Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Existential Value and Risk Modeling
According to reactionaries, like Forbes, the natural tendency to dysfunctional psychopathy usefully operationalizes with capitalism to save us from ourselves.
A psychopathic personality is, objectively (i.e., reason free of moral sentiment), a survival mechanism. By nature, a system evolves modeled to minimize the risk of loss by maximizing productivity (expanding the pie as Paul Ryan explains). Instead of looting ourselves back into feudalism, the free-market mechanism operationalizes selfishness (greed) with the productive capacity necessary for us all to be self-determined by natural right, and survive.
Yes, as Forbes points out, we are all functionally psychopathic and we naturally compete in the marketplace to peacefully resolve conflict in the alpha dimension. As long as we maintain a free-market in which risk is directed into an on-demand ontology there is little question as to whether the reward is legitimately earned. This legitimacy of the risk proportion, reactionaries explain, is not derived from a utopian vision--it is not to be measured against a world of ideas, for example, in which there is a formless, and thus unmeasurable, reality. Objective reality is not a product of pure mathematics but the application of the risk in which the profit margin empirically measures the reward legitimately derived from the inherent risk.
(Think of the ontology this way. Let's say you go bowling. The objective is to knock down the pins and the score empirically values, or confirms, the capacity for achieving the objective. While you are determined to knock down the pins if you want to play the game, you do not perceive that the pins are causing you to throw the ball although that is the objective. The pins are not pulling the ball to the pins. You are throwing the ball at the pins by objective.
Despite the action of throwing the ball with teleological determination, the objective result--the ontology--is the pins being knocked down. Ontologically, you can then say the pins are pulling the ball to the objective.
The objective reality depends on the existence of the pins, and achieving the objective--the empirical measure of success--depends on how they are arranged, or organized, to most effectively knock them down.
Organizing the pins is critical for determining the level of success, which will change over time to minimize the risk of loss. To keep the risk the same for everyone requires governance that Romney and Ryan, for example, identify as the problem, not the solution.
Bowling is a pretty simple game, as Forbes points out, until the pins are reorganized to deontologize the risk.
Plato and Aristotle said the deontology derives from the perfect world of ideas. While you have the idea of what the perfect game looks like, with the empirical value of 300, the probability you will attain it is slim unless, of course, you can reorganize the pins to maximize the probable outcome. By manipulating the probability of the risk you can at least minimize the probability someone else will win driven by the common purpose of attaining the perfect score. This common identity existing in zero-sum is from whence the risk is derived, and because we cannot all share in the reward we have the ontology of limited supply against unlimited demand.
To deontologize the risk, Romney and Ryan, for example, pledge to increase the number of pins, and balls to knock them down, by reorganizing the supply we have now so that the wealthy have a disproportionate supply relative to their numbers. In order to gain more balls and pins it is necessary to give up some of the balls and pins you have now to those who already have half the supply in their possession. Even though the numbers don't add up in the world of pure mathematics so that everyone has a chance at the perfect game, the world of pure mathematics does not exist in the real world of objective reality, which requires the secret knowledge of elite power and authority to properly identify with it.
The real-world reorganization that Romney and Ryan propose, despite any supply that may be added, is a zero-sum redistribution of the reward. By application of the exclusive knowledge--the technical expertise--the rest of us can only remotely comprehend, the elite organize the risk into what only appears, they claim, to be a zero-sum detriment. The expected value occurs in late order, but because those that do not properly identify with objective reality want to avoid the risk of failed expectations now, at present value, the result is, foolishly, the failure to be avoided.)
To manage risk is to purposefully derive reward from integral value, and this value, according to reactionaries, is produced and consumed by organizing the marketplace to efficiently manage risk by avoiding it. (When Mitt Romney avoids taxation with secret accounts, the risk is not reduced. The probability it will occur is shifted to the future, currently taking the form of a huge budget deficit that demands taxation, and remember, production and consumption on-demand is a risk ontology managed with purpose using organizational technologies--like RTV's, dark markets, and secret accounts--derived to fit that purpose. Once derived, these technologies dominate our objective reality. Technology pulls us into a regime that does not fit the objective, becoming what the materialist philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, for example, described as the "Leviathan." A big, self-determined ontology presents--manifesting the fully assumed risk of loss--as the risk to be avoided, which obtains in the reactionary language we hear today like, "government is the problem and not the solution.") The people best able to avoid risk are those with the character to be free enterprising, entrepreneurial, and self-determined, naturally organizing an economy with technological advancements (economies of scale, for example) that objectively identify with (or model) their self-interest.
(Remember that according to efficient-markets theory, firms achieve an economy-of-scale because nature dictates it. According to Nobel Prize economists, for example, with mathematical proofs utilizing the statistical analysis of game theory, markets naturally reduce to just a few firms to not only produce the cheapest product sold at the highest possible price, but to control the rate of innovation. Both values exist to resist the declining rate of profit, but efficient-market theorists do not readily admit to that because the natural ontology, they argue, is to resist risk in priority by organizing to maximize the profit. So you see how the bowling game analogy works here: capitalists do not greedily act to knock down all the pins, the pins draw them into the act of knocking them down with increasing efficiency to resist the fully assumed risk of loss.
An economy-of-scale controls the rate of substitution. So, for example, when Exxon-Mobil gets billions in subsidies, it is resisting the rate at which its firm competitively fails. In other words, the market that Forbes and prize-winning economists say is necessary to attain the efficiency of so-called free-market economics is not a free market at all. The free-market legitimacy that by natural right converts the consolidation of capital into earned income, wealth, and power does not, in objective reality, exist because it is naturally inefficient.
According to efficient-markets theory, which the Obama administration and its current opponent for that office both support, an economy-of-scale does not resist innovation. Instead, it creates more value than would otherwise exist because it is more able to consolidate the capital necessary to take big risks.
Ouch! Don't we all know what that means! Allowing industry and markets to consolidate to achieve economy-of-scale efficiency models the risk proportion that a free market is systematically--safely and soundly--supposed to avoid with the legitimate, unquestionable objectivity of collective moral authority "We" call government by consent!
A marketplace freed of consolidation and protected by government authority--exactly what reactionaries like Forbes argue against--allows for maximum self-determination at the lowest possible cost. Isn't that the existential value "We the People" are looking for?)
What derives from the risk is existential value (what psychologists call "self-concept"). The best and the brightest are not the most highly rewarded because they are criminal psychopaths, Wall Street explains, but because they are realists, objectively operating without the utopian visions that always prove to be dystopically tyrannical and unproductive with the force and legitimacy of moral authority.
Selfishness is not a character flaw that condemns us to dystopia. It is a character trait that successfully reproduces in a free market to conserve our natural existence against the odds--the fully assumed risk of loss.
(Keep in mind that the character trait argument is plausible but not entirely convincing. Forbes suggests this hypothesis in his book, "The Freedom Manifesto," but it is the typical, reactionary, exculpation of the risk-reward distribution that argues all the bad things people have to say about people like him ignore objective reality. Wall Street behaves the way it does, reactionaries argue, because of the "human condition"--naturally greedy and thus functionally productive, which is more a virtue than a vice.
Going back to the bowling game analogy, if capitalists didn't consolidate the pins, and the balls you need to knock them down by objective, then you wouldn't be willing to produce more pins and balls so that everybody can play the game. The logic here is that the more playing the game is deprived, the more the game is played...and if you can demonstrate that bunch of $#&*@! mathematically, then you SHOULD win the Nobel Prize!)
Being selfish is integral to the reward. Even with the application of a utopian vision we can be sure that satisfaction of the self will be derived to form a divisible distribution at the top in the name of maintaining the moral imperative of a peaceful and prosperous existence at the base--what Hobbes described as a "Leviathan" that fully assumes the risk of loss and transforms it into a fractal extension of a fully functional psychopathy.
What philosophers of the risk proportion, like Steve Forbes, don't say is that the extension of the rents he proposes, by limiting the money supply to a classical, economic proportion, builds the Leviathan. It builds up the body politic to resist contagion and support the model of equilibrium--the status quo. The body eventually loses its resistance and support breaks down with the risk being clearly indicated, and preventable in a crisis proportion, if the modeling allows for its perception. If the indicators are misread or ignored the result will be catastrophic illness for the body politic, reacting with the delusion of immortality that only serves to hasten its demise.
Right-wing reactionaries refer to the risk modeling of Hobbes (a 17th Century political philosopher) because it suggests the natural right to revolt against a system that does not apply the self-interest of the people (a system with a divine-right legitimacy, for example, not unlike what we have today when reactionaries describe the right to property adversely possessed, or earned, in the marketplace being derived from nature or divine providence). Hobbes was essentially describing a fully assumed risk of loss: risk-value integral to our natural existence.
Reactionary philosophers like Forbes want to disprove the existential value of utopian socialism (dialectical materialism) in particular. Using Aristotelian logic, like Ayn Rand (and prize-winning economists), he argues the integral value of utililizing a fully functional psychopathy to avoid the fully dysfunctional psychopathy we have now derived from neo-classical risk modeling.
Aristotelian logic like Rand uses, despite claiming to be objective, is not an empirically based analysis. Although the method she and Forbes use to describe objective reality and our true, existential identity is logically conditioned, it models an a' priori, objective identity. If we deviate from the norm of the working model, as Aristotle explains, we deviate from objective reality and the identity of our natural existence. We start living in a delusional, utopian, dream world that does not rationally model objective reality.
According to Forbes, for example, the free market (free enterprise without government intervention) mechanically models the reality of our existence. The results are not an a' priori condition but the empirical proof of our natural condition a' posteriori.
Free enterprise forms a morally sound, force-majeure ontology--a freely enterprised system of rewards and deprivations which, of course, exculpates the risk Forbes says is earned and not plundered. Since everyone is equally free to earn (or plunder), the results are logically legitimate--the results are ontological (objectively rational, like the pins drawing the ball to knock them down), which means there is no usurpation of power (no moral, gamma-risk dimension that I argue, for example, to be the ontology at work) and, thus, no need for government intervention.
The outcomes are purely logical, conditioned on the capacity to win in the marketplace by, for example, modeling risk so that it perpetually produces debt and default force-majeure. We are then "forced" to make the market more efficient to control the risk proportion--it is a logical condition, which is then mathematically modeled (like Tycho Brahe's retrograde motion) to validate the objective reality of the model with pure, irrefutable logic.
Pure logic, despite being irrefutably conditional--not deviating from the normative model that is morally imperative--is always subject to empirical confirmation, however, as Thomas Hobbes was apt to point out, by natural right.
The more we want to be without risk, as Hobbes suggested, for example, the more probable it is we will discover what we do not want to be.
After the latest Jackson Hole summit, the Fed chair says we have avoided being in a deflationary spiral. The Hamiltonian model is working to keep the global economy liquid despite tremendous pressure to liquidate the increasing debt burden.
Risk has been modeled to produce an existential value that depends on always being on the brink of default to keep us productive instead of poor and dependent on the king (government). Instead we are dependent on demand in the open market. Should we not question, however, the value of always being on the verge of being what we do not want to be, always acting to avoid crises by converting equity into debt on demand.
(Remember, the Fed is not exactly an organ of government, but is an organ of self-governance. Its assets are private property, which means, by natural right, unlike the king, it is not sovereign wealth to be legitimately held to public account--it is not retributively valued--as Hobbes suggests. Fed assets are managed in secret accounts, holding value in reserve, turning risk on or off as its owners see fit to govern demand through its Open Market Committee.)
Not only do we have a central banking system that relies on debt to avoid detriment but we have a binomial, political alternative that relies on debt as well. Voters are determined to identify the problem as the solution. The identity of the risk is conserved so that, by avoiding the probability of the risk, what we are is never defined by who we want to be.
An ambivalent, objective identity is the product of social contract theory, confirmed by Paul Ryan at the 2012, Republican National Convention when he declared, "We will lead and not govern."
Ryan is referring to the conservative sentiment that the republican form of government is more about the application of elite authority by natural right which, if you are one of the chosen few, is what "We" mean by self-governance. The non-elite participate by contract, and when the elite break the contract, which Obama stands accused, the majority rules, as Hobbes suggested, to establish a new contract.
Contrary to Ryan's conceptual model, the Hobbesian choice of our natural existence is government by consent. The more we are led, the more we want to govern. The more we avoid the risk the more likely we are to take the risk and become what we are led to believe we don't want to be. (This ontology of the risk that Hobbes suggests is why we have a binomially structured political system--a Leviathan, a kind of Hobbesian choice, in which the head--the leadership--talks the talk and the body walks the walk no matter what the stakes are.)
Existence is not a derivative, contractual obligation subject to arbitration. That there is meaningful existence only by derivation of the value is a pathogenic conceit suggesting there is no objective reality, only the rule of law and binding arbitration. Existential value does not derive from contract law, which demands government to enforce it, but a natural right integral to the value of the risk that a social contract cannot void.
Hobbes is referring to existential value contained in the organism (the establishment, the Leviathan) that models the risk, which Darwin later referred to as natural selection (an ontology, like the ball being drawn to the pins) that ensures survival of the species. He refers to a natural tendency--a risk ontology--that later becomes the natural right to self-determine, or self-governance, and later, the psychopathy that ensures the productive incentive necessary for the human species to survive against the odds.
To protect us from ourselves requires the rule of law and leadership, Ryan explains, not governance. Risk is not arbitrated on command but arbitraged on demand, freely enterprised so that we can be what we want to be by social contract (by consent), which cannot be determined by government (the Leviathan) lest we be corrupted, as Forbes describes it, being governed by "the collective" rather than led by the best and the brightest selected in the marketplace for their natural competence.
Ryan attributes natural right to nature and God, which gives it the existential value of supreme being (with the power to "create" jobs, for example) meaning that no one has the right to take it away. Objectively, no one can take it away, although people who want to govern try, and so Republicans vow to lead with naturally selected competence in the marketplace and not govern. Ruling by natural right--the right to self-determination--as Ayn Rand argues, is not an idealistic concept of the self, it is objective reality...our objective identity.
Psychopathy, for example, instead of being the measure of what we don't want to be, is a survival mechanism endowed by nature to be nurtured...cultured into a highly productive, economic environment, self-determined, fully functional, preventing us from becoming what we can never be?
A psychopathic personality is, objectively (i.e., reason free of moral sentiment), a survival mechanism. By nature, a system evolves modeled to minimize the risk of loss by maximizing productivity (expanding the pie as Paul Ryan explains). Instead of looting ourselves back into feudalism, the free-market mechanism operationalizes selfishness (greed) with the productive capacity necessary for us all to be self-determined by natural right, and survive.
Yes, as Forbes points out, we are all functionally psychopathic and we naturally compete in the marketplace to peacefully resolve conflict in the alpha dimension. As long as we maintain a free-market in which risk is directed into an on-demand ontology there is little question as to whether the reward is legitimately earned. This legitimacy of the risk proportion, reactionaries explain, is not derived from a utopian vision--it is not to be measured against a world of ideas, for example, in which there is a formless, and thus unmeasurable, reality. Objective reality is not a product of pure mathematics but the application of the risk in which the profit margin empirically measures the reward legitimately derived from the inherent risk.
(Think of the ontology this way. Let's say you go bowling. The objective is to knock down the pins and the score empirically values, or confirms, the capacity for achieving the objective. While you are determined to knock down the pins if you want to play the game, you do not perceive that the pins are causing you to throw the ball although that is the objective. The pins are not pulling the ball to the pins. You are throwing the ball at the pins by objective.
Despite the action of throwing the ball with teleological determination, the objective result--the ontology--is the pins being knocked down. Ontologically, you can then say the pins are pulling the ball to the objective.
The objective reality depends on the existence of the pins, and achieving the objective--the empirical measure of success--depends on how they are arranged, or organized, to most effectively knock them down.
Organizing the pins is critical for determining the level of success, which will change over time to minimize the risk of loss. To keep the risk the same for everyone requires governance that Romney and Ryan, for example, identify as the problem, not the solution.
Bowling is a pretty simple game, as Forbes points out, until the pins are reorganized to deontologize the risk.
Plato and Aristotle said the deontology derives from the perfect world of ideas. While you have the idea of what the perfect game looks like, with the empirical value of 300, the probability you will attain it is slim unless, of course, you can reorganize the pins to maximize the probable outcome. By manipulating the probability of the risk you can at least minimize the probability someone else will win driven by the common purpose of attaining the perfect score. This common identity existing in zero-sum is from whence the risk is derived, and because we cannot all share in the reward we have the ontology of limited supply against unlimited demand.
To deontologize the risk, Romney and Ryan, for example, pledge to increase the number of pins, and balls to knock them down, by reorganizing the supply we have now so that the wealthy have a disproportionate supply relative to their numbers. In order to gain more balls and pins it is necessary to give up some of the balls and pins you have now to those who already have half the supply in their possession. Even though the numbers don't add up in the world of pure mathematics so that everyone has a chance at the perfect game, the world of pure mathematics does not exist in the real world of objective reality, which requires the secret knowledge of elite power and authority to properly identify with it.
The real-world reorganization that Romney and Ryan propose, despite any supply that may be added, is a zero-sum redistribution of the reward. By application of the exclusive knowledge--the technical expertise--the rest of us can only remotely comprehend, the elite organize the risk into what only appears, they claim, to be a zero-sum detriment. The expected value occurs in late order, but because those that do not properly identify with objective reality want to avoid the risk of failed expectations now, at present value, the result is, foolishly, the failure to be avoided.)
To manage risk is to purposefully derive reward from integral value, and this value, according to reactionaries, is produced and consumed by organizing the marketplace to efficiently manage risk by avoiding it. (When Mitt Romney avoids taxation with secret accounts, the risk is not reduced. The probability it will occur is shifted to the future, currently taking the form of a huge budget deficit that demands taxation, and remember, production and consumption on-demand is a risk ontology managed with purpose using organizational technologies--like RTV's, dark markets, and secret accounts--derived to fit that purpose. Once derived, these technologies dominate our objective reality. Technology pulls us into a regime that does not fit the objective, becoming what the materialist philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, for example, described as the "Leviathan." A big, self-determined ontology presents--manifesting the fully assumed risk of loss--as the risk to be avoided, which obtains in the reactionary language we hear today like, "government is the problem and not the solution.") The people best able to avoid risk are those with the character to be free enterprising, entrepreneurial, and self-determined, naturally organizing an economy with technological advancements (economies of scale, for example) that objectively identify with (or model) their self-interest.
(Remember that according to efficient-markets theory, firms achieve an economy-of-scale because nature dictates it. According to Nobel Prize economists, for example, with mathematical proofs utilizing the statistical analysis of game theory, markets naturally reduce to just a few firms to not only produce the cheapest product sold at the highest possible price, but to control the rate of innovation. Both values exist to resist the declining rate of profit, but efficient-market theorists do not readily admit to that because the natural ontology, they argue, is to resist risk in priority by organizing to maximize the profit. So you see how the bowling game analogy works here: capitalists do not greedily act to knock down all the pins, the pins draw them into the act of knocking them down with increasing efficiency to resist the fully assumed risk of loss.
An economy-of-scale controls the rate of substitution. So, for example, when Exxon-Mobil gets billions in subsidies, it is resisting the rate at which its firm competitively fails. In other words, the market that Forbes and prize-winning economists say is necessary to attain the efficiency of so-called free-market economics is not a free market at all. The free-market legitimacy that by natural right converts the consolidation of capital into earned income, wealth, and power does not, in objective reality, exist because it is naturally inefficient.
According to efficient-markets theory, which the Obama administration and its current opponent for that office both support, an economy-of-scale does not resist innovation. Instead, it creates more value than would otherwise exist because it is more able to consolidate the capital necessary to take big risks.
Ouch! Don't we all know what that means! Allowing industry and markets to consolidate to achieve economy-of-scale efficiency models the risk proportion that a free market is systematically--safely and soundly--supposed to avoid with the legitimate, unquestionable objectivity of collective moral authority "We" call government by consent!
A marketplace freed of consolidation and protected by government authority--exactly what reactionaries like Forbes argue against--allows for maximum self-determination at the lowest possible cost. Isn't that the existential value "We the People" are looking for?)
What derives from the risk is existential value (what psychologists call "self-concept"). The best and the brightest are not the most highly rewarded because they are criminal psychopaths, Wall Street explains, but because they are realists, objectively operating without the utopian visions that always prove to be dystopically tyrannical and unproductive with the force and legitimacy of moral authority.
Selfishness is not a character flaw that condemns us to dystopia. It is a character trait that successfully reproduces in a free market to conserve our natural existence against the odds--the fully assumed risk of loss.
(Keep in mind that the character trait argument is plausible but not entirely convincing. Forbes suggests this hypothesis in his book, "The Freedom Manifesto," but it is the typical, reactionary, exculpation of the risk-reward distribution that argues all the bad things people have to say about people like him ignore objective reality. Wall Street behaves the way it does, reactionaries argue, because of the "human condition"--naturally greedy and thus functionally productive, which is more a virtue than a vice.
Going back to the bowling game analogy, if capitalists didn't consolidate the pins, and the balls you need to knock them down by objective, then you wouldn't be willing to produce more pins and balls so that everybody can play the game. The logic here is that the more playing the game is deprived, the more the game is played...and if you can demonstrate that bunch of $#&*@! mathematically, then you SHOULD win the Nobel Prize!)
Being selfish is integral to the reward. Even with the application of a utopian vision we can be sure that satisfaction of the self will be derived to form a divisible distribution at the top in the name of maintaining the moral imperative of a peaceful and prosperous existence at the base--what Hobbes described as a "Leviathan" that fully assumes the risk of loss and transforms it into a fractal extension of a fully functional psychopathy.
What philosophers of the risk proportion, like Steve Forbes, don't say is that the extension of the rents he proposes, by limiting the money supply to a classical, economic proportion, builds the Leviathan. It builds up the body politic to resist contagion and support the model of equilibrium--the status quo. The body eventually loses its resistance and support breaks down with the risk being clearly indicated, and preventable in a crisis proportion, if the modeling allows for its perception. If the indicators are misread or ignored the result will be catastrophic illness for the body politic, reacting with the delusion of immortality that only serves to hasten its demise.
Right-wing reactionaries refer to the risk modeling of Hobbes (a 17th Century political philosopher) because it suggests the natural right to revolt against a system that does not apply the self-interest of the people (a system with a divine-right legitimacy, for example, not unlike what we have today when reactionaries describe the right to property adversely possessed, or earned, in the marketplace being derived from nature or divine providence). Hobbes was essentially describing a fully assumed risk of loss: risk-value integral to our natural existence.
Reactionary philosophers like Forbes want to disprove the existential value of utopian socialism (dialectical materialism) in particular. Using Aristotelian logic, like Ayn Rand (and prize-winning economists), he argues the integral value of utililizing a fully functional psychopathy to avoid the fully dysfunctional psychopathy we have now derived from neo-classical risk modeling.
Aristotelian logic like Rand uses, despite claiming to be objective, is not an empirically based analysis. Although the method she and Forbes use to describe objective reality and our true, existential identity is logically conditioned, it models an a' priori, objective identity. If we deviate from the norm of the working model, as Aristotle explains, we deviate from objective reality and the identity of our natural existence. We start living in a delusional, utopian, dream world that does not rationally model objective reality.
According to Forbes, for example, the free market (free enterprise without government intervention) mechanically models the reality of our existence. The results are not an a' priori condition but the empirical proof of our natural condition a' posteriori.
Free enterprise forms a morally sound, force-majeure ontology--a freely enterprised system of rewards and deprivations which, of course, exculpates the risk Forbes says is earned and not plundered. Since everyone is equally free to earn (or plunder), the results are logically legitimate--the results are ontological (objectively rational, like the pins drawing the ball to knock them down), which means there is no usurpation of power (no moral, gamma-risk dimension that I argue, for example, to be the ontology at work) and, thus, no need for government intervention.
The outcomes are purely logical, conditioned on the capacity to win in the marketplace by, for example, modeling risk so that it perpetually produces debt and default force-majeure. We are then "forced" to make the market more efficient to control the risk proportion--it is a logical condition, which is then mathematically modeled (like Tycho Brahe's retrograde motion) to validate the objective reality of the model with pure, irrefutable logic.
Pure logic, despite being irrefutably conditional--not deviating from the normative model that is morally imperative--is always subject to empirical confirmation, however, as Thomas Hobbes was apt to point out, by natural right.
The more we want to be without risk, as Hobbes suggested, for example, the more probable it is we will discover what we do not want to be.
After the latest Jackson Hole summit, the Fed chair says we have avoided being in a deflationary spiral. The Hamiltonian model is working to keep the global economy liquid despite tremendous pressure to liquidate the increasing debt burden.
Risk has been modeled to produce an existential value that depends on always being on the brink of default to keep us productive instead of poor and dependent on the king (government). Instead we are dependent on demand in the open market. Should we not question, however, the value of always being on the verge of being what we do not want to be, always acting to avoid crises by converting equity into debt on demand.
(Remember, the Fed is not exactly an organ of government, but is an organ of self-governance. Its assets are private property, which means, by natural right, unlike the king, it is not sovereign wealth to be legitimately held to public account--it is not retributively valued--as Hobbes suggests. Fed assets are managed in secret accounts, holding value in reserve, turning risk on or off as its owners see fit to govern demand through its Open Market Committee.)
Not only do we have a central banking system that relies on debt to avoid detriment but we have a binomial, political alternative that relies on debt as well. Voters are determined to identify the problem as the solution. The identity of the risk is conserved so that, by avoiding the probability of the risk, what we are is never defined by who we want to be.
An ambivalent, objective identity is the product of social contract theory, confirmed by Paul Ryan at the 2012, Republican National Convention when he declared, "We will lead and not govern."
Ryan is referring to the conservative sentiment that the republican form of government is more about the application of elite authority by natural right which, if you are one of the chosen few, is what "We" mean by self-governance. The non-elite participate by contract, and when the elite break the contract, which Obama stands accused, the majority rules, as Hobbes suggested, to establish a new contract.
Contrary to Ryan's conceptual model, the Hobbesian choice of our natural existence is government by consent. The more we are led, the more we want to govern. The more we avoid the risk the more likely we are to take the risk and become what we are led to believe we don't want to be. (This ontology of the risk that Hobbes suggests is why we have a binomially structured political system--a Leviathan, a kind of Hobbesian choice, in which the head--the leadership--talks the talk and the body walks the walk no matter what the stakes are.)
Existence is not a derivative, contractual obligation subject to arbitration. That there is meaningful existence only by derivation of the value is a pathogenic conceit suggesting there is no objective reality, only the rule of law and binding arbitration. Existential value does not derive from contract law, which demands government to enforce it, but a natural right integral to the value of the risk that a social contract cannot void.
Hobbes is referring to existential value contained in the organism (the establishment, the Leviathan) that models the risk, which Darwin later referred to as natural selection (an ontology, like the ball being drawn to the pins) that ensures survival of the species. He refers to a natural tendency--a risk ontology--that later becomes the natural right to self-determine, or self-governance, and later, the psychopathy that ensures the productive incentive necessary for the human species to survive against the odds.
To protect us from ourselves requires the rule of law and leadership, Ryan explains, not governance. Risk is not arbitrated on command but arbitraged on demand, freely enterprised so that we can be what we want to be by social contract (by consent), which cannot be determined by government (the Leviathan) lest we be corrupted, as Forbes describes it, being governed by "the collective" rather than led by the best and the brightest selected in the marketplace for their natural competence.
Ryan attributes natural right to nature and God, which gives it the existential value of supreme being (with the power to "create" jobs, for example) meaning that no one has the right to take it away. Objectively, no one can take it away, although people who want to govern try, and so Republicans vow to lead with naturally selected competence in the marketplace and not govern. Ruling by natural right--the right to self-determination--as Ayn Rand argues, is not an idealistic concept of the self, it is objective reality...our objective identity.
Psychopathy, for example, instead of being the measure of what we don't want to be, is a survival mechanism endowed by nature to be nurtured...cultured into a highly productive, economic environment, self-determined, fully functional, preventing us from becoming what we can never be?
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Risk Deontology
Can we say the recent event in South Africa, where protesting miners were killed by police in self defense, occurred with moral authority, and if so, from what does that authority derive, or is it derivative at all? Is the event a predictable ontology with a categorical imperative or is it a teleological construction with an Objectivist, risk ontology that is apparent only when the event occurs at a particular time occupying a particular space?
These are not rhetorical questions or curious conundrums. Answering these questions in theory or in practice forms the philosophy of risk, which has real, measurable, technical value that determines the distribution of the reward and delimits the liability of the risk.
According to the Objectivist, morality is derivative value. (It is value with no absolute constancy, having as many values as there are observers, derived from all the probable circumstances they are in to form what is nothing but a random, objective, stochastic oscillation of the risk, forming clearly predictable patterns of probability in the aggregate.) It derives, as Nietzsche maintained, from the execution of power, which is the only thing that gives it constancy, much as Ayn Rand describes it. (In other words, technically, it has no added value. Technical data in the aggregate is devoid of subjective, moral sentiment because it does not really exist--it is not objective reality. The value we subjectively impart to moral sentiment results in unobjective, irrational behavior, which appears in the technicals as a predictable, algorithmic, objective ontology. When we provide welfare for the unemployed, for example, which technically presents as inflation with low productivity, Randians explain, we foolishly believe we are being morally responsible when, objectively, we are making the problem worse by destroying productive incentive. Rather than adding value it is really a loss in zero sum--what conservatives refer to as a moral hazard--because the economy loses the incentive to add supply that economically reduces the probability of the risk without all the confusing, relative ambivalence of political sentiment. The loss produces the violence, for example, that yields the value--the imperative--to kill protesting miners with moral authority. The deontology, according to the Objectivist, ontologically yields the risk to be avoided--that is, the value of the risk is always conserved in zero-sum, economically maintained to technically indicate error. The technicals, not moral sentiments, objectively indicate the right thing to do, demanding an economic solution derived from the individual rather than a collectivist, political solution--like the civil action taken in South Africa--derived from the state.) For a power elite, what is moral is whatever maintains power. So, as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle pointed out, good people, ironically, are stuck with all the risk and bad people take all the reward.
Nietzche and Rand, however, fail to see the irony of good versus evil because the value of the risk is not morally derived from an imaginary world of ideas but derives from the real-world application of the risk. Morality is not integral to the good life but derives from the deontology of the risk--shaping it into whatever you want it to be on demand, not ontologically on command. Fascists, for example, who subscribe to Nietzsche's philosophy and maintain that the masses require a superman, or a super-ego, to direct them into the good life, much as Plato described it, fervently maintain power be legitimately structured on demand. Communists who want to maintain power on command are inimical to the individual freedom required to make demands in the marketplace and keep "the people" peacefully prosperous. As long as the non-elite have the freedom to prosper and advance in socio-economic class, by maintaining our natural inequality, the productivity required to get there on demand ensures the supply needed to actualize the good life that cannot be had without it being ontologically derived from those that have the power to execute it on demand in the marketplace. Once the capacity for leadership has been established to manage the risk, we are free to pursue the good life on demand with the power of self-determination, which is to describe an integral, ethical dimension (a deontology) where it objectively does not exist.
According to the objectivist, we are never where we want to be, and this lack of meaning, of arbitrary purpose always to be determined, is what gives meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. Just look at the technicals. Everywhere we look is a fractal "sameness" of continuous oscillation. The only real meaning it has is the objective we give it, continuously oscillating between what we are and what we freely want to be.
These are not rhetorical questions or curious conundrums. Answering these questions in theory or in practice forms the philosophy of risk, which has real, measurable, technical value that determines the distribution of the reward and delimits the liability of the risk.
According to the Objectivist, morality is derivative value. (It is value with no absolute constancy, having as many values as there are observers, derived from all the probable circumstances they are in to form what is nothing but a random, objective, stochastic oscillation of the risk, forming clearly predictable patterns of probability in the aggregate.) It derives, as Nietzsche maintained, from the execution of power, which is the only thing that gives it constancy, much as Ayn Rand describes it. (In other words, technically, it has no added value. Technical data in the aggregate is devoid of subjective, moral sentiment because it does not really exist--it is not objective reality. The value we subjectively impart to moral sentiment results in unobjective, irrational behavior, which appears in the technicals as a predictable, algorithmic, objective ontology. When we provide welfare for the unemployed, for example, which technically presents as inflation with low productivity, Randians explain, we foolishly believe we are being morally responsible when, objectively, we are making the problem worse by destroying productive incentive. Rather than adding value it is really a loss in zero sum--what conservatives refer to as a moral hazard--because the economy loses the incentive to add supply that economically reduces the probability of the risk without all the confusing, relative ambivalence of political sentiment. The loss produces the violence, for example, that yields the value--the imperative--to kill protesting miners with moral authority. The deontology, according to the Objectivist, ontologically yields the risk to be avoided--that is, the value of the risk is always conserved in zero-sum, economically maintained to technically indicate error. The technicals, not moral sentiments, objectively indicate the right thing to do, demanding an economic solution derived from the individual rather than a collectivist, political solution--like the civil action taken in South Africa--derived from the state.) For a power elite, what is moral is whatever maintains power. So, as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle pointed out, good people, ironically, are stuck with all the risk and bad people take all the reward.
Nietzche and Rand, however, fail to see the irony of good versus evil because the value of the risk is not morally derived from an imaginary world of ideas but derives from the real-world application of the risk. Morality is not integral to the good life but derives from the deontology of the risk--shaping it into whatever you want it to be on demand, not ontologically on command. Fascists, for example, who subscribe to Nietzsche's philosophy and maintain that the masses require a superman, or a super-ego, to direct them into the good life, much as Plato described it, fervently maintain power be legitimately structured on demand. Communists who want to maintain power on command are inimical to the individual freedom required to make demands in the marketplace and keep "the people" peacefully prosperous. As long as the non-elite have the freedom to prosper and advance in socio-economic class, by maintaining our natural inequality, the productivity required to get there on demand ensures the supply needed to actualize the good life that cannot be had without it being ontologically derived from those that have the power to execute it on demand in the marketplace. Once the capacity for leadership has been established to manage the risk, we are free to pursue the good life on demand with the power of self-determination, which is to describe an integral, ethical dimension (a deontology) where it objectively does not exist.
According to the objectivist, we are never where we want to be, and this lack of meaning, of arbitrary purpose always to be determined, is what gives meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. Just look at the technicals. Everywhere we look is a fractal "sameness" of continuous oscillation. The only real meaning it has is the objective we give it, continuously oscillating between what we are and what we freely want to be.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Risk Management and Moral Authority
When South African civil authority opened fire on an apparently homicidal mass of miners protesting a subsistence wage against rising prices, which forces their income below subsistence, the authority to kill the miners, however objectively immoral it may be in the aggregate (in the abstract), is considered categorically imperative within the relative space (the circumstances) at the time (the observed occurrence of the risk).
Civil unrest is in the offing. Managing the risk requires civil action with moral authority--the utility of the greater good, which means we have to define just exactly what that is. More importantly, as Ayn Rand points out, for example, defining what the objective is demonstrates who has the executive power, and therefore the capacity, to decide what "the good" is.
The reaction of civil authority in South Africa demonstrates the greater good is protecting property from those who will loot the wealth of the nation with homicidal fervor. While few reactionaries would disagree with this hypothesis, the first rule of law (what is categorically imperative), according to Ayn Rand, for example, is to renounce violence (not because it is immoral exactly, but because it is sure to demand a command elite, with moral authority, that enslaves the individual to the state, which could include the current power elite who are identified by the stateists as the heavy). Reactionaries are likely to agree with Rand's imperative in principle (in the abstract) but are sure to pose the probability of the risk in practice, which effectively makes the victims (the miners--the looters--motivated with homicidal tendencies) the heavy.
Renouncing violence, it stands to reason, requires eliminating all the probable causes and Rand, for example, says the best way to do that is to let the best and the brightest emerge in the free market to satisfy themselves. Selfishness in a free-market environment cures both shortages and, thus, the motive to be violent unless, of course, the motive is to loot the wealth that has been legitimately earned in the market.
Despite all the selfishness that obtains to reduce the probability of the risk, we currently face shortages in a crisis (gamma-risk) proportion, prompting the President, for example, to propose a distribution from the SPR to reduce the risk. Remember, however, the risk cannot be reduced, but it can be avoided.
While the risk of loss is fully assumed in priority, the probability that it will occur at any particular time can be deontologized (like the President may do with the SPR to relieve the economic burden for the 99%, which, you see, also protects the 1% from themselves) by shifting it to the future. The ontology, existing in priority, however, means that the risk is likely to accumulate mass. If it is not deconsolidated, the mass becomes critically unstable, much like what we have now with civil authorities, having made enquiry, for example, into how dark markets operate to accumulate risk, standing by, prepared to deontologize the risk in the gamma dimension with moral authority.
Civil unrest is in the offing. Managing the risk requires civil action with moral authority--the utility of the greater good, which means we have to define just exactly what that is. More importantly, as Ayn Rand points out, for example, defining what the objective is demonstrates who has the executive power, and therefore the capacity, to decide what "the good" is.
The reaction of civil authority in South Africa demonstrates the greater good is protecting property from those who will loot the wealth of the nation with homicidal fervor. While few reactionaries would disagree with this hypothesis, the first rule of law (what is categorically imperative), according to Ayn Rand, for example, is to renounce violence (not because it is immoral exactly, but because it is sure to demand a command elite, with moral authority, that enslaves the individual to the state, which could include the current power elite who are identified by the stateists as the heavy). Reactionaries are likely to agree with Rand's imperative in principle (in the abstract) but are sure to pose the probability of the risk in practice, which effectively makes the victims (the miners--the looters--motivated with homicidal tendencies) the heavy.
Renouncing violence, it stands to reason, requires eliminating all the probable causes and Rand, for example, says the best way to do that is to let the best and the brightest emerge in the free market to satisfy themselves. Selfishness in a free-market environment cures both shortages and, thus, the motive to be violent unless, of course, the motive is to loot the wealth that has been legitimately earned in the market.
Despite all the selfishness that obtains to reduce the probability of the risk, we currently face shortages in a crisis (gamma-risk) proportion, prompting the President, for example, to propose a distribution from the SPR to reduce the risk. Remember, however, the risk cannot be reduced, but it can be avoided.
While the risk of loss is fully assumed in priority, the probability that it will occur at any particular time can be deontologized (like the President may do with the SPR to relieve the economic burden for the 99%, which, you see, also protects the 1% from themselves) by shifting it to the future. The ontology, existing in priority, however, means that the risk is likely to accumulate mass. If it is not deconsolidated, the mass becomes critically unstable, much like what we have now with civil authorities, having made enquiry, for example, into how dark markets operate to accumulate risk, standing by, prepared to deontologize the risk in the gamma dimension with moral authority.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Probability and Imperative
Determining what policies and programs fit our objectives is, as Paul Ryan points out, an intellectual endeavor. Much of that consideration is an ethical enquiry with a technical correlation that has probable value.
For example, the drought of 2012 is a detriment force majeure. The reduced supply increases prices and big profits will be made in the form of capital gains by "making the market more efficient" (RTV's like credit-default swaps and a panoply of other futures-contract devices that raise consumer prices and maintain a deflationary trend). Considering that the benefit is derived from the detriment (with added price increases reducing already beleaguered incomes supported by "headline risk" that efficiently destroys demand), we have to consider the moral value of turning the misery of others into the personal wealth of a small class called "the one percent."
Romney and Ryan argue that the value added from making markets more efficient (application of efficient-markets theory that allows risk to be accumulated and distributed in dark markets) is created from the destruction. What would otherwise be a dead-weight loss is managed into a capital gain that serves to peacefully distribute the scarcity (the risk of probable panic and civil disorder occupying "the headlines") with an on-demand, free-market legitimacy. So, technically, what is the value of the risk here?
Technically, the probability that an extreme drought will occur is 100%. The probability it will happen at any particular time is random, however, depending upon the capacity to read the signs that predict the event. Knowing that the detriment will occur with the prospect of profiting from it has moral value, and the knowledge of the probable detriment, keep in mind, appears in the technical oscillators that financiers use to quantify the probability of the risk.
The risk of loss is fully assumed. That is, the value (the financial reward) derived from the risk is equally imperative. So, Ayn Rand explains, for example, the risk-reward (the economic solution on demand) is devoid of moral value (it is purely ontological) because the cause and the effect is equally imperative (a rationale with which big bankers and their lawyers do whole heartedly agree, having a sense of complete objectivity that has, you see, the equivalent force, or legitimacy, of moral authority). This so-called "objective" valuation misprices the risk proportion.
When retirees see prices going up while the interest paid on their savings is going down (a reality achieved by technical objective), regardless of the technical reasons (the objective reality), the solution is politically motivated (positively charged with the legitimate force of a moral imperative that is evermore probable). While risk is not being added, dismissing the political risk as objectively irrational is to technically misprice the risk proportion to the reward.
Risk becomes disproportionate to reward because RTV's do not reduce risk. Instead, the risk accumulates into a political dimension--the gamma-risk dimension in which the probability is imperative.
Technical pursuit of objective reality misprices risk when it is ontologically assumed to be legitimately distributed with the reward when it has been actuarially avoided by objective. When the reward is quantumly gained in zero-sum, using RTV's, for example, the expected detriment is force majeure--it is categorically imperative, and if this imperative value is ignored, or avoided, the risk-value is mispriced and presents in a panic proportion.
Mispricing risk results in beta-risk volatility (remember, risk is not added but transformed) that eventually goes gamma (demanding a political resolution). The market is "made" to appear technically unpredictable--random and chaotic.
Up is down, down is up so that the "rational" (categorically imperative) thing to do is to make the market more efficient to achieve low entropic value with moral authority.
It is important to understand that the appearance of randomness exculpates the risk (see, for example, the force-majeure rationale regulators used to free MF Global executives of criminal liability). This legal limit to liability (premised on the ontology of large, complex, organizational technologies that the marketplace demands to be competitive) substitutes for the logic of collective action in the marketplace.
Stability is traded for instability to stabilize the risk, which is an insanity (a criminal insanity) that can only happen by decree. Ad-hoc rationality on demand that is relatively valued is traded for post-hoc rationales on command (by administrative-judicial decree) that have absolute value with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
When the marketplace is not "made" (consolidated) to be so-called "more efficient" but is allowed to operate unconsolidated, the risk is directly priced with empirical, imperative value that achieves verifiable accountability with moral authority.
For example, the drought of 2012 is a detriment force majeure. The reduced supply increases prices and big profits will be made in the form of capital gains by "making the market more efficient" (RTV's like credit-default swaps and a panoply of other futures-contract devices that raise consumer prices and maintain a deflationary trend). Considering that the benefit is derived from the detriment (with added price increases reducing already beleaguered incomes supported by "headline risk" that efficiently destroys demand), we have to consider the moral value of turning the misery of others into the personal wealth of a small class called "the one percent."
Romney and Ryan argue that the value added from making markets more efficient (application of efficient-markets theory that allows risk to be accumulated and distributed in dark markets) is created from the destruction. What would otherwise be a dead-weight loss is managed into a capital gain that serves to peacefully distribute the scarcity (the risk of probable panic and civil disorder occupying "the headlines") with an on-demand, free-market legitimacy. So, technically, what is the value of the risk here?
Technically, the probability that an extreme drought will occur is 100%. The probability it will happen at any particular time is random, however, depending upon the capacity to read the signs that predict the event. Knowing that the detriment will occur with the prospect of profiting from it has moral value, and the knowledge of the probable detriment, keep in mind, appears in the technical oscillators that financiers use to quantify the probability of the risk.
The risk of loss is fully assumed. That is, the value (the financial reward) derived from the risk is equally imperative. So, Ayn Rand explains, for example, the risk-reward (the economic solution on demand) is devoid of moral value (it is purely ontological) because the cause and the effect is equally imperative (a rationale with which big bankers and their lawyers do whole heartedly agree, having a sense of complete objectivity that has, you see, the equivalent force, or legitimacy, of moral authority). This so-called "objective" valuation misprices the risk proportion.
When retirees see prices going up while the interest paid on their savings is going down (a reality achieved by technical objective), regardless of the technical reasons (the objective reality), the solution is politically motivated (positively charged with the legitimate force of a moral imperative that is evermore probable). While risk is not being added, dismissing the political risk as objectively irrational is to technically misprice the risk proportion to the reward.
Risk becomes disproportionate to reward because RTV's do not reduce risk. Instead, the risk accumulates into a political dimension--the gamma-risk dimension in which the probability is imperative.
Technical pursuit of objective reality misprices risk when it is ontologically assumed to be legitimately distributed with the reward when it has been actuarially avoided by objective. When the reward is quantumly gained in zero-sum, using RTV's, for example, the expected detriment is force majeure--it is categorically imperative, and if this imperative value is ignored, or avoided, the risk-value is mispriced and presents in a panic proportion.
Mispricing risk results in beta-risk volatility (remember, risk is not added but transformed) that eventually goes gamma (demanding a political resolution). The market is "made" to appear technically unpredictable--random and chaotic.
Up is down, down is up so that the "rational" (categorically imperative) thing to do is to make the market more efficient to achieve low entropic value with moral authority.
It is important to understand that the appearance of randomness exculpates the risk (see, for example, the force-majeure rationale regulators used to free MF Global executives of criminal liability). This legal limit to liability (premised on the ontology of large, complex, organizational technologies that the marketplace demands to be competitive) substitutes for the logic of collective action in the marketplace.
Stability is traded for instability to stabilize the risk, which is an insanity (a criminal insanity) that can only happen by decree. Ad-hoc rationality on demand that is relatively valued is traded for post-hoc rationales on command (by administrative-judicial decree) that have absolute value with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
When the marketplace is not "made" (consolidated) to be so-called "more efficient" but is allowed to operate unconsolidated, the risk is directly priced with empirical, imperative value that achieves verifiable accountability with moral authority.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Road to Serfdom or Path to Prosperity
The politics of demand destruction reduces to tax policy because paying taxes pays the economic rent.
Since the best way to have more of something is to tax it less (reduce the rent, which is what the kind did, and later the middle class who became rich like the king with the development of capitalism), if we want more millionaires, which indicates being on the path to prosperity, tax it less.
If we want to add supply, it is necessary to reduce the rent. No, this does not mean a broader and flatter distribution of income to demand the supply, which resists deflationary risk and rising rents. It means a broader and flatter tax burden against a zero-sum reduction of income for the lower classes, which regresses the tax burden, raises the rent (increases debt to demand the supply) and results in less productivity. It puts us on the road to serfdom described and explained as the path to prosperity.
According to efficient-markets theory, remember, we always encounter a detour along the path to prosperity. Debt increases to demand the supply. Margin compression occurs because a free market creates plenty of wealth but does not sustainably distribute it, which always puts us back on the road to serfdom.
Since capitalism considers redistribution of wealth to be a moral hazard because it reduces productive incentive, to cure recurrent crises of overproduction requires making the market more efficient.
(Keep in mind that the cure is a psychological trick utilizing the anchoring effect. Since the wealth does not trickle down enough to demand the supply, which results in oversupply at high prices, capitalists are quick to warn us that taxing the surplus will make it even less likely the wealth will trickle down. A more progressive tax rate is a hazard because it steals value and distributes it to people that did not earn it. Stealing is immoral, and this immoral act results in the hazard to be avoided--deflation. Thus, the moral hazard.
Avoiding the hazard is not a function of deconsolidation because consolidation is what makes the market more efficient, and raising the rent at the margin is as bad because it loots the value efficiently produced. Instead of adding the supply that cures the chronic shortages we had before capitalism, pillaging and plundering the wealth of nations like in days gone by deters the incentive to add supply. Financiers will not try and make markets more liquid and, hence, more expansive, but instead hord their cash like they are doing now, compressing the marginal product, causing shortages and rising prices.
Managing the risk with propriety requires the special understanding, the secret knowledge, needed to be a member of the ruling class, and its administrative bureaucracy ruled from the top down, both public and private. In order to not induce the risk being avoided, and make things worse, it is necessary to do the right thing and do the wrong thing no matter how immoral and hazardous it may be for the huddled masses in service--indebted--to their overlords, serving up the oversupply--the cure for shortages--on demand.)
Originally, during the Clinton administration, the market was made more efficient by progressing the tax code. The margin, instead of compressing into the hands of a few, wealthy plutocrats, was taxed so that it accumulated a budget surplus instead of debt on demand.
The Bush administration then returned the surplus to its "rightful owners" with tax cuts for the rich. The margin re-compressed in the private sector, but not to worry. A market that is deregulated--without deconsolidation because that reduces efficiency--self-corrects for abuses because a free market demands propriety, but without deconsolidation there is little or no incentive to correct without government intervention and the coercion that supposedly causes all our problems.
It is important to recognize that in both cases risk-value is kept consolidated for its "proper" management by elite, administrative authority both public and private, and consolidation of risk-value is exactly what a free market is not. The result of consolidation is, for example, being dependent on jobs "created" and compressed to expand the margin rather than demanded.
Without margin compression that occurs in small, disinflationary, non-catastrophic proportions on demand, we end up with one, big catastrophic, deflationary proportion that demands markets be commanded into efficiency. Instead of avoiding risk, we demand what we are supposedly trying to avoid--the need for big government.
It appears that free markets cannot, will not, work to sustainably distribute value. It appears that adding debt is the only way to demand the supply, and since adding debt is considered to be added risk, when it isn't, it appears that eliminating deficit spending with tax cuts will render free-market economics, when it won't.
Indications a free market doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't work. Just because the means for immediate accountability does not occupy political space with less and less need for government doesn't mean it can not. Quite the contrary. There is every indication that it works and so every attempt is made to avoid it.
By trying to avoid margin compression, which is unavoidable, we suffer free-market repression and a tax burden in regression to relieve our oppression.
At the forefront of a more regressive tax burden are Ivy-League advocates who say the reason big businesses are hording (repressing) record amounts of cash (capitalizing the distribution of rents needed to demand the supply, which increases the demand for debt) is because there is too much uncertainty over tax policy (who pays the rent). However, consolidation of value (who collects the rent) is all but uncertain--it has a deflationary effect with high debt and rising unemployment...just exactly what benefits the want-to-be gods of wealth and power to the detriment of everybody else. If unemployment does abate because the gods command they pay no taxes in order to distribute the accumulated value, that will be when the debt is paid, which destroys the demand necessary to resist the detriment--deflation--and demand propriety. This is called "rigging the market."
Relying on the theory of efficient markets, the capacity to demand propriety is highly improbable.
Being determined by events that cannot be foreseen or prevented, with matters virtually popping in and out of existence, risk management at the level of the individual can be highly probabilistic. At the macro-economic level, however, with the utility of efficient-markets theory and the tools of quantum mechanics, the probable direction of the risk can be made to move by creating distortions in the free space called the market with massive accumulations of the capital like never before.
With the invention of the calculus and harnessing god-like forces of nature, you would think we had interchanged the road to serfdom for the path to prosperity. The path is paved, however, with the capacity for complete self-destruction, and while we should be wise enough to construct a risk ontology that reduces the probability of the risk without going MAD, the road to ruin is paved with good intentions. You would think that with so much productive capacity (referred to by the "job creators" as "creative-destruction" that infers a god-like potential for exacting unacceptable amounts of harm if we do not avoid the moral hazards) we could not only cure shortages, but cure want in the shadow of death, which is what it means to say, with propriety, "I shall not want."
A massive distortion of market space is created over time by organizing to avoid the strong force of proprietary (alpha) risk, which cannot be avoided on command (as the king found out, for example) because its value derives from the risk on demand. With accumulation of this risk value (supposedly to make the market more efficient), the probability the vast majority will be able to resist the gravitational field of the capital and determine the direction of the risk is highly improbable at the quantum level despite being the stronger force. At the same time, while the powers that be (the "job creators," for example) think they have cleverly commanded nature and de-ontologized the risk with value at the quantum level, the relative value of the risk is fully maintained in the macro dimension with an ontology that is all but uncertain.
Although the weaker force ("job creators" being fewer in number, for example) dominates and directs traffic with gravitas, eventually we learn how to read the signs. "We" discover the path to prosperity, without self-determination in the alpha dimension, is really the road to serfdom.
Following directions that take us back to gain the future, we gravitate down the road to serfdom with the false ambition of gaining strength in fewer numbers. Gaining what cannot be simultaneously had in large numbers is not at all probable within the fabric of the free market, however, and when we try, the risk of loss is fully assumed.
Since the best way to have more of something is to tax it less (reduce the rent, which is what the kind did, and later the middle class who became rich like the king with the development of capitalism), if we want more millionaires, which indicates being on the path to prosperity, tax it less.
If we want to add supply, it is necessary to reduce the rent. No, this does not mean a broader and flatter distribution of income to demand the supply, which resists deflationary risk and rising rents. It means a broader and flatter tax burden against a zero-sum reduction of income for the lower classes, which regresses the tax burden, raises the rent (increases debt to demand the supply) and results in less productivity. It puts us on the road to serfdom described and explained as the path to prosperity.
According to efficient-markets theory, remember, we always encounter a detour along the path to prosperity. Debt increases to demand the supply. Margin compression occurs because a free market creates plenty of wealth but does not sustainably distribute it, which always puts us back on the road to serfdom.
Since capitalism considers redistribution of wealth to be a moral hazard because it reduces productive incentive, to cure recurrent crises of overproduction requires making the market more efficient.
(Keep in mind that the cure is a psychological trick utilizing the anchoring effect. Since the wealth does not trickle down enough to demand the supply, which results in oversupply at high prices, capitalists are quick to warn us that taxing the surplus will make it even less likely the wealth will trickle down. A more progressive tax rate is a hazard because it steals value and distributes it to people that did not earn it. Stealing is immoral, and this immoral act results in the hazard to be avoided--deflation. Thus, the moral hazard.
Avoiding the hazard is not a function of deconsolidation because consolidation is what makes the market more efficient, and raising the rent at the margin is as bad because it loots the value efficiently produced. Instead of adding the supply that cures the chronic shortages we had before capitalism, pillaging and plundering the wealth of nations like in days gone by deters the incentive to add supply. Financiers will not try and make markets more liquid and, hence, more expansive, but instead hord their cash like they are doing now, compressing the marginal product, causing shortages and rising prices.
Managing the risk with propriety requires the special understanding, the secret knowledge, needed to be a member of the ruling class, and its administrative bureaucracy ruled from the top down, both public and private. In order to not induce the risk being avoided, and make things worse, it is necessary to do the right thing and do the wrong thing no matter how immoral and hazardous it may be for the huddled masses in service--indebted--to their overlords, serving up the oversupply--the cure for shortages--on demand.)
Originally, during the Clinton administration, the market was made more efficient by progressing the tax code. The margin, instead of compressing into the hands of a few, wealthy plutocrats, was taxed so that it accumulated a budget surplus instead of debt on demand.
The Bush administration then returned the surplus to its "rightful owners" with tax cuts for the rich. The margin re-compressed in the private sector, but not to worry. A market that is deregulated--without deconsolidation because that reduces efficiency--self-corrects for abuses because a free market demands propriety, but without deconsolidation there is little or no incentive to correct without government intervention and the coercion that supposedly causes all our problems.
It is important to recognize that in both cases risk-value is kept consolidated for its "proper" management by elite, administrative authority both public and private, and consolidation of risk-value is exactly what a free market is not. The result of consolidation is, for example, being dependent on jobs "created" and compressed to expand the margin rather than demanded.
Without margin compression that occurs in small, disinflationary, non-catastrophic proportions on demand, we end up with one, big catastrophic, deflationary proportion that demands markets be commanded into efficiency. Instead of avoiding risk, we demand what we are supposedly trying to avoid--the need for big government.
It appears that free markets cannot, will not, work to sustainably distribute value. It appears that adding debt is the only way to demand the supply, and since adding debt is considered to be added risk, when it isn't, it appears that eliminating deficit spending with tax cuts will render free-market economics, when it won't.
Indications a free market doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't work. Just because the means for immediate accountability does not occupy political space with less and less need for government doesn't mean it can not. Quite the contrary. There is every indication that it works and so every attempt is made to avoid it.
By trying to avoid margin compression, which is unavoidable, we suffer free-market repression and a tax burden in regression to relieve our oppression.
At the forefront of a more regressive tax burden are Ivy-League advocates who say the reason big businesses are hording (repressing) record amounts of cash (capitalizing the distribution of rents needed to demand the supply, which increases the demand for debt) is because there is too much uncertainty over tax policy (who pays the rent). However, consolidation of value (who collects the rent) is all but uncertain--it has a deflationary effect with high debt and rising unemployment...just exactly what benefits the want-to-be gods of wealth and power to the detriment of everybody else. If unemployment does abate because the gods command they pay no taxes in order to distribute the accumulated value, that will be when the debt is paid, which destroys the demand necessary to resist the detriment--deflation--and demand propriety. This is called "rigging the market."
Relying on the theory of efficient markets, the capacity to demand propriety is highly improbable.
Being determined by events that cannot be foreseen or prevented, with matters virtually popping in and out of existence, risk management at the level of the individual can be highly probabilistic. At the macro-economic level, however, with the utility of efficient-markets theory and the tools of quantum mechanics, the probable direction of the risk can be made to move by creating distortions in the free space called the market with massive accumulations of the capital like never before.
With the invention of the calculus and harnessing god-like forces of nature, you would think we had interchanged the road to serfdom for the path to prosperity. The path is paved, however, with the capacity for complete self-destruction, and while we should be wise enough to construct a risk ontology that reduces the probability of the risk without going MAD, the road to ruin is paved with good intentions. You would think that with so much productive capacity (referred to by the "job creators" as "creative-destruction" that infers a god-like potential for exacting unacceptable amounts of harm if we do not avoid the moral hazards) we could not only cure shortages, but cure want in the shadow of death, which is what it means to say, with propriety, "I shall not want."
A massive distortion of market space is created over time by organizing to avoid the strong force of proprietary (alpha) risk, which cannot be avoided on command (as the king found out, for example) because its value derives from the risk on demand. With accumulation of this risk value (supposedly to make the market more efficient), the probability the vast majority will be able to resist the gravitational field of the capital and determine the direction of the risk is highly improbable at the quantum level despite being the stronger force. At the same time, while the powers that be (the "job creators," for example) think they have cleverly commanded nature and de-ontologized the risk with value at the quantum level, the relative value of the risk is fully maintained in the macro dimension with an ontology that is all but uncertain.
Although the weaker force ("job creators" being fewer in number, for example) dominates and directs traffic with gravitas, eventually we learn how to read the signs. "We" discover the path to prosperity, without self-determination in the alpha dimension, is really the road to serfdom.
Following directions that take us back to gain the future, we gravitate down the road to serfdom with the false ambition of gaining strength in fewer numbers. Gaining what cannot be simultaneously had in large numbers is not at all probable within the fabric of the free market, however, and when we try, the risk of loss is fully assumed.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Demand Destruction
Capitalism claims to be synonymous with a free market but also claims it is inefficient. To make the marketplace more efficient it is necessary to consolidate it. This is called efficient-markets theory and dominates our current, political environment.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall is the product of efficient-markets theory. Subsequently, having produced the Great Recession, the market is to be made more efficient with thousands of pages of legislative initiatives to make the market more efficient.
It is not difficult to figure out that the theory is a technical failure, but as previously discussed, this depends on what the objective technically is. If you recall, when Mr. Obama campaigned for president, too-big-to-fail banks were the problem, not the solution. Having succumb to efficient-markets theory at the behest of his Ivy-League colleagues, demand continues to decline despite record budget deficits and low interest rates.
During the Reagan-Bush era, by contrast, when we had trickle-down tax cuts like we've had for the past 10 years, Fed chairman Volker moved interest rates up to record levels to cover the booming deficit. Spending was not cut because tax cuts for the rich, contrary to trickle-down theory, did not destroy demand for government spending but added it. The theory was an empirical failure but was replaced with efficient-markets theory, which during the Clinton era culminated in repeal of Glass-Steagall.
An unconsolidated, free market is supposed to be self-correcting, avoiding systemic risk. Instead, using efficient-markets theory as the working model, the marketplace yields the accumulation of risk to be avoided. Industry and markets are too consolidated as per the economy-of-scale efficiency the theory says cures shortages by adding supply. Objectively, it turns out, supply is added by destroying demand, which adds demand for government.
The Fed, by objective, is currently keeping rates low--manipulating rates to resist demand destruction. That is not a bad thing except that the marketplace is too consolidated--the added supply of money is being used to support the price of equities against declining demand. The capital that drives (empowers) demand is being horded to secure a regressive tax burden that will cause the demand destruction (the deflationary risk) supposedly being avoided by objectives both public and private.
CEO's of big corporates, for example, operating with limited liability, insist that consolidation creates value, which in turn creates jobs. The opposite is true, however. Value is created with demand destruction--combination of unemployment and rising prices, which accumulates deflationary risk.
Big CEO's claim that by creating value (growth) they create demand (jobs), but growing a company (creating value) by consolidation (attaining economy-of-scale to make the market more efficient) is to the detriment of jobs. The capacity to demand jobs (and empower consumers with proprietary risk) is destroyed, not created, to add value (systemic risk) to the company. This is what is "twisted" about Fed policy. If big corporates, who we rely on to create jobs, destroy jobs to create them, the result is what we have now, stagflation--high prices and profits with high unemployment.
As long as unemployment remains high, the Fed tends to add new money to support demand (i.e., resist the declining rate of profit). Relying on the "job creators" to demand jobs from the top down turns them into gods to be supplicated. Growth requires sacrificing the capacity to demand it. The result is inorganic growth--merging and acquiring industries, markets, and proprietary risk to resist the declining rate of profit, financed by the Fed at low interest rates to support the demand for added supply.
With diminished capacity to demand the supply (demand destruction), supply is added and proprietary risk accumulates solely into the hands of the gods who falsely claim the result is the legitimate effect of the invisible hand. Supply-side advocates claim that collective action in the marketplace results in a beneficial detriment (naturally occurring risk in the aggregate referred to as "margin compression"), and since it results in detriment (stagflation), the marketplace needs to be made more efficient. Thus, the foundation of efficient-markets theory.
It is readily apparent that causing unemployment in order to effect job creation is irrational. (While it may be irrational to me, conservatives contend, it is only because I do not possess the secret knowledge of the elite. It is not so much that the knowledge is secret but that I am not capable of comprehending it. I am blinded by the light of empirical evidence that loses its truth value when elite status is achieved. Once I possess wealth and power I will understand, as Rand puts it, what objective reality is. I will be rational.) So, to rationally accommodate what is irrational, we have "Operation Twist" to de-compress the rate of interest (not deconsolidate it, mind you, because that would reduce the capacity to make the market more efficient...more rational). Technical inversion (decompressing the demand for yield that bids up supply instead of adding it) indicates consolidation of risk into the hands of a psychopathic elite drunk with god-like delusions of grandeur. These people, while operating with rhetoric that always suggests the benevolence of making the market more efficient, are interested in causing detriment. Not only does it create value for class consumption, but verifies status and creates a perverted, malevolent, sense of accomplishment referred to as "the American Dream" to which we all aspire--Dante's description of hell!
Understand that creating hell on earth is not irrational, it is a measure of creative competence scaled against probable destruction--the working concept of creative-destruction that Romney understands to be the strength of productive incentive, being dependent on the job creators rather than government. By always knowing evil we are always sure to measure with absolute certainty what is good, or rational.
When undocumented workers are locked into factories, working 80 hours a week to achieve Wal-Mart's price targets, factory owners are not being immoral, they are being rational. They do it because Wal-Mart will find somebody else that will, if they don't, on demand.
(Keep in mind that this problem is easily solved by ensuring the marketplace is deconsolidated in priority, with a bonus being less need for government and more freedom. The more deconsolidated, the more likely workers are able to secure propriety on demand. This deconsolidation of proprietary risk includes reversing the trend of falling incomes that creates the demand for ever-cheaper goods sold at Wal-Mart and feeds back into demand for impropriety. The less demand destruction there is, which forces consumers into Wal-Mart to consume a detriment that appears as an immediate benefit on demand, the harder it is to, in effect, demand slave labor in late order.)
Causing detriment is not the product of a psychopathic intellect. Instead, conservatives contend, it is intelligent management of nature's resources by design, pragmatically freed of moral conventions, maximizing efficiencies empirically measured with an expanding profit margin that clearly indicates the good life--the utility of adding value that would not otherwise exist. Turning natural resources into nature's bounty is not psycho--it is not selfish profiteering--it is utilitarian.
Look at the right-wing, reactionary description of "good" tax policy going forward, for example. It is a technical description that explains how supply-side economics works to maximize the utility of productive incentive, which is both indicated and achieved by driving up profits and driving down costs--the Bain Capital (corporate raider) and Wal-Mart (slave wage) models that, when combined, is more the road to serfdom than the path to prosperity.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall is the product of efficient-markets theory. Subsequently, having produced the Great Recession, the market is to be made more efficient with thousands of pages of legislative initiatives to make the market more efficient.
It is not difficult to figure out that the theory is a technical failure, but as previously discussed, this depends on what the objective technically is. If you recall, when Mr. Obama campaigned for president, too-big-to-fail banks were the problem, not the solution. Having succumb to efficient-markets theory at the behest of his Ivy-League colleagues, demand continues to decline despite record budget deficits and low interest rates.
During the Reagan-Bush era, by contrast, when we had trickle-down tax cuts like we've had for the past 10 years, Fed chairman Volker moved interest rates up to record levels to cover the booming deficit. Spending was not cut because tax cuts for the rich, contrary to trickle-down theory, did not destroy demand for government spending but added it. The theory was an empirical failure but was replaced with efficient-markets theory, which during the Clinton era culminated in repeal of Glass-Steagall.
An unconsolidated, free market is supposed to be self-correcting, avoiding systemic risk. Instead, using efficient-markets theory as the working model, the marketplace yields the accumulation of risk to be avoided. Industry and markets are too consolidated as per the economy-of-scale efficiency the theory says cures shortages by adding supply. Objectively, it turns out, supply is added by destroying demand, which adds demand for government.
The Fed, by objective, is currently keeping rates low--manipulating rates to resist demand destruction. That is not a bad thing except that the marketplace is too consolidated--the added supply of money is being used to support the price of equities against declining demand. The capital that drives (empowers) demand is being horded to secure a regressive tax burden that will cause the demand destruction (the deflationary risk) supposedly being avoided by objectives both public and private.
CEO's of big corporates, for example, operating with limited liability, insist that consolidation creates value, which in turn creates jobs. The opposite is true, however. Value is created with demand destruction--combination of unemployment and rising prices, which accumulates deflationary risk.
Big CEO's claim that by creating value (growth) they create demand (jobs), but growing a company (creating value) by consolidation (attaining economy-of-scale to make the market more efficient) is to the detriment of jobs. The capacity to demand jobs (and empower consumers with proprietary risk) is destroyed, not created, to add value (systemic risk) to the company. This is what is "twisted" about Fed policy. If big corporates, who we rely on to create jobs, destroy jobs to create them, the result is what we have now, stagflation--high prices and profits with high unemployment.
As long as unemployment remains high, the Fed tends to add new money to support demand (i.e., resist the declining rate of profit). Relying on the "job creators" to demand jobs from the top down turns them into gods to be supplicated. Growth requires sacrificing the capacity to demand it. The result is inorganic growth--merging and acquiring industries, markets, and proprietary risk to resist the declining rate of profit, financed by the Fed at low interest rates to support the demand for added supply.
With diminished capacity to demand the supply (demand destruction), supply is added and proprietary risk accumulates solely into the hands of the gods who falsely claim the result is the legitimate effect of the invisible hand. Supply-side advocates claim that collective action in the marketplace results in a beneficial detriment (naturally occurring risk in the aggregate referred to as "margin compression"), and since it results in detriment (stagflation), the marketplace needs to be made more efficient. Thus, the foundation of efficient-markets theory.
It is readily apparent that causing unemployment in order to effect job creation is irrational. (While it may be irrational to me, conservatives contend, it is only because I do not possess the secret knowledge of the elite. It is not so much that the knowledge is secret but that I am not capable of comprehending it. I am blinded by the light of empirical evidence that loses its truth value when elite status is achieved. Once I possess wealth and power I will understand, as Rand puts it, what objective reality is. I will be rational.) So, to rationally accommodate what is irrational, we have "Operation Twist" to de-compress the rate of interest (not deconsolidate it, mind you, because that would reduce the capacity to make the market more efficient...more rational). Technical inversion (decompressing the demand for yield that bids up supply instead of adding it) indicates consolidation of risk into the hands of a psychopathic elite drunk with god-like delusions of grandeur. These people, while operating with rhetoric that always suggests the benevolence of making the market more efficient, are interested in causing detriment. Not only does it create value for class consumption, but verifies status and creates a perverted, malevolent, sense of accomplishment referred to as "the American Dream" to which we all aspire--Dante's description of hell!
Understand that creating hell on earth is not irrational, it is a measure of creative competence scaled against probable destruction--the working concept of creative-destruction that Romney understands to be the strength of productive incentive, being dependent on the job creators rather than government. By always knowing evil we are always sure to measure with absolute certainty what is good, or rational.
When undocumented workers are locked into factories, working 80 hours a week to achieve Wal-Mart's price targets, factory owners are not being immoral, they are being rational. They do it because Wal-Mart will find somebody else that will, if they don't, on demand.
(Keep in mind that this problem is easily solved by ensuring the marketplace is deconsolidated in priority, with a bonus being less need for government and more freedom. The more deconsolidated, the more likely workers are able to secure propriety on demand. This deconsolidation of proprietary risk includes reversing the trend of falling incomes that creates the demand for ever-cheaper goods sold at Wal-Mart and feeds back into demand for impropriety. The less demand destruction there is, which forces consumers into Wal-Mart to consume a detriment that appears as an immediate benefit on demand, the harder it is to, in effect, demand slave labor in late order.)
Causing detriment is not the product of a psychopathic intellect. Instead, conservatives contend, it is intelligent management of nature's resources by design, pragmatically freed of moral conventions, maximizing efficiencies empirically measured with an expanding profit margin that clearly indicates the good life--the utility of adding value that would not otherwise exist. Turning natural resources into nature's bounty is not psycho--it is not selfish profiteering--it is utilitarian.
Look at the right-wing, reactionary description of "good" tax policy going forward, for example. It is a technical description that explains how supply-side economics works to maximize the utility of productive incentive, which is both indicated and achieved by driving up profits and driving down costs--the Bain Capital (corporate raider) and Wal-Mart (slave wage) models that, when combined, is more the road to serfdom than the path to prosperity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)