Conspiracy Theories (CTs) are bobbins unless they can be backed up by supportive analysis based on a clear holistic overview of the area of engagement OR one has access to very privileged inside information.
A common mistake made by market and political observers is to develop a certainty of opinion on any given opaque potentially corrupt structure. From most of our perspectives, we are only able to judge a reality from our relative position to that reality and all such assessments must be addressed on a probabilistic basis. Although one might add historical analyses to any current analysis, each individual event must be isolated in it's own unique timeframe. In short, black and white attitudes must necessarily fade to grey in any attempt to model a conspiracy. It is not within the scope of this short post to raise the question of what mechanisms might exist in popular culture that lead to the invention and subsequent uptake of CTs. We hope to look at the psychological mechanisms underpinning markets, politics and business in increasingly greater detail over 2007.
Different cultures approach CTs in different ways. The Italian chattering classes have a word for it - Dietrologia (the science of what is behind something). Italians have a healthy mistrust of their rulers and institutions and constantly evaluate the machinations between the branches of power. Moggiopoli was merely a proof of what was already generally accepted in the country. Similarly in Russia where any event extrapolates exponentially to a shower of fantastic scenarios (some of which are probably true).
In England, attitudes are inevitably polarised and there is extensive naivety at both ends of the CTs credibility spectrum. When we were first openly discussing the possibility of corruption in English football, we were surprised at the general response. A quasi-religious "if what you say is true then my belief in society no longer exists" was a typical attitude of outsiders. Most people are blind to corruption and exhibit a tendency to shoot the messenger even when presented with irrefutable proof. For example, check out the difficulties experienced by the whistleblowers at Enron and WorldCom. The response of insiders to our initial approaches were far more entertaining!
We approach all opaque structures with an open mind. We always alter our opinions if evidence surfaces that undermines a current view. Where possible we provide proper analysis with full data but, in the many areas where full disclosure might impinge on our proprietary unified trading model (UTM), we precis our perceptions. We are confident that our projections will be realised in time.
In forthcoming posts, we will look at individual CTs structures seeking out the patterns that might allow our opinion to move towards the likelihood of a conspiratorial edifice. We will also look at some of the common errors made by observers of potentially corrupt spectacular society events including erroneous cause and effect linkages and the underestimation of feedback loops.
