About this site
Feature added on Aug. 14, 2007
------------------------------------------------------
Some of you, who happen to find this website, and who, while not being able to master the intricacies of the German language still
catch some of its keywords, will probably ask yourself what this platform here is all about. For these daredevils who do not let
themselves be turned away by an apparent strangeness, we have provided this Q&A.
Q: What does this site have to offer?
A: It provides gut feeling economic advice and speculation.
Q: Why does it offer this advice?
A: Because it wants to prove that a marginalized nobody can sometimes beat even recognized experts if he only works hard enough
for it.
Q: Why does this site feel the need to demonstrate the up-staging potential of an unrecognized individual?
A: Because it believes that the high price economies of continental Western Europe, and particularly that of Germany, will only be
able to maintain their democratic freedom, if they allow their maverick pioneers to be heard.
Q: Why does this site think that Germany, for instance, is in danger of losing its democracy if it does not develop an egalitarian
culture of open-mindedness?
A: Because the stability of Germany’s democracy rests on its economic success. And this success can only be guaranteed if a
continuous flow of breakthrough innovations can be generated which are so cutting-edge that they cannot easily be replicated by the
low-cost competition in the East.
Q: Why would it need maverick pioneers do generate this flow of continuous breakthroughs?
A: Because it requires a non-established perspective to conclusively question the established, and it needs an out-of-the-box
biography to achieve an out-of-the-box success.
Q: Would it not be easier, instead of encouraging the wild and crazy, to flexibilize these expensive economies in such a way that they
can also compete cost-wise with the cheap labor in the emerging markets?
A: No. If the developed continental economies would try to compete with their Asian counterparts by lowering their cost bases they
would have to reform their social welfare system to an extent that they could no longer guarantee, that the (short-term) losers of
such a reform would not turn their back on democracy altogether. For too much would they feel disenfranchised by the system now
that they would not be tempted to radicalize their stance.
Q: Why does this site believe that the short-term losers of such a reform would be inclined to turn their back on democracy and
follow totalitarian concepts instead?
A: Because they have grown up in a tradition that still echoes its feudal past. And so it is only natural for them to believe that the
mighty have a moral obligation to provide for the poor. For too much have their democracies explicitly been designed to provide a
middle ground between an unwieldy capitalism one hand side and a choppy communism on the other, that you could change the
fundamentals now, without causing grave damage to the stability of it all.
Q: Okay, supposing that in deed it takes maverick pioneers to create the breakthroughs that would allow a country like Germany to
maintain its democratic orientation, why is it then, that these maverick pioneers need any support at all. After all a genius evidences
the fact that he is a genius by overcoming whatever resistance there is. In other words, is it not futile to want to support geniality if its
precisely the ability to turn an exclusion into success that makes a genius into what he is.
A: It is true that the quality of a genius lies in his capacity to take advantage of whatever adverse conditions there might be to find the
solution for how to overcome these impediments. The fact, however, that he can find this mind-blowing solution does not
necessarily mean that he will also be able to adequately market them. For too difficult has it become to overcome the ignorance of
standard wisdom that a weird freelancer could naturally expect to even be listened to.
Q: But why would he not be taken seriously if his proposition obviously constitutes a mind-blowing value added?
A: Because he will lack the institutional credibility that will make his interlocutors believe that there might actually be something to
his ideas.
Q: But why would the lack of institutional credibility lead people to think that they do not have to give the maverick pioneer a fair shot?
After all, it is only rational and democratic to treat even the ungroomed with the benefit of doubt?
A: In deed, one should expect that a democracy can truly believe in the fact that even its unpolished are endowed with a capacity to
reason. Unfortunately though, most of the existing republican countries were not fortunate enough to build their democracy on new
and unfeudalized soil. And so they have not been able to overcome their feudal tradition altogether. For too much has the idea of
class and nobility been implanted in their soul, that an inconspicuous commoner could be able to thrive therein.
Q: So, this site means to say, that there is no such thing as an American dream in the continental European culture?
A: Correct. In fact, there is no such thing as an American dream in most countries in the world. For too unemancipated is the
thinking there, that an outsider would naturally feel welcome here
Q: We find it hard to believe that these assertions are true. After all they sound too much like the venting of a frustrated and
disgruntled mind, that we could still be prepared to seriously consider them.
A: Thank you for making this point. Because, after all, it is exactly this circumstantial reasoning that breakthrough innovators find
hard to overcome. For too beholden is this logic to appearances, that it could now still go beyond them. No, anyone who has a truly
open mind, will not discard the outrageous just because it is outrageous, but will do so, because he has identified its flaws. For too
little would he else have done to evaluate it, that he could now still maintain his critical independence.
Q: But is it not impractical and hence unrealistic to expect, that in the age of the overworked and understaffed every wild-eyed
proposal can be listened to with the same honesty that it theoretically deserves? After all even the reasonable requires some
circumstantial handpicking. And so it is only feasible that people do not overextend themselves when evaluating the new. For too
much would they otherwise exhaust themselves that they could now still be functional.
A: Well, it is true that some circumstantial evaluation is inevitable. How much of that can legitimately be automated though is an
open question. For too much would one simplify the procedure in this case, that one could still be able justify it. No, anyone who
worries about being overworked simply has to look at the meticulous patience with which an argument is presented to him, to
understand whether its reasoning deserves a second glance. For too much will he find therein the bases of respect that is granted
to himself, that he could not use this indicator now for distributing his own attention here.
Q: But does not even this approach still require quite a bit of sacrifice?
A: Surely, it does. However, those who feel uneasy about the pain that is involved here should not forget that the first priority of
capitalism and democracy is not convenience but freedom itself. And so they should not be too concerned about the fact that they
sometimes have to sacrifice themselves. For too little would they else have risked their prosperity that they could now still hope to
actually maintain it.
Q: Okay, okay, let’s not get deeper into this, since we will never get to any conclusion here. Much rather we would like to know who
the people are that have created this site?
A: They are mid-career professionals who after having lost their job due to an office closure had no other opportunity to make an
independent living but to throw themselves against all odds at the mercy of conventional wisdom and hope that some way or
another it will show its indulgence.
Q: When was this site published for the first time.
A: Noah denkt™ was first published in Sept. 2007. The drafting comments began in January ‘06
Q: Why did it take so long to go online?
A: Because, at the same time, this site was developed a book was written, that was meant to the detail the rational of this project in
a more standard and academic way.
Q: Is this book available in the market?
A: Yes, it is. It is published though in German, our native language.
Q: Why is it not available in English?
A: Because we are too exhausted now to translate it. After all, it was quite a cumbersome process to put it together in the first place.
For too high are the bars of expectation in the German literature critics that one could try to meet them and afterwards still have the
energy to look at one’s product again.
Q: Would you like your book to be published in English?
A: Why no! In fact, we do not see a reason why it should not be published in a host of other languages. However, we do not want to
do it ourselves.
Q: So would you be willing to sell the international rights of your book to other publishing houses?
A: If the price is right, in deed, we would.
Q: Where should people turn to if they are interested in bidding for the international rights?
A: They are invited to contact us either by email at wil@landeiselbstverlag.com, or they should write a letter to:
Wil Leonards, Landei Selbstverlag, Kirchstr. 8, 54568 Gerolstein, Germany
Feature added on Aug. 14, 2007
------------------------------------------------------
Some of you, who happen to find this website, and who, while not being able to master the intricacies of the German language still
catch some of its keywords, will probably ask yourself what this platform here is all about. For these daredevils who do not let
themselves be turned away by an apparent strangeness, we have provided this Q&A.
Q: What does this site have to offer?
A: It provides gut feeling economic advice and speculation.
Q: Why does it offer this advice?
A: Because it wants to prove that a marginalized nobody can sometimes beat even recognized experts if he only works hard enough
for it.
Q: Why does this site feel the need to demonstrate the up-staging potential of an unrecognized individual?
A: Because it believes that the high price economies of continental Western Europe, and particularly that of Germany, will only be
able to maintain their democratic freedom, if they allow their maverick pioneers to be heard.
Q: Why does this site think that Germany, for instance, is in danger of losing its democracy if it does not develop an egalitarian
culture of open-mindedness?
A: Because the stability of Germany’s democracy rests on its economic success. And this success can only be guaranteed if a
continuous flow of breakthrough innovations can be generated which are so cutting-edge that they cannot easily be replicated by the
low-cost competition in the East.
Q: Why would it need maverick pioneers do generate this flow of continuous breakthroughs?
A: Because it requires a non-established perspective to conclusively question the established, and it needs an out-of-the-box
biography to achieve an out-of-the-box success.
Q: Would it not be easier, instead of encouraging the wild and crazy, to flexibilize these expensive economies in such a way that they
can also compete cost-wise with the cheap labor in the emerging markets?
A: No. If the developed continental economies would try to compete with their Asian counterparts by lowering their cost bases they
would have to reform their social welfare system to an extent that they could no longer guarantee, that the (short-term) losers of
such a reform would not turn their back on democracy altogether. For too much would they feel disenfranchised by the system now
that they would not be tempted to radicalize their stance.
Q: Why does this site believe that the short-term losers of such a reform would be inclined to turn their back on democracy and
follow totalitarian concepts instead?
A: Because they have grown up in a tradition that still echoes its feudal past. And so it is only natural for them to believe that the
mighty have a moral obligation to provide for the poor. For too much have their democracies explicitly been designed to provide a
middle ground between an unwieldy capitalism one hand side and a choppy communism on the other, that you could change the
fundamentals now, without causing grave damage to the stability of it all.
Q: Okay, supposing that in deed it takes maverick pioneers to create the breakthroughs that would allow a country like Germany to
maintain its democratic orientation, why is it then, that these maverick pioneers need any support at all. After all a genius evidences
the fact that he is a genius by overcoming whatever resistance there is. In other words, is it not futile to want to support geniality if its
precisely the ability to turn an exclusion into success that makes a genius into what he is.
A: It is true that the quality of a genius lies in his capacity to take advantage of whatever adverse conditions there might be to find the
solution for how to overcome these impediments. The fact, however, that he can find this mind-blowing solution does not
necessarily mean that he will also be able to adequately market them. For too difficult has it become to overcome the ignorance of
standard wisdom that a weird freelancer could naturally expect to even be listened to.
Q: But why would he not be taken seriously if his proposition obviously constitutes a mind-blowing value added?
A: Because he will lack the institutional credibility that will make his interlocutors believe that there might actually be something to
his ideas.
Q: But why would the lack of institutional credibility lead people to think that they do not have to give the maverick pioneer a fair shot?
After all, it is only rational and democratic to treat even the ungroomed with the benefit of doubt?
A: In deed, one should expect that a democracy can truly believe in the fact that even its unpolished are endowed with a capacity to
reason. Unfortunately though, most of the existing republican countries were not fortunate enough to build their democracy on new
and unfeudalized soil. And so they have not been able to overcome their feudal tradition altogether. For too much has the idea of
class and nobility been implanted in their soul, that an inconspicuous commoner could be able to thrive therein.
Q: So, this site means to say, that there is no such thing as an American dream in the continental European culture?
A: Correct. In fact, there is no such thing as an American dream in most countries in the world. For too unemancipated is the
thinking there, that an outsider would naturally feel welcome here
Q: We find it hard to believe that these assertions are true. After all they sound too much like the venting of a frustrated and
disgruntled mind, that we could still be prepared to seriously consider them.
A: Thank you for making this point. Because, after all, it is exactly this circumstantial reasoning that breakthrough innovators find
hard to overcome. For too beholden is this logic to appearances, that it could now still go beyond them. No, anyone who has a truly
open mind, will not discard the outrageous just because it is outrageous, but will do so, because he has identified its flaws. For too
little would he else have done to evaluate it, that he could now still maintain his critical independence.
Q: But is it not impractical and hence unrealistic to expect, that in the age of the overworked and understaffed every wild-eyed
proposal can be listened to with the same honesty that it theoretically deserves? After all even the reasonable requires some
circumstantial handpicking. And so it is only feasible that people do not overextend themselves when evaluating the new. For too
much would they otherwise exhaust themselves that they could now still be functional.
A: Well, it is true that some circumstantial evaluation is inevitable. How much of that can legitimately be automated though is an
open question. For too much would one simplify the procedure in this case, that one could still be able justify it. No, anyone who
worries about being overworked simply has to look at the meticulous patience with which an argument is presented to him, to
understand whether its reasoning deserves a second glance. For too much will he find therein the bases of respect that is granted
to himself, that he could not use this indicator now for distributing his own attention here.
Q: But does not even this approach still require quite a bit of sacrifice?
A: Surely, it does. However, those who feel uneasy about the pain that is involved here should not forget that the first priority of
capitalism and democracy is not convenience but freedom itself. And so they should not be too concerned about the fact that they
sometimes have to sacrifice themselves. For too little would they else have risked their prosperity that they could now still hope to
actually maintain it.
Q: Okay, okay, let’s not get deeper into this, since we will never get to any conclusion here. Much rather we would like to know who
the people are that have created this site?
A: They are mid-career professionals who after having lost their job due to an office closure had no other opportunity to make an
independent living but to throw themselves against all odds at the mercy of conventional wisdom and hope that some way or
another it will show its indulgence.
Q: When was this site published for the first time.
A: Noah denkt™ was first published in Sept. 2007. The drafting comments began in January ‘06
Q: Why did it take so long to go online?
A: Because, at the same time, this site was developed a book was written, that was meant to the detail the rational of this project in
a more standard and academic way.
Q: Is this book available in the market?
A: Yes, it is. It is published though in German, our native language.
Q: Why is it not available in English?
A: Because we are too exhausted now to translate it. After all, it was quite a cumbersome process to put it together in the first place.
For too high are the bars of expectation in the German literature critics that one could try to meet them and afterwards still have the
energy to look at one’s product again.
Q: Would you like your book to be published in English?
A: Why no! In fact, we do not see a reason why it should not be published in a host of other languages. However, we do not want to
do it ourselves.
Q: So would you be willing to sell the international rights of your book to other publishing houses?
A: If the price is right, in deed, we would.
Q: Where should people turn to if they are interested in bidding for the international rights?
A: They are invited to contact us either by email at wil@landeiselbstverlag.com, or they should write a letter to:
Wil Leonards, Landei Selbstverlag, Kirchstr. 8, 54568 Gerolstein, Germany
Project for Philosophical Evaluations of the Economy |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________