Occasionally, when there is political instability, we see the word confidence being bandied about or, the lack thereof.
So, I looked it up in dear 'ol Wiki. Wiki says:
Confidence is generally described as a state of being certain, either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct, or that a chosen course of action is the best or most effective given the circumstances. Confidence can be described as a subjective, emotional state of mind, but is also represented statistically as a confidence level within which one may be certain that a hypothesis will either be rejected or deemed plausible.
Self-confidence is having confidence in oneself when considering a capability.
Overconfidence is having unmerited confidence--believing something or someone is capable when they are not. Scientifically, a situation can only be judged after the aim has been achieved or not. Confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those without it may fail or not try because they lack it, and those with it may succeed because they have it, rather than because of an innate ability.
Choking refers to losing confidence, especially self-confidence, just at the moment when it is needed most and doing poorly as a result e.g. in sports. This is found as a common plot device in literature and film, and is usually devised to result in a total alteration of a character's life.
Loss of confidence in stock markets
Clearly where there is a degree of uncertainty in any matter that is seen to have an impact on the stock market, it triggers a loss of confidence.
But, here, I wish to digress a little. The stock market is a mirror-reflection of the basest of human instincts; greed and cowardice. To my mind all the text-book talk of the stock market being mechanism to provide a secondary market for equities and debt securities is a myth.
In my book, the stock market is a tool to create the idea of wealth. It's all in the mind. There is no real economic activity involved; as in no manufacturing of goods, no construction of homes, factories or roads; nothing. It's just a bunch of guys sitting in front of a computer pushing buy and sell buttons. If this is what the modern economy is all about, then we seriously need to hit the pause button. Listen to this extract from New York Times entitled, Bubblenomics:
Nonetheless, a significant portion of the finance boom also seems to have been unrelated to economic performance and thus unsustainable. Benjamin M. Friedman, author of “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth,” recalled that when he worked at Morgan Stanley in the early 1970s, the firm’s annual reports were filled with photographs of factories and other tangible businesses. More recently, Wall Street’s annual reports tend to highlight not the businesses that firms were advising so much as finance for the sake of finance, showing upward-sloping graphs and photographs of traders.
“I have the sense that in many of these firms,” Mr. Friedman said, “the activity has become further and further divorced from actual economic activity.”
Does human society need this type of activity? Does this type of activity contain any redeeming social benefit?
Is it any wonder then, that given a mere whiff of a hint of adversity the stock market suffers a loss of confidence?
Of course, that is only my weekend, nothing-else-to-do-but-take-out-the-garbage epiphanic grousy working thesis....or, maybe not?
Loss of confidence in politics
Political loss of confidence is less cavalier and, more complex. Unlike the cruddy stock marketers, politicians are more personable and, often, more nuanced (especially in Malaysian politics). It is usually about one or more personalities in power.
Politics is about personalities; strong, weak, likeable, hated, etc. It is the ultimate reality show. It is seldom about issues, though people always dress it up as so. At its most basic level, politics is about likeability. If you don't believe me just look at the current U.S. presidential campaign. Ask yourself why is it that an unknown and relatively inexperienced Sarah Palin's entry into the picture can cause John McCain's popularity to surge? There was no policy shift. Obama didn't commit any gaffes. The only reason must be that many swatches of the U.S. electorate foundSarah Palin likeable (Why? For the life of me I have no clue. I merely agree with Tina Fey's Saturday Night Live's parody of her; goofy and ill-informed.)
I know there are many, many, many other factors such as fear, respect, charisma, etc. But let's keep it simple for now.
One of the best description of WHY there is a loss of confidence in the current leadership is contained in this analysis in Malaysian Insider. To me, this is one of the more insightful pieces on the cause of the unravelling of confidence in the current political leadership.
To quote Stan Lee (of Marvel), Nuff said.
No comments:
Post a Comment