The Greek philosopher Parmenides Taught that thought is language. According to linguistic confusion is confused thinking – and confused thinking again:”His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold Simultaneously two opinions Which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was Necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.Even to understand the word 'doublethink “involved the use of doublethink.”
The euphemism is a form of Doublespeak: a euphemism, a deliberate distortion of the truth. Euphemisms are known to be used for acts contrary to, the consequences of the interests of other groups to legitimize. They represent “manipulation of language” and “manipulation through language” dar.
Since the outbreak of the international financial market crisis have euphemisms in the politics of “anti-crisis” boom – especially in monetary policy and monetary policy commentary by experts. Its only a few examples at this point:
If, for example of “politics-free alternative” spoken not agree to be justified under the given conditions as the only correct one.Refer to a monetary policy as “quantitative easing”, makes it difficult or impossible to discern the true consequence of such a policy: that it is namely a widening of the money supply, which is nothing more than an inflationary economic policy.The same applies to the term “liquidity glut”. It obscures that there are central banks that expand the money supply unduly, damaging the value of money difficult, while the cause of the “money supply” nameable is – the central bank – so this is not the concept of “liquidity” is not the case, because the term is indefinite.The term “unconventional monetary policy” appears the actions of central banks in good light: For “conventional” stands for and will traditionally done, while suggesting “unconventional” bold and creative action.The categorization of a bank as “systemically important bank” qualifies them to receive government support – and allows SunA particularly illustrative example is not the European Central Bank, which has formed the free market, a number of highly indebted governments.
The linguistic and conceptual confusion weakens monetary policy experts by the opposing forces correcting a harmful policy. After all the confusion of tongues makes it difficult for the general public, if not impossible, the effects that emanate from the monetary policy measures, to assess their impact. Also, there is a – hardly planned – explosive dynamics.
If monetary policy is wrong, once begun, continued on and on, because no corrective resistance formed against them, fell more and more of the population in the dependence of the wrong policies. There is a particularly clear with the view of the growth of the state. The state apparatus can spread mainly because of more and more to the detriment of the private sector because the state has the sovereignty over money production and money by lending “from nowhere” into the world.
Growing government expenditure through self-created money – which go far exceed what taxpayers dependence of the state: whether in the form of state pensions, health care, education or security, or as recipients of government contracts, or as workers in government apparatus.