This morning's Chrysler sale news, after months of speculation, fulfilled a "prophecy" of sorts, if it can be called that. In this blog, and in Comments on other blogs, I frequently speculate on business matters (and I'm ALWAYS right, of course). One such matter was the eventual "sale" of Chrysler, of which I predicted at the very start of the talks that Daimler couldn't actually sell it but would have to give it away in their best case scenario, due to the expenses of pension and other liabilities that would come with the company. And so it is apparently happening in the deal with Cerberus.
Every time a prediction comes to fruition, I get a nice feeling - and also a thought of "hmmm, if what I predict usually comes to pass, then what do I WANT to come to pass, and how can I reasonably predict it?" It doesn't work that way though, as all accurate predictors know. They call 'em like they see 'em, whether they like it or not, just like the prophets of ancient times as recorded in the Bible and elsewhere. Sometimes they saw good, sometimes bad, but they earned their cred and trustworthiness by having their predictions play out as predicted.
Politicians, on the other hand, cannot have or make public such realistic visions. Their visions and plans must consist of rosy futures, optimism, and good/better times for all, because that's what people want. Even if they are proven inaccurate and untrustworthy in their glorious plans and promises for our futures 100 times out of 100, we still vote for the one whose story we like the best, though the story has no basis whatsoever in either present or future reality. What politician has actually predicted an accurate future state of affairs, complete with positive and negative aspects, and won the election? I don't know of one. It's not because they can't see it; it's because they can't say it, or else the people won't vote for them. So the smart ones are in touch with what we want/need to hear, they try to be as sincere and believable as possible in the oral delivery of their made-up visions (and maybe so effectively as to come to believe their message themselves), and then do what they REALLY think/know what needs to be done once they are in office.
They cannot be faulted for these actions, since they are only trying to win the game as the rules have been laid down and played out and displayed by generations of human behavior before them. The rules would need to change for the behavior to change. But should the rules change, or is this system "good enough" to continue the slow but sure evolution of more and more individuals and governments around the world being forced into better and better behavior as the generations go on? The answer to that question depends on your opinion of whether the world and humanity will survive long enough to evolve into what we need to become, or if a risky change needs to come about to speed up that evolution at the possible expense of making things even worse.