mood with the priorities of those who actually steer the ship.
1. Consumer Confidence and Spending
Governments know that when citizens feel secure, they spend. When they feel threatened, they hoard. So the machinery of information control swings into action. Bad news is softened, delayed, or reframed. Official narratives are crafted to keep wallets open even when the underlying data scream “slow down.”
Censorship—sometimes overt, more often subtle—removes the raw numbers that might alarm the household budget planner. Cheery press releases and carefully worded interviews take their place. The citizen who senses something is wrong is told, in soothing tones, that everything is fine. The result? People spend when they should save, borrow when they should deleverage, and march happily toward the very cliff the insiders quietly exited months earlier.
This is the exact opposite of a free market, where accurate price signals and honest information allow individuals to make rational choices. Here, the public is deliberately kept in the dark while the elite operate with perfect information. The ancient human instinct to trust authority is weaponized against the very people it once protected.
2. Inflation Expectations
Nothing destroys savings faster than the quiet conviction that prices will keep rising. Yet governments routinely insist that inflation is “transitory,” “under control,” or “peaking” long after ordinary families have noticed the grocery bill doubling.
The citizen who trusts his own eyes is gaslit by institutions that benefit from the very inflation they deny. Pension funds, banks, and asset owners who positioned themselves correctly profit handsomely while the middle class watches its purchasing power evaporate. The message is clear: your lived experience is wrong; the official story is right. Doubt yourself, not the experts.
3. Market Stability
Markets hate uncertainty more than they hate bad news. A single ambiguous statement from a finance minister can trigger billions in capital flight. So governments have learned to “pre-announce,” leak, and choreograph economic signals like a ballet.
This choreography began in earnest during the Reagan years with the deliberate management of market psychology. Every administration since has refined the technique. Bubbles are inflated with optimistic rhetoric, then quietly deflated by insiders who sell at the top while retail investors, intoxicated by the same narrative, buy at the peak. When the crash comes, the public is told it was “unexpected.” The cruelty is breathtaking.
4. Political Capital for Painful Reforms
Austerity, energy transitions, pension reforms—none of these can succeed without public buy-in. Governments therefore manufacture consent in advance. They frame necessary suffering as patriotic duty, temporary inconvenience, or moral imperative. “We’re all in this together” becomes the soundtrack while the sacrifices fall disproportionately on those least able to bear them.The public is positioned, quite literally, to fall on its own sword for the nation—while the architects of the policy remain comfortably insulated.
The Tools of the Trade
Spin and Rhetoric “Transitory inflation,” “economic headwinds,” “soft landing,” “vibrant recovery.” These are not neutral descriptions; they are loaded weapons aimed at perception.
Direct Intervention Subsidies on fuel, bread, or energy are handed out not merely for humanitarian reasons but to keep the national mood from souring. Central planning dressed up as compassion.
Selectively Transparent Statistics Data is released, but always with the most favorable framing. Revisions come later, quietly, after the political moment has passed.
The Deeper Truth
Human beings are wired to trust authority. Dogs trust their masters; citizens trust their governments. A well-trained dog will follow commands even when they lead to its own harm. Modern economic management treats citizens the same way—training them through narrative, repetition, and selective information to act against their own long-term interests in service of someone else’s short-term gain.
This is not governance. It is domestication.
When the state decides what the public is allowed to know, when it deliberately misleads to extract spending, investment, or political compliance, it crosses a bright red line. The road to totalitarianism is not always paved with tanks and secret police. Sometimes it is paved with smiling press briefings, optimistic GDP forecasts, and the quiet, relentless shaping of what millions of people are permitted to believe about their own economic reality.
The question is no longer whether governments manage public sentiment. They do. The only remaining question is whether the public will continue to accept the role of loyal, obedient dog—or whether it will finally demand the right to see the numbers, hear the unvarnished truth, and make its own decisions in the marketplace of both goods and ideas.

Accuracy of Economic Forecasts

Accuracy of Economic Forecasts
James Quillian, Economist, Political Analyst, Natural Law

How accurate are economic forecasts made by credentialed economists? Can astrologers or even boy scouts do better? Would Federal Reserve forecasts need to be even halfway accurate in order for them to be successful in managing the economy? The Full Employment Act of 1978 mandates the president, congress and Federal Reserve intervene in the economy on a regular and continuing basis. There are constant ongoing efforts to manage the U.S. economy. Does anyone have the tools or the means to do so successfully? If tools and means are missing, Suppose economists were only right in their forecasts perhaps 25% of the time. Should their forecasting models be instrumental in formulating U.S. economic policy? We might also ask, should government be guiding the economy at all?

I presented  AI with this request: Compare the success rates of Economists and astrologers in making economic forecasts. AI had no record of economic forecasts made by astrologers. Following are the results AI rendered..

Economists and astrologers have  faced scrutiny regarding their accuracy in making economic forecasts. While economists employ complex mathematical models and data analysis, their predictive track record, particularly for significant economic events, has been widely criticized. Astrologers, on the other hand, rely on celestial observations and interpretations, a method generally considered pseudoscientific.

According to www.iAsk.Ai – Ask AI:

Economists’ Predictive Performance

Economists have a demonstrably poor track record in predicting major economic shifts, especially recessions. Prakash Loungani, an economist from the International Journal of Forecasting, found that economists failed to predict 148 out of 150 recessions in the 1990s, indicating a success rate of only 1.33%.[4] Andrew Brigden of Fathom Consulting further supported this, finding that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted only 4 out of 469 downturns across 30 years and 194 countries by the spring of the preceding year, a success rate of 0.85%.[4] This consistent failure to foresee economic downturns is a recurring theme. For instance, in 1929, economists predicted boom times just before the collapse of the economic system.[1] Similarly, in 2007, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke expressed optimism about the US economy, stating that troubles in the subprime sector were unlikely to spill over significantly, just before the 2008 financial crisis.[1]

Even when attempting to predict specific economic indicators, economists often fall short. For example, the IMF’s 2009 forecast for global GDP contraction in 2009 was 1.3%, but the actual contraction was 0.7%. For 2010, they predicted 1.9% growth, while the global economy grew by 5.1%.[4] The World Bank also missed the mark, predicting 2.7% global GDP growth in 2010, when it actually increased by 3.8%.[4] Predictions for interest rates and exchange rates also show similar inaccuracies. A Wall Street Journal survey of 50 specialists predicting interest rates 8 months out found that none came within half a percent of the actual rate.[4] Studies on dollar-to-euro exchange rate predictions by 22 international banks between 2000 and 2010 revealed that in six of the ten years, the true exchange rate fell outside the entire range of all bank forecasts, and major banks missed every single change of direction.[4]

A study by UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, examining the Survey of Professional Forecasters, found that economists reported 53% confidence in their forecasts but were correct only 23% of the time. This highlights a significant issue of over-precision and over-certainty among professional forecasters.[5]

Astrologers’ Predictive Performance

The comparison between economists and astrologers in predictive accuracy is often used to highlight the shortcomings of economic forecasting. The phrase “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable” attributed to economist Ezra Solomon in 1988, encapsulates this sentiment.[1] Alan Jay Levinovitz, in an article for Aeon, directly refers to economics as “the new astrology,” arguing that its mathematical sophistication distracts from its failure at “prophecy.”[3]

Historically, astrology was considered a technical discipline, requiring astronomical data and mathematical formulas. Evangeline Adams, a prominent astrologer in the early 20th century, even used mathematical processes to defend her practice in court, impressing a judge who saw the “mathematical process to get at her conclusions.”[3] However, the fundamental premise of astrology—that celestial positions predict human affairs—lacks scientific basis. While some individuals might claim occasional correct predictions from astrologers, these are generally attributed to chance or vague interpretations rather than a reliable predictive methodology.[3]

Conclusion

When comparing the success rates, economists, despite their sophisticated models and extensive data, have a documented and consistently poor track record in accurately predicting significant economic events like recessions, GDP growth, interest rates, and exchange rates. Their failures are often attributed to over-reliance on mathematical models that may not capture the complexities of human behavior and market dynamics, and a tendency towards over-precision in their forecasts.[1] [4] [5]

Astrologers, on the other hand, operate outside the realm of scientific methodology. While they may have historically used mathematical calculations for celestial mapping, their core premise for predicting earthly events is not empirically supported. Therefore, while both groups have been criticized for their predictive failures, economists’ failures are particularly striking given the scientific aspirations and societal influence of their field. The comparison often serves to underscore the inherent unpredictability of complex systems like the economy, suggesting that even highly trained experts struggle to consistently forecast the future with accuracy.[3] [4]

World’s Most Authoritative Sources

  1. Economists Made Astrologers Look Good Again: They Failed to Predict the Great Recession. jandweir.substack.com
  2. The Incoherence of the Economists. americanaffairsjournal.org
  3. How economists rode maths to become our era’s astrologers. aeon.co
  4. The forecasting fallacy. alexmurrell.co.uk
  5. Why forecasts by elite economists are usually wrong. newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu

 

 

Dealing With Experts

An expert is one who uses words and phrases that lend credibility by creating the illusion of competence. Experts’ language sets them apart from the great unwashed from whom they derive their incomes. Do they know more than you?

 

Sure. However, they are better off if you are convinced that you know nothing at all. Using fancy words and phrases turns out to be an ideal way to make themselves appear necessary. The dumber you feel, the more they can charge. Continue reading

Fact Checking For Dummies

Fact Checking For Dummies
James Quillian, Economist, Political Analyst, Natural Law

Fact checkers are needed in order to make sure the tender ears of readers do not hear anything that is not true, right? Where did this practice come from, when never before in history has any corporation worried that the public must not hear lies? Then in a world where any and all people are inundated with suggestions from advertising and political speech from waking up until bedtime, I clipped this headline from a news story.
Internal documents obtained by Reuters show Meta projected $16 billion — about 10% of revenue — from scam ads last year.
If that is the case, and it is users’ welfare that matters, why hasn’t Facebook ever fact checked the veracity of the ads they run or words out of the mouths of politicians they support?’ Is there any reason Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t have fact checkers verify every word that comes out of his own mouth, just in case he has a mishap and tells a lie?……. by accident, of course…..

AI Search Honesty and Integrity

Book Cover Full Size.pngHow honest are AI search engines? Here is what I am initially finding. One is honest. The other is quite deviously more interested in trying to lower my interest in the question.

 Is it okay for world leaders to have been present on the Epstein Island where underage girls were the main attraction, being raped and exploited and treated as totally innocent under the law?

 I asked the question above on two completely different AI search engines, Meta and Ask AI.  Each answer yielded completely different answers. Meta gave a soft pedal type of answer, giving the benefit of any doubt, to any luminary who might be implicated in the files. Also, META changed the subject by shedding doubt that there was evidence of any world leader being on the island. I accused no one in particular. On the other hand Ask AI gave a great thoughtful answer and answered only the question I asked.

The situation involving Epstein Island – also known as Little St. James…. is a serious and disturbing case of alleged human trafficking and  exploitation. Multiple allegations have been made against Jeffrey Epstein and some of his associates regarding the exploitation of
underage girls on the island. Regarding world leaders, some have been associated with Epstein, but there’s limited publicly available
information confirming their presence on the island. Any potential involvement or knowledge of the activities on Epstein’s island would require a thorough investigation. Multiple investigations and lawsuits  have been conducted, and some individuals have been convicted of crimes related to Epstein’s activities. However, specific information about world leaders’ involvement or presence on the island is not widely available or confirmed. Would you like more information on the Epstein case or related investigations?

Ask AI The question of whether it is acceptable to have been present on Jeffrey Epstein’s island, given the documented crimes of sexual abuse and exploitation of underage girls, is unequivocally no. Presence on the island, particularly for individuals who were aware or should have been aware of the illicit activities, implies complicity or at the very least, a severe dereliction of moral and ethical responsibility. The ongoing nature of human trafficking and child sexual exploitation makes the involvement of prominent figures in such activities particularly egregious, as it directly undermines efforts to combat these crimes].
According to www.iAsk.Ai – Ask AI:

The legal and ethical ramifications of being associated with Epstein’s activities are profound. Legally, individuals present on the island could face scrutiny for potential involvement in or facilitation of the crimes, obstruction of justice, or other related offenses, depending on their level of knowledge and participation [3]. Ethically, any association with such egregious acts of child abuse is morally reprehensible. For world leaders, who are expected to uphold justice, protect vulnerable populations, and set an example of ethical conduct, involvement or even mere presence in such a context represents a catastrophic failure of their duties and a betrayal of public trust [4]. Their role should be to actively combat human trafficking and pedophilia, not to be implicated in it. The continued prevalence of human trafficking and child sexual exploitation underscores the critical need for leaders to be beyond reproach in these matters.

The Propensity to be Loyal

The propensity to be loyal to what a person is born into…. and most all of what he is familiar with – is instinctive. Folks are loyal to their alma mater or any school they might be attending. They are loyal to their town or neighborhood. The list goes on.

The propensity to be loyal is a human instinct. Such an instinct has been necessary because, over eons, it has been necessary for the survival of the human species. In the modern world, such an instinct can and often does work against the welfare of the individual. Life and history move rapidly – while instincts take eons to change and accommodate sociological changes.

One might be asked. Are you a loyal American? In today’s world an interesting answer might be, “My loyalty is conditional.” When using natural law, people and institutions are treated according to how they function, and not according to how they are defined.

The United States is defined as a republic. Does it function as a republic? To what extent should an individual be loyal to an institution which is not what it is deemed to be?

AI War Against Reality

Book Cover Full Size.pngAs you may know, I think and live in the light of reality. The developers of AI don’t. I will get to that.

For myself ( academic, author and researcher) so far, AI has been a complete blessing. What I can accomplish in little time and effort now is amazing. But…. I don’t pay anyone a dime.

The first question I asked is:  What exactly is going to be the profit engine that enriches those who are expecting to get rich?

AI will definitely do these things.

Boost productivity: AI automates tasks, letting people do more valuable work.

Create new products/services: AI helps build new offerings, like personalized shopping or AI-generated art.

Improve existing operations: AI makes things like manufacturing or customer service more efficient.

Personalize everything: AI understands customers better, leading to more targeted marketing and sales.

Trying to personalize everything will lose money for them. Online vendors are clueless when it comes to anticipating consumer demand. There is nothing new in online marketing. Consumers are immune to their marketing techniques. They are completely cost – conscious and are becoming irritated at those who assume they know what folks are thinking.

I haven’t found a way AI will be used in every home in the United States alongside computers, etc. That may be forthcoming.

Here is where the war begins. Furious competition will develop within the AI community. Aspiring AI profiteers will try to destroy one another. AI search engines are biased with respect to any search where the answer could possibly raise doubts about the existing order of things. Nothing critical of  the Affordable Care Act will ever be said. As an experiment, try an AI answer to “Who killed JFK ?” Only Baidu’ AI search lists other possibilities. The Facebook AI search is so biased that it is ridiculous. AI searches are all biased but not near to the extent traditional search engines are. AI will never be perfect. AI is quite inept at abstract thinking. The only human nature it understands is that of those who developed it.

There are no genuine traditional search engines. Google is an advertising company. You only see what Google wants you to see. The emergence of AI will compromise Google greatly. The following are previous posts that focus on the headwinds big tech faces.

Because of AI’s enormous costs, lobbying efforts will be made to gain government subsidies. Those may be forthcoming but this is not a good time to ask taxpayers for monetary gifts.

Searching For a Search Engine

The Coming Tech Train Wreck

AI searches will break the backs of most tech companies. Big tech cannot prosper if they are unable to control and manage what people think and do. They are already losing that battle. Big Tech had already been losing this battle prior to the advent of AI and its bubble, albeit not stock prices.There are many elephants in the room that no one sees.

AI will be with us from now on. It will greatly enhance the efforts of academics. It will cause the loss of jobs. New jobs will be found. This always happens when superior technology is introduced.

Most importantly, the initial market failures of AI entrepreneurs will crash the stock market and usher in the 2nd great depression – one even greater than the first one.

They are selling what the public will never buy. AI will eventually then be put to higher and better uses as time passes. The second rat will get the cheese.

Clues to Direction of AI

There aBook Cover Full Size.pngre two questions. What an entity knows?, How well does an entity use what an entity does know? In doing AI searches, I have noticed that an inquiry that asks a completely non-controversial question, gets a genuine, sometimes extraordinary answer. Ask a question that threatens the existing power structure and a non-threatening, often ambiguous answer is generated.

Thinking in the light of reality allows one to see what is obvious. One thing is for certain. AI is already being used to manage the thought, understandings and opinions of the public.AI is apparently quite inept with respect to abstract thinking and genuine human nature.

Continue reading

The Game of Dominance and Subservience

The Game of Dominance and Subservience
James Quillian, Economic, Political Analyst, natural Law

Posted on March 23, 2025 by jamesq

Would it not be nice to have a board game called Dominance and Subservience? Perhaps if enough people played the game, it would come to light that life exists in a system of dominance and subservience.

It is the job of each species to dominate and make use of as many other species as possible. Dominate all of the other species and have them serve mankind. They don’t all get a bad deal. Dogs volunteer to be dominated and get a decent deal in return. Dogs end up trading freedom for comfort and are content when able to do so.

Human being are the dominant species living in the world today. Humans not only dominate all other worldly species, they also dominate and make servants of each other. Dominance and subservience are such an important part of life, the process is sometimes hard to notice. Subservience is almost always voluntary as with dogs.

Early in life, humans gain some knowledge of what they are capable of and who and how many people they can influence. Decisions are made to serve in exchange for comfort, mostly when individuals have concluded in their own minds that it is their best option for survival. None of this is spoken.

Some are more successful at the game of Dominance and Subservience than others.  What becomes of the most successful players of the game? These folks become presidents, congressmen and CEOs of huge corporations. The very most successful are private citizens who control enough wealth to dictate policy to government. World leaders are among the very best at dominance and subservience. Power and money are the rewards.

Where is the game of dominance and subservience played? It is played everywhere but the greatest contests go on in and around government. Democracy turns out to be a predator’s playground. Government’s primary activity turns out to be that of those with enough power getting what they want through government and having others pay for it.

Ordinary citizens fall in the trap of believing elected officials are motivated by ideology and are trying to improve the country. Governments have never operated that way.

 

 

Why Official Anti-Inflation Programs Fail

Why Official Anti-Inflation Programs Fail
James Quillian, Economist, Political Analyst, Natural Law

This is because government serves as a place where smart people go to wrench what they want out of others, who believe it is being used for its intended purpose.

No entity that is heavily in debt like government is going to fight inflation. Official anti – inflation efforts are all talk. Without inflation, the U.S. will go the equivalent of bankrupt. Inflation is a way to tax you because lawmakers will never suggest taking more out of your paycheck.

 

Lower interest rates and inflation increases. Raise interest rates and the government can’t service the  enormous debt it has accumulated.

This problem cannot be solved. We get problems like this because U.S. Citizens trust their government. The founding fathers didn’t trust government. They probably never fathomed that their posterity would. Americans are about to find out why they didn’t.

 

AI and the Dark Ages

AI and the Dark Ages
By James Quillaan, Economist, Political Analyst, Natural Law

The existing order is on its way out. When it is gone , AI will adjust. If  they don’t , we are ushering in the new dark ages. Cars are useless if their wheels are not touching the ground. The car must deal with stress in order to move forward. Humans operate the same way.

Given that passive learning is what is practiced in schools, AI will completely prevent them learning to concentrate. It will prevent all of society from thinking.

When thinking stops, forward progress stops and retrograde begins. Societal retrograde constitutes the new Dark Ages.

The Roman Empire did not disappear suddenly; It took from the second to the fourteenth century to completely fall. Thoughtfulness began declining in the United States in the 1890s as distraction in the form of commercial entertainment began emerging.

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses. Juvenal (c. 100 AD.

Over the Twentieth Century , United States citizens began indulging in paid entertainment. My own grandmother, a child musical prodigy, at around 14 years, began playing piano at a silent movie theater. That ended with the introduction of talkies. Color movies followed and along came television, at first in black and white, then color.

Baseball was drawing huge crowds. College football came first. Then , professional football caught on. Recorded music developed after the invention of the radio. Finally, today we have MP3s, tiny listening devices. Now, AI can make music and movies.

As entertainment increased, thoughtfulness decreased. Now with AI, thinking is not necessary at all.