If We The People want to effectively reverse and eliminate the cyclical crisis we are now experiencing, not only is trickle-down economics an empirically disconfirmed hypothesis that demands much-needed change, but the organized consolidation of the economy that it operates to produce and maintain demands change as well.
We see the congressional delegaton attempting to apply solutions to our economic woes that are the problem. It can hardly be characterized as "change we need."
From the price of commodities to the way public and private entities plan what we produce, the problem is organizational.
Bailing out what is "too big to fail" just perpetuates the problem--too big to fail--and effectively validates the "belief" that it is the model of efficiency when it is a hypothesis clearly disconfirmed by the evidence (massive unemployment and massive monetary support).
The massive monetary support will not reorganize the problem. It will provide a short term monetary stimulus that will forget the cause of the problem--the acquired belief that bigger is better, or most efficient.
The evidence that it is not is overwhelming!
Organizing for the consolidation of the political economy, for the consolidation of power, is the status quo ante, not change we need.
Instead of a point at which change is to naturally occur for a continuous, empirical improvement, our current crisis is being used to reinvent the problem into a confirmed consolidation of practical power that allows for elitist command and control of our political economy and for a continued false self-determination of The People.
If we do not reinvest, reorganize, consolidation of economic factors into small factors of manageable efficiencies that are quickly responsive to supply and demand costs and benefits and the tastes and preferences of the consumer (the public) with an equally quick accountability, the public is condemned to elite management of the political economy that in no way ensures a rational, objective, pragmatic decisional process that the collective will of The People is most apt to provide with a clearly verifiable legitimacy.
It is not impossible, and surely more possible and less complex than what we are doing now, to invest a small entrepreneurial economic system in which the stabilty of the system is not dependant, and therefore less apt to be corrupt, abusive and inefficient, if the failure of one industry or market entity does not condemn the entire system to short or long-term cyclical crisis.
Instead of how big you are being the measure of success, surviving the pluralism of the free marketplace is the measure of success.
Allowing for organized consolidation renders as the measure of success how corrupt and abusive a business can be and still stay in business (like securitizing--consolidating--debt obligations too big to let fail and impossible to renegotiate so that the debtor must fail and the lender must be bailed out). The abuse includes the margin of profit (inflation and unemployment to be managed politically) and a decisional process that leads to clearly verfied inefficiencies of current form that are shown to be difficult at best to reverse even with the force of public funding and authority. Reversing this measure of success is the change we need, and is entirely possible.
More than $2 trillion of monetary and fiscal stimulus (investment) is best spent to pluralize (deconsolidate) the economy, and power. The reason this alternative is ignored if not discouraged is because it will effectively cure what ails us. It will minimize the probability of crisis by not maintaining a consolidated model of power in which its huge costs are rendered a predictable, recurrent benefit of a power elite and a means to apply power rather than properly deny it.
Instead of denying access to power the inefficiencies of aspiring to be big enough to be corrupt and abusive, what access to financing provides and largely determines, the rigors of pluralism are discouraged for a systematic structure of power in which the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is largely the discretion of a ruling class, enforced by the self-determination of the masses to be in service to it. It is antithetical to a structural model for freedom, morality, and efficiency.
Maintaining the model we have now is to commit to a proven model for encouraging inefficiency, immorality and a lack of freedom that interact to be a cause for crisis and, historically, acquiesence to an elitist model that cyclically reinforces and reinvents itself. An elitist model always deliberately discourages the natural tendency for a peaceful and prosperous pluralism. It cultivates and ensures its succession with the promise of a short-term comfort and security that assures the probability of an insecure future.
Invest pluralism of the marketplace in priority, not its continued consolidation as we are determined to do now despite the domonstrable political will for "change we need."
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Recovery Phase Indicator
Oil prices near $50 per barrel signals a stop and reversal of the deflationary phase and the beginning of the recovery phase of the business cycle.
Commanding the price of energy and food (core CPI) commands the depth and breadth of the cycle. Command has been accomplished with deregulation of a consolidated capital and the use of futures and options contracts. All that is required to reverse the deflationary trend is to stop buying futures contracts and allow prices to return to a "fundamental" bid rather than the speculative bubble bid of a consolidated capital.
It does not indicate the deconsolidation of the capital, but the active management of it by not inequitably bidding up the price of commodities and taking the value of your income, the value of your home and your savings. That value is now consolidated to the point of diminishing return. Specifically, at the most fundamental level of finance, it is the point at which the only people left capable of paying taxes--paying the debt and financing real estate dvelopment--is the upper class of incomes.
The value consolidated is now considered, by the principles of conservatism, to be the rightful ownership of those who own the consolidated capital--the people Obama is going to raise taxes to fianance our economic recovery. Opposition to it is solely a function of class distinction, of what defines the ruling class: you do not pay taxes, you collect them.
If the money needed to bail out the financial system you wrecked with leverage finanace must be borrowed from you through Treasury and the Federal Reserve system, you cannot be assigned the creditor status if you are the only party, class, that can pay it. Thus, economic growth, or the recovery phase of the cycle, marked by the reversal of core CPI indicators like fuel and food.
We now have a chief executive not incumbent to the creditors of our debtor-subject society. This is not a realignment from conservative to liberal identity that perpetuates the cycle of preserving conservative values and principles that verifiably result in overaccumulated wealth that causes cyclical crisis.
The larger cycle of a diffusion of power is in operation. As the retributive value is paid, rather than borrowed, through a peaceful pluralistic process that comes with a deconsolidation of wealth and power, the human condition is that much closer to actualizing an identity of self that was once the utopian fantasy of the dystopic critique.
Try as we may, there is no stopping the ideal whose time has come.
The ambition to power and dominion has been hoisted on its own petard. Where aspiring to a social position that by definition we cannot all have produced great wealth and power, the utility has diminished into large-scale economic inefficiencies and an absurd quality of existence in a a kind of existential Skinner Box where the self is condemned to the reward of the promise of freedom on command.
The contradiction is so profound to be irreversable. Our lives are no longer to be defined by the absurdity of being the slave aspiring to be the master. Our moral intelligence has matured to the empirical, practical realization, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "As I would not want to be a slave, I do not want to be a master."
Commanding the price of energy and food (core CPI) commands the depth and breadth of the cycle. Command has been accomplished with deregulation of a consolidated capital and the use of futures and options contracts. All that is required to reverse the deflationary trend is to stop buying futures contracts and allow prices to return to a "fundamental" bid rather than the speculative bubble bid of a consolidated capital.
It does not indicate the deconsolidation of the capital, but the active management of it by not inequitably bidding up the price of commodities and taking the value of your income, the value of your home and your savings. That value is now consolidated to the point of diminishing return. Specifically, at the most fundamental level of finance, it is the point at which the only people left capable of paying taxes--paying the debt and financing real estate dvelopment--is the upper class of incomes.
The value consolidated is now considered, by the principles of conservatism, to be the rightful ownership of those who own the consolidated capital--the people Obama is going to raise taxes to fianance our economic recovery. Opposition to it is solely a function of class distinction, of what defines the ruling class: you do not pay taxes, you collect them.
If the money needed to bail out the financial system you wrecked with leverage finanace must be borrowed from you through Treasury and the Federal Reserve system, you cannot be assigned the creditor status if you are the only party, class, that can pay it. Thus, economic growth, or the recovery phase of the cycle, marked by the reversal of core CPI indicators like fuel and food.
We now have a chief executive not incumbent to the creditors of our debtor-subject society. This is not a realignment from conservative to liberal identity that perpetuates the cycle of preserving conservative values and principles that verifiably result in overaccumulated wealth that causes cyclical crisis.
The larger cycle of a diffusion of power is in operation. As the retributive value is paid, rather than borrowed, through a peaceful pluralistic process that comes with a deconsolidation of wealth and power, the human condition is that much closer to actualizing an identity of self that was once the utopian fantasy of the dystopic critique.
Try as we may, there is no stopping the ideal whose time has come.
The ambition to power and dominion has been hoisted on its own petard. Where aspiring to a social position that by definition we cannot all have produced great wealth and power, the utility has diminished into large-scale economic inefficiencies and an absurd quality of existence in a a kind of existential Skinner Box where the self is condemned to the reward of the promise of freedom on command.
The contradiction is so profound to be irreversable. Our lives are no longer to be defined by the absurdity of being the slave aspiring to be the master. Our moral intelligence has matured to the empirical, practical realization, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "As I would not want to be a slave, I do not want to be a master."
Real Critique of Free Markets or the Consolidation of the Capital?
Predicting the Future of Political-Economic Organization
Concentration of wealth commands power. If the wealth is shared, or "spread around" as Republicans have cheaply described it, saying it will cause us to be unproductive and lead us into crisis, power is also shared, or pluralized, which reduces the probability, the risk, of crisis and the elitist management of it.
Pluralizing power maximizes the probability for a peaceful prosperity and direct accountability of the ambition to take power and exercise it. A person that wants to take power and command the fate of others, the processes of power must be consolidated politically and economically. Key to the process is the legitimacy of power because it causes, by cognitive process, the political will necessary to consent to the status quo or not.
Saying that sharing the wealth is inimical to prosperity and peace is necessarily argued as an absolute principle, like a natural law, of an uncomprimisable logical proof in spite of the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. If the principle is defied, the proof of its veracity is the consequence of economic crisis.
The deepening economic crisis will be blamed on policies and programs designed to "spread the wealth around" so that the legitimacy of conservative principles will retrench and be operationally conserved.
In the past, the causal factors of the crisis have been conserved by being applied as the solution. Treasury now says the bailout money is to be applied by not buying worthless assets, but by buying an equity stake in risk-prone financial firms and encouraging them to consolidate, or too big to fail, which makes them risk prone.
The problem is applied, reinvented, as the solution. It is a technical trick of the bureaucratic model of power, making the process and outcome of power appear to be decisionally pluralistic and legitimately accountable. The wealth is thereby consolidated with a false legitimacy that will result in crisis.
The bureaucratic management of the consolidation is something private enterprise used to do in the name of free markets by detroying it. The practice has been used into an obsolesence of obvious practical absurdity.
Rather than destroy the causal relationship, the elitist process of power has been reinvented to give it a pluralistic legitimacy. It will result in crisis because the legitimacy is false: it is not a free market if industry and markets are allowed to consolidate nor is it accountable to The People. The process is not legitimately pluralistic and accountable if it is being commanded, evaluated and reinvented by elits to be organized and reorganized into "too big to fail."
The taxpayer as preferred shareholder in the bailout plan is antithetical to the process of private enterprise operating as a means of governiing with the power to tax in the form of "pricing power" that comes by means of consolidating the wealth and, therefore, power. Government by and for The People is, then, an evil to be described as "the problem and not the solution." Reverse this elitist model scenario and We have the solution that serves The People instead of The People serving the feudal ambitions of an elite ruling class drunk with the incompetence of a non-pluralistic accountability that iterates an unfettered greed and avarice throughout the social structure with the result being the crisis it has always been argued and practiced to prevent.
When after applying the problem as the solution and government is required to prevent massive suffering of The People, like famine and war, and the problem is just reinvented and retrenched, We The People are then told by conservatives We are "getting the government we deserve," meaning We are better off with no government and, therefore, no accountability at all. Accountability is best organized and applied, conservatives argue, through the free market and private enterprise which, of course, has been consolidated to prevent its legitimate operation and causing the need for government that the elitist model argues We do not need and are better off without.
The result is a power structure organized to consolidate wealth and, therefore. power. Rather than a champion of The People, the constitutional guarantee of government by and for The People is an orgainized adjunct to give private consolidation of wealth and power the force and legitimacy of public authority which acts, in contradiction, to command the consent of the governed. The contradiction ensures the probability of cyclical crisis at 100 percent.
The policies and programs of Treasury will result in perpetuating, not alleviating the crisis. It will act to reinforce dependancy on credit in our debtor economy, which has been the fundamental source of the problem--liquidity crisis and reliance on the failed Hamiltonian model with a false legitimacy of power that promises to produce the General Welfare without the wisdom. the accountability, of the collective will of The People.
Concentration of wealth commands power. If the wealth is shared, or "spread around" as Republicans have cheaply described it, saying it will cause us to be unproductive and lead us into crisis, power is also shared, or pluralized, which reduces the probability, the risk, of crisis and the elitist management of it.
Pluralizing power maximizes the probability for a peaceful prosperity and direct accountability of the ambition to take power and exercise it. A person that wants to take power and command the fate of others, the processes of power must be consolidated politically and economically. Key to the process is the legitimacy of power because it causes, by cognitive process, the political will necessary to consent to the status quo or not.
Saying that sharing the wealth is inimical to prosperity and peace is necessarily argued as an absolute principle, like a natural law, of an uncomprimisable logical proof in spite of the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. If the principle is defied, the proof of its veracity is the consequence of economic crisis.
The deepening economic crisis will be blamed on policies and programs designed to "spread the wealth around" so that the legitimacy of conservative principles will retrench and be operationally conserved.
In the past, the causal factors of the crisis have been conserved by being applied as the solution. Treasury now says the bailout money is to be applied by not buying worthless assets, but by buying an equity stake in risk-prone financial firms and encouraging them to consolidate, or too big to fail, which makes them risk prone.
The problem is applied, reinvented, as the solution. It is a technical trick of the bureaucratic model of power, making the process and outcome of power appear to be decisionally pluralistic and legitimately accountable. The wealth is thereby consolidated with a false legitimacy that will result in crisis.
The bureaucratic management of the consolidation is something private enterprise used to do in the name of free markets by detroying it. The practice has been used into an obsolesence of obvious practical absurdity.
Rather than destroy the causal relationship, the elitist process of power has been reinvented to give it a pluralistic legitimacy. It will result in crisis because the legitimacy is false: it is not a free market if industry and markets are allowed to consolidate nor is it accountable to The People. The process is not legitimately pluralistic and accountable if it is being commanded, evaluated and reinvented by elits to be organized and reorganized into "too big to fail."
The taxpayer as preferred shareholder in the bailout plan is antithetical to the process of private enterprise operating as a means of governiing with the power to tax in the form of "pricing power" that comes by means of consolidating the wealth and, therefore, power. Government by and for The People is, then, an evil to be described as "the problem and not the solution." Reverse this elitist model scenario and We have the solution that serves The People instead of The People serving the feudal ambitions of an elite ruling class drunk with the incompetence of a non-pluralistic accountability that iterates an unfettered greed and avarice throughout the social structure with the result being the crisis it has always been argued and practiced to prevent.
When after applying the problem as the solution and government is required to prevent massive suffering of The People, like famine and war, and the problem is just reinvented and retrenched, We The People are then told by conservatives We are "getting the government we deserve," meaning We are better off with no government and, therefore, no accountability at all. Accountability is best organized and applied, conservatives argue, through the free market and private enterprise which, of course, has been consolidated to prevent its legitimate operation and causing the need for government that the elitist model argues We do not need and are better off without.
The result is a power structure organized to consolidate wealth and, therefore. power. Rather than a champion of The People, the constitutional guarantee of government by and for The People is an orgainized adjunct to give private consolidation of wealth and power the force and legitimacy of public authority which acts, in contradiction, to command the consent of the governed. The contradiction ensures the probability of cyclical crisis at 100 percent.
The policies and programs of Treasury will result in perpetuating, not alleviating the crisis. It will act to reinforce dependancy on credit in our debtor economy, which has been the fundamental source of the problem--liquidity crisis and reliance on the failed Hamiltonian model with a false legitimacy of power that promises to produce the General Welfare without the wisdom. the accountability, of the collective will of The People.
Hedging the Risk
"Hedging the risk" suggests a protective function. It is supposed to protect us from damages, and originally the financial technology was to do just that, not cause it or predictably inflict it.
The element of fundamental economic certainty the hedge funding technique provides in a free market has been perverted to predictably cause a cost/benefit ratio: to command industry, markets, and prices (the profit or economic rent) to behave with a "certain" cost and benefit.
Consolidation of the capital, however, perverts the protective function to stabilize prices for a planned instability (volatility of buying long then selling short not to stabilize or protect from loss, but to manipulate prices to consolidate the wealth or cause loss for a capital gain) that, if timed, will cause predictable oscillations both micro and macro. It allows for manipulation of market prices, which is illegal.
The hedge fund managers now testifying on Capitol Hill are now engaged in a confidence game of convincing us that their activities are a reflection of fundamental economic realites that stabilize prices and drive investment into peak markets (profits) like capitalism is legitimately supposed to do. It is a fraud.
The hedge fund executives illegally manipulate prices and engage in fraudulent statements to explain price movements that are caused by mere mass movement of consolidated capital in and out of markets (the command). Instead of providing the public good of stabilizing market prices with realistic valuations as they claim, the buy-long-sell-short technique causes volatility and extreme uncertainty of valuation that is nothing but an arbitrary and capricious exercise of market power that violates the free market legitimacy of a pluralistic determination of "fair" market value.
The ability to command market values defines what free-market economics is not, and defines the practitioners of command economics as the criminal element, inimical to the pluralistic process of a collective bargain that legitimately determines what "fair value" is.
Claiming that the ability to command valuations is the result of free-market economics is pure nonsense. It is a fraud. Fraud in the marketplace is a crime against a civil society that values the peaceful processes of a pluralistic legitimacy of power, which is what our Constitution is clearly intended to ensure across all jurisdictional boundaries both public and private. Pluralism is commanded by The Constitution. It is the task of government authority to protect and defend it, to ensure it, in priority.
So President Bush delivered a speech on the benefit of maintaining a free market system that coincides with public investigation of the black-box financing technique, lending a sense of efficiency to what is entirely antithetical and inimical to free markets.
Since the black-box hedge fund technology has not been regulated, being therefore "free," the result is legitimately supposed to be beneficial to everyone. It is beneficial, efficient, by definition because it is free. The means justifies the ends in an unempirical, unscientific, tautology of syllogistic proof that for centuries led people, for example, to "believe" the earth is flat and static at the center of the universe.
Like the complex predcitable utility of Tyco Brahe's proof of retrograde planetary motion in macro physics, Bush's speech representing the utility of the current macro theory and practice of economics should be thrown out, junked, on grounds of complexity alone, much less because its political legitimacy of providing for the General Welfare is empirically disconfirmed in the most obvious way.
Yes, the system of economics Bush claims has the highest utility provides a high level of predictive certainty. It is predictably bad for the vast majority of The People and so complex that it requires elite management that consider themselves, and their expertise, beyond the vulgar accountability of The People, all of which is completely antithetical to the concept of freedom generally and a free-market economy in particular.
Bush's argument is both syllogistically disproven in theory and disconfirmed in practice. It also has been rejected by The People with a popular, legal non-consent of the governed. Bush's argument now occupies space within the circular file of clearly disconfirmed hypotheses and completely ridiculous arguments.
The reason our current economic crisis "is not failure of free markets" is because we do not have free markets. It is a failure of command economics: a failure of a consolidated marketplace commanded by hedge funds, private equity and dependancy on the Wal Mart business model in which an economy of scale is an economy of command.
That organizing for consolidated command and control is the model of inefficiency is why We have The Constitution. We need these hedge-fund managers like We The People need King George!
To argue the general benefit of the economic system and economic techniques now in operation is to publicly make a fool of yourself! We are not talking about a brand of beliefs out of favor here, we are talking about wholesale rejection of a failed theory and practice subject to the rigors of the scientific method in the modern world, easily identifying and separating empiricists from bureaucratic-executive court jestors masquerading as expert logicians arguing the secret knowledge, the exclusive higher understanding, of what freedom is and the path to attainment.
Rendering the financial system a virtual mystery cult of elite understanding is necessary to avoid accountability, legitimacy, something that a free market easily, simply, efficiently provides if We ensure it in priority.
Hedging the risk has become the exclusive knowledge and practice of this mysterious black box that the managers are telling public officials needs to remain the undisclosed, exclusive domain of the experts because it is too complex to be criticized by the ignorant masses, by the uninitiated public and its elected good offices.
Emerging from Plato's allegory of the cave, this is what we see in the full light of day.
Hedge funds function to consolidate the capital--the means of financing what we want and at what price. It functions to make the decision of finance the exclusive domain of the owners of the capital (like King George) who take ownership by "freely" commanding what is supposed to be a free market that checks the consolidation of the power, disallows command economy that cpmmands exclusive class distribution of rewards and deprivations, and determines the efficiency of markets to innovate and grow with full employment and low inflation.
The result of a free market ensured in priority is not indicated by massive debt and liquidity crisis, but by the reverse. It is a hypothesis we now have a mandate to fully test.
This is all about the ownership of the capital that decides what is produced and at what price. If The People own the capital, then they collectively decide by operation of the free and unconsolidated marketplace--a clearly verifiable, tranparent, visible means to ends legitimacy of power.
To make the decision of capital finance "exclusive" in order to ensure an inequity that causes inefficiencies to be managed by elits in crisis requires a technology, a technique, for taking ownership of the capital. It is necessary to consolidate The People's wealth and to do it with an inscrutible complexity immune to a public critique because it is contrary to a free-market legitimacy and declaring yourself of royal status is fundamentally, Constitutionally, illegal.
A system of finance and adminstration is created (Hamiltonianism) in which entities are created too big, complex and intertwined (consolidated) to fail that prey on entities too small, simple and unconsolidated to survive. To survive it is necessary to consolidate, to conform to an economy, a model, of scale so bigger is better and hedges the risk. The economy of scale does not create efficiency, it makes survival more certain and is capable of commanding inefficiencies and abuses that otherwise will not survive the accountability of free-market economics.
The consolidated entity is then "at liberty" to hedge the risk even further and ensure its survival in priority by eliminating the legitimate accountability, including the efficiencies, of a free market mechanics. The capital is consolidated, thus ensuring the continuous innovation of the means, the technological efficiency, of keeping the wealth, and markets, in consolidated command and control.
Where capital becomes "shared" or "spread around," it must be consolidated. So it is now necessary for hedge fund managers to argue the necessity of keeping the data on their operations (the black box) undisclosed. It needs to be undisclosed because manipulating markets and prices on command, and consolidating your savings, your capital, is illegitimate. It is a criminal activity inimical to civil society.
Pensions, IRA's, 401K's do not conform to the economy of scale and the Hamiltonian model until it is consolidated. If you believe that the model yields the highest productive efficiency, the ownership of the capital must be consolidated for the greatest good of society.
Since consolidating the wealth by definition means it must be deprived from its owner, the trick is to make it look like the expropriation occurs by legitimate pluralistic processes both public and private, political and economic. Hedge funds are managed to accomplish this fictitiuos process and are now engaged in the public process on Capitol Hill where its critics will not condone, but will exonerate the fraud with a regulatory reform full of loopholes written into it by experts in the field. This describes The Bureaucratic Model of Power and Political Economy. It attains elite results through a means of decisional power with elite technocrats that suggests a pluralistic, Constitutional, process of accountability in operation.
Instead of the direct accountability and economic efficiencies of a free-market economics, We have an elite determination of what is fair and valuable. The inefficiencies of the command economy and the operation of an economy of scale is preserved to command crisis economics and politics in the future. without the bureaucracy engaged first and foremost to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, crisis is predictably determined to perpetual cycle of boom and bust and the consolidation of the wealth and power.
The element of fundamental economic certainty the hedge funding technique provides in a free market has been perverted to predictably cause a cost/benefit ratio: to command industry, markets, and prices (the profit or economic rent) to behave with a "certain" cost and benefit.
Consolidation of the capital, however, perverts the protective function to stabilize prices for a planned instability (volatility of buying long then selling short not to stabilize or protect from loss, but to manipulate prices to consolidate the wealth or cause loss for a capital gain) that, if timed, will cause predictable oscillations both micro and macro. It allows for manipulation of market prices, which is illegal.
The hedge fund managers now testifying on Capitol Hill are now engaged in a confidence game of convincing us that their activities are a reflection of fundamental economic realites that stabilize prices and drive investment into peak markets (profits) like capitalism is legitimately supposed to do. It is a fraud.
The hedge fund executives illegally manipulate prices and engage in fraudulent statements to explain price movements that are caused by mere mass movement of consolidated capital in and out of markets (the command). Instead of providing the public good of stabilizing market prices with realistic valuations as they claim, the buy-long-sell-short technique causes volatility and extreme uncertainty of valuation that is nothing but an arbitrary and capricious exercise of market power that violates the free market legitimacy of a pluralistic determination of "fair" market value.
The ability to command market values defines what free-market economics is not, and defines the practitioners of command economics as the criminal element, inimical to the pluralistic process of a collective bargain that legitimately determines what "fair value" is.
Claiming that the ability to command valuations is the result of free-market economics is pure nonsense. It is a fraud. Fraud in the marketplace is a crime against a civil society that values the peaceful processes of a pluralistic legitimacy of power, which is what our Constitution is clearly intended to ensure across all jurisdictional boundaries both public and private. Pluralism is commanded by The Constitution. It is the task of government authority to protect and defend it, to ensure it, in priority.
So President Bush delivered a speech on the benefit of maintaining a free market system that coincides with public investigation of the black-box financing technique, lending a sense of efficiency to what is entirely antithetical and inimical to free markets.
Since the black-box hedge fund technology has not been regulated, being therefore "free," the result is legitimately supposed to be beneficial to everyone. It is beneficial, efficient, by definition because it is free. The means justifies the ends in an unempirical, unscientific, tautology of syllogistic proof that for centuries led people, for example, to "believe" the earth is flat and static at the center of the universe.
Like the complex predcitable utility of Tyco Brahe's proof of retrograde planetary motion in macro physics, Bush's speech representing the utility of the current macro theory and practice of economics should be thrown out, junked, on grounds of complexity alone, much less because its political legitimacy of providing for the General Welfare is empirically disconfirmed in the most obvious way.
Yes, the system of economics Bush claims has the highest utility provides a high level of predictive certainty. It is predictably bad for the vast majority of The People and so complex that it requires elite management that consider themselves, and their expertise, beyond the vulgar accountability of The People, all of which is completely antithetical to the concept of freedom generally and a free-market economy in particular.
Bush's argument is both syllogistically disproven in theory and disconfirmed in practice. It also has been rejected by The People with a popular, legal non-consent of the governed. Bush's argument now occupies space within the circular file of clearly disconfirmed hypotheses and completely ridiculous arguments.
The reason our current economic crisis "is not failure of free markets" is because we do not have free markets. It is a failure of command economics: a failure of a consolidated marketplace commanded by hedge funds, private equity and dependancy on the Wal Mart business model in which an economy of scale is an economy of command.
That organizing for consolidated command and control is the model of inefficiency is why We have The Constitution. We need these hedge-fund managers like We The People need King George!
To argue the general benefit of the economic system and economic techniques now in operation is to publicly make a fool of yourself! We are not talking about a brand of beliefs out of favor here, we are talking about wholesale rejection of a failed theory and practice subject to the rigors of the scientific method in the modern world, easily identifying and separating empiricists from bureaucratic-executive court jestors masquerading as expert logicians arguing the secret knowledge, the exclusive higher understanding, of what freedom is and the path to attainment.
Rendering the financial system a virtual mystery cult of elite understanding is necessary to avoid accountability, legitimacy, something that a free market easily, simply, efficiently provides if We ensure it in priority.
Hedging the risk has become the exclusive knowledge and practice of this mysterious black box that the managers are telling public officials needs to remain the undisclosed, exclusive domain of the experts because it is too complex to be criticized by the ignorant masses, by the uninitiated public and its elected good offices.
Emerging from Plato's allegory of the cave, this is what we see in the full light of day.
Hedge funds function to consolidate the capital--the means of financing what we want and at what price. It functions to make the decision of finance the exclusive domain of the owners of the capital (like King George) who take ownership by "freely" commanding what is supposed to be a free market that checks the consolidation of the power, disallows command economy that cpmmands exclusive class distribution of rewards and deprivations, and determines the efficiency of markets to innovate and grow with full employment and low inflation.
The result of a free market ensured in priority is not indicated by massive debt and liquidity crisis, but by the reverse. It is a hypothesis we now have a mandate to fully test.
This is all about the ownership of the capital that decides what is produced and at what price. If The People own the capital, then they collectively decide by operation of the free and unconsolidated marketplace--a clearly verifiable, tranparent, visible means to ends legitimacy of power.
To make the decision of capital finance "exclusive" in order to ensure an inequity that causes inefficiencies to be managed by elits in crisis requires a technology, a technique, for taking ownership of the capital. It is necessary to consolidate The People's wealth and to do it with an inscrutible complexity immune to a public critique because it is contrary to a free-market legitimacy and declaring yourself of royal status is fundamentally, Constitutionally, illegal.
A system of finance and adminstration is created (Hamiltonianism) in which entities are created too big, complex and intertwined (consolidated) to fail that prey on entities too small, simple and unconsolidated to survive. To survive it is necessary to consolidate, to conform to an economy, a model, of scale so bigger is better and hedges the risk. The economy of scale does not create efficiency, it makes survival more certain and is capable of commanding inefficiencies and abuses that otherwise will not survive the accountability of free-market economics.
The consolidated entity is then "at liberty" to hedge the risk even further and ensure its survival in priority by eliminating the legitimate accountability, including the efficiencies, of a free market mechanics. The capital is consolidated, thus ensuring the continuous innovation of the means, the technological efficiency, of keeping the wealth, and markets, in consolidated command and control.
Where capital becomes "shared" or "spread around," it must be consolidated. So it is now necessary for hedge fund managers to argue the necessity of keeping the data on their operations (the black box) undisclosed. It needs to be undisclosed because manipulating markets and prices on command, and consolidating your savings, your capital, is illegitimate. It is a criminal activity inimical to civil society.
Pensions, IRA's, 401K's do not conform to the economy of scale and the Hamiltonian model until it is consolidated. If you believe that the model yields the highest productive efficiency, the ownership of the capital must be consolidated for the greatest good of society.
Since consolidating the wealth by definition means it must be deprived from its owner, the trick is to make it look like the expropriation occurs by legitimate pluralistic processes both public and private, political and economic. Hedge funds are managed to accomplish this fictitiuos process and are now engaged in the public process on Capitol Hill where its critics will not condone, but will exonerate the fraud with a regulatory reform full of loopholes written into it by experts in the field. This describes The Bureaucratic Model of Power and Political Economy. It attains elite results through a means of decisional power with elite technocrats that suggests a pluralistic, Constitutional, process of accountability in operation.
Instead of the direct accountability and economic efficiencies of a free-market economics, We have an elite determination of what is fair and valuable. The inefficiencies of the command economy and the operation of an economy of scale is preserved to command crisis economics and politics in the future. without the bureaucracy engaged first and foremost to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, crisis is predictably determined to perpetual cycle of boom and bust and the consolidation of the wealth and power.
Reinventing the Conservative Element of Power
The change of party identity in 2008 is more than just a political realignment from Republican to Democrat with an eventual cyclical swing back to Republican.
As it was at the founding of our nation, the power structure is dependent on The People buying-in to the structuring of its elements that are not properly identified by party identification. Foremost among The People's concerns was that The Revolution should not result in a strong central authority that will tax them into subjugation, and Jefferson warned of the effects of a Hamiltonian economic structure that would be very well realized by mid-Nineteenth Century in which The People were literally starving in the streets. Hardly the model of the General Welfare and a perfecting of the union.
Rejection of the conservative ideal is by deliberate cognition. We should not allow it to be reinvented in the guise of party realignment to cause a retrenchment of conservative principles, and the party apparatus that administers them, as We have in the past.
Disconfirmation of the conservative means-to-ends legitimacy has been declared by a collective action of non-consent. It is now necessary to restructure the elements of power so that its means-to-ends hypothesis is the clearly verifiable legitimacy of a popular consent, not the declaration of a power elite validated by authority of a controlled public process.
Where the conservative element of power originated with the nascent consent of the governed within a newly established nation with the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it has been rendered to be but by the consent of a ruling class of would-be kings, just as Jefferson surmised.
Freedom, sovereignty, is not bestowed, protected and defended from the top down. It is simply practiced from the bottom up. Structures that impede pluralistic processes of power must be eliminated if We want freedom. The first step, the political will, has been taken to reject the principles of conservatism in which the consolidation of power is legitimized by the nascent consent of the governed.
Rather than reinvented to once again assume the thrown of a popular consent by the partisan processes of collective identity, the conservative element of power is to be properly placed within the structure of power. It has properly earned its place at the fringe of credible political-economic theory and practice.
The conservative model of power provides us with what We should not do, and very surely indicates what we should.
Toggling party alignment is no substitute for a logically positive intelligence of The People toward a verifiable continuous improvement. Realignment of the party identifier is just a verifiable means to secure the ends of the status quo ante.
The change we need eminates from the decisive consent of the governed extending from the individual to identify the state rather than the public processes of the state giving identity to The People. One is a will to subjugation, the other is the will to freedom that is the clearly identifiable Will of The People that identifies the state with a properly clear and verifiable means-to-ends legitimacy.
The success of pursuing life, liberty and happiness is not the successful subjugation of The People so to define yourself as the rightful owner of consolidated wealth and power, having then earned identity as the power elite with the capacity to determine the extent, the opportunity, for The People's right to self-determination. The available choice, and the citizen's identity, is defined by a dummy variable, just like two-party politics, of compliance or non-compliance (no reward) with the satus quo ante. The election of 2008, however, has rewarded the choice of non-compliance the impetus for change empowered with the the force and legitimacy of publiv authority.
The Right to Self-Determination is every bit a Natural Right, forever poised to assert itself, by means of our own choosing, one way or another whether the proponents of the elitist (Hamiltonian) model of power like it or not. Resisting what is morally imperative by operation of our intellect (allowing for by administering to the collective wisdom, the General Will, and benefit, of The People) needlessly imperils civil society with punctuated events of natural correction typically characterized by needless suffering.
The suffering that accompanies the choice to ignore the righteousness of pluralistic means to ends is what The Constitution of the United States, to which our leadership swears to protect and defend, is fully designed to prevent. It provides us with the choice of freedom in our natural condition of a political self-determination, not to be improperly confused with, as conservatives would like us all to believe, socialism.
Conservatives that operate with the principle of rightfully subjecting The People to the reward of their rule apply a means to ends that is antithetical to our constitutional form of government. Self rule is not verified as a limited, exclusive reward of determining the self of others and crowning yourself the ruling class.
Our current economic crisis--rising prices, falling incomes, loss of savings and unemployment for The People (Reaganomics)--is not the result of a beneficent ruling class. No. It is the result of a maleficent class of elits determined to deprive The People to confirm and sustain what they consider the "rightful ownership" of your wealth in surplus.
The legitimacy of that surplused value, according to classical economic theory, is for reinvestment in YOU, not a reward of success to be horded and witheld by an elite to assume the role of tyrant (to govern with the sovereign right to rule) for the determination of YOUR fate and the opportunity to pursue YOUR life, YOUR liberty and YOUR happiness (the Jeffersonian critique of the Hamiltonian economic model that conservatives call soicalism and a tyranny Jefferson knew ensuring pluralism operates to prevent). It is an illegitimate model of power that neither extends from The People or protects them from enemies either foreign or domestic but, rather, operates to protect the enemies of civil society from the legitimate power, the legal sovereignty, of The People.
A peaceful and prosperous pluralism, a deconsolidation of power, ensuring power be exercised from the bottom up, aspiring to a more Jeffersonian form of government, is clearly in order as the change we need with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
We must be sure to understand the identity of the conservative element is entirely dependant on structuring the political-economic means of class society. Deprivation of The People, and the possibility of majority rule, is a necessary condition. It has always, and will always, result in economic crisis like what we have now because We cannot all be upper class by definition.
The conservative element will identify the measures required to eliminate the crisis as depriving you of the opportunity, the aspiration, to be upper class.
Understand that consolidation of wealth and power renders the opportunity for upward mobility virtually zero. Limiting opportunity is what it is designed and intended to do. Innovations are quickly consolidated and often its efficiency deprived to protect upper-class income at the expense of all other income classes. It is a virtual fraud. Consolidation of wealth and power ensures your being poorer, not richer in every respect, politically and economically.
The only way to ensure the wealth of our nation without events of punctuated crisis that make the rich richer and everyone else poorer is to ensure the deconsolidation of wealth and power. That will maximize the probability, the possibility, for the production of wealth, and the full and immediate effect of innovative efficiencies both in price and quality, with a secure stability, propogating throughout our global economy as the model of success.
Maximizing the opportunity for the production of the wealth of nations is the best way to protect ourselves from enemies both foreign and domestic. War and violence to secure an equitable share of the wealth, and power, is rendered obsolete. The distribution phase of the business cycle will not be dependant on a crisis phase of a cycle in which We keep making the same mistake over and over again, but the self-corrective, empirical means of forming a more perfect union with the operant means of a self-determination, and an intelligence that far exceeds the capacity of an exclusive, elitist access and administration of power.
Reinvention of the conservative element will be the opportunity that does not exist.
As it was at the founding of our nation, the power structure is dependent on The People buying-in to the structuring of its elements that are not properly identified by party identification. Foremost among The People's concerns was that The Revolution should not result in a strong central authority that will tax them into subjugation, and Jefferson warned of the effects of a Hamiltonian economic structure that would be very well realized by mid-Nineteenth Century in which The People were literally starving in the streets. Hardly the model of the General Welfare and a perfecting of the union.
Rejection of the conservative ideal is by deliberate cognition. We should not allow it to be reinvented in the guise of party realignment to cause a retrenchment of conservative principles, and the party apparatus that administers them, as We have in the past.
Disconfirmation of the conservative means-to-ends legitimacy has been declared by a collective action of non-consent. It is now necessary to restructure the elements of power so that its means-to-ends hypothesis is the clearly verifiable legitimacy of a popular consent, not the declaration of a power elite validated by authority of a controlled public process.
Where the conservative element of power originated with the nascent consent of the governed within a newly established nation with the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it has been rendered to be but by the consent of a ruling class of would-be kings, just as Jefferson surmised.
Freedom, sovereignty, is not bestowed, protected and defended from the top down. It is simply practiced from the bottom up. Structures that impede pluralistic processes of power must be eliminated if We want freedom. The first step, the political will, has been taken to reject the principles of conservatism in which the consolidation of power is legitimized by the nascent consent of the governed.
Rather than reinvented to once again assume the thrown of a popular consent by the partisan processes of collective identity, the conservative element of power is to be properly placed within the structure of power. It has properly earned its place at the fringe of credible political-economic theory and practice.
The conservative model of power provides us with what We should not do, and very surely indicates what we should.
Toggling party alignment is no substitute for a logically positive intelligence of The People toward a verifiable continuous improvement. Realignment of the party identifier is just a verifiable means to secure the ends of the status quo ante.
The change we need eminates from the decisive consent of the governed extending from the individual to identify the state rather than the public processes of the state giving identity to The People. One is a will to subjugation, the other is the will to freedom that is the clearly identifiable Will of The People that identifies the state with a properly clear and verifiable means-to-ends legitimacy.
The success of pursuing life, liberty and happiness is not the successful subjugation of The People so to define yourself as the rightful owner of consolidated wealth and power, having then earned identity as the power elite with the capacity to determine the extent, the opportunity, for The People's right to self-determination. The available choice, and the citizen's identity, is defined by a dummy variable, just like two-party politics, of compliance or non-compliance (no reward) with the satus quo ante. The election of 2008, however, has rewarded the choice of non-compliance the impetus for change empowered with the the force and legitimacy of publiv authority.
The Right to Self-Determination is every bit a Natural Right, forever poised to assert itself, by means of our own choosing, one way or another whether the proponents of the elitist (Hamiltonian) model of power like it or not. Resisting what is morally imperative by operation of our intellect (allowing for by administering to the collective wisdom, the General Will, and benefit, of The People) needlessly imperils civil society with punctuated events of natural correction typically characterized by needless suffering.
The suffering that accompanies the choice to ignore the righteousness of pluralistic means to ends is what The Constitution of the United States, to which our leadership swears to protect and defend, is fully designed to prevent. It provides us with the choice of freedom in our natural condition of a political self-determination, not to be improperly confused with, as conservatives would like us all to believe, socialism.
Conservatives that operate with the principle of rightfully subjecting The People to the reward of their rule apply a means to ends that is antithetical to our constitutional form of government. Self rule is not verified as a limited, exclusive reward of determining the self of others and crowning yourself the ruling class.
Our current economic crisis--rising prices, falling incomes, loss of savings and unemployment for The People (Reaganomics)--is not the result of a beneficent ruling class. No. It is the result of a maleficent class of elits determined to deprive The People to confirm and sustain what they consider the "rightful ownership" of your wealth in surplus.
The legitimacy of that surplused value, according to classical economic theory, is for reinvestment in YOU, not a reward of success to be horded and witheld by an elite to assume the role of tyrant (to govern with the sovereign right to rule) for the determination of YOUR fate and the opportunity to pursue YOUR life, YOUR liberty and YOUR happiness (the Jeffersonian critique of the Hamiltonian economic model that conservatives call soicalism and a tyranny Jefferson knew ensuring pluralism operates to prevent). It is an illegitimate model of power that neither extends from The People or protects them from enemies either foreign or domestic but, rather, operates to protect the enemies of civil society from the legitimate power, the legal sovereignty, of The People.
A peaceful and prosperous pluralism, a deconsolidation of power, ensuring power be exercised from the bottom up, aspiring to a more Jeffersonian form of government, is clearly in order as the change we need with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
We must be sure to understand the identity of the conservative element is entirely dependant on structuring the political-economic means of class society. Deprivation of The People, and the possibility of majority rule, is a necessary condition. It has always, and will always, result in economic crisis like what we have now because We cannot all be upper class by definition.
The conservative element will identify the measures required to eliminate the crisis as depriving you of the opportunity, the aspiration, to be upper class.
Understand that consolidation of wealth and power renders the opportunity for upward mobility virtually zero. Limiting opportunity is what it is designed and intended to do. Innovations are quickly consolidated and often its efficiency deprived to protect upper-class income at the expense of all other income classes. It is a virtual fraud. Consolidation of wealth and power ensures your being poorer, not richer in every respect, politically and economically.
The only way to ensure the wealth of our nation without events of punctuated crisis that make the rich richer and everyone else poorer is to ensure the deconsolidation of wealth and power. That will maximize the probability, the possibility, for the production of wealth, and the full and immediate effect of innovative efficiencies both in price and quality, with a secure stability, propogating throughout our global economy as the model of success.
Maximizing the opportunity for the production of the wealth of nations is the best way to protect ourselves from enemies both foreign and domestic. War and violence to secure an equitable share of the wealth, and power, is rendered obsolete. The distribution phase of the business cycle will not be dependant on a crisis phase of a cycle in which We keep making the same mistake over and over again, but the self-corrective, empirical means of forming a more perfect union with the operant means of a self-determination, and an intelligence that far exceeds the capacity of an exclusive, elitist access and administration of power.
Reinvention of the conservative element will be the opportunity that does not exist.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Re-Modeling the Iteration
With the election of Senator Obama, we can organize a newly effective political-eonomic fractile iteration.
Organization theorists generally agree that the morality of the population generally reflects its leadership. The deduction is only partially true. The economic crisis we are in reflects a conformity with a morality of greed and avarice, for example, that is systematically instilled by a practical model of elitist power that iterates throughout the bureaucratic structure right down to the individual.
At the individual level is where we see the structuralist model break down. A more Jeffersonian model of government in which the legitimacy of power is empirically built and verified from the bottom up will iterate a new structure of power.
A more pluralistic model allows for the morality of The People's wisdom to iterate a self-similarity into the echelons of leadership. The result will be an organizational efficiency of means to ends that moral concepts are largely concerned with in practice, but become the teleological claptrap of elitist moral inducements, like "spreading the wealth around will makes us less productive," and even more insidious, to suggest that re-capitalizing the accumulated capital through a more progressive tax code is tantamount to stealing it from its rightful owner.
The moral concepts and practices, like anything in Nature, are due for a technical correction. To correct itself for what is truly righteous. It is an ontological event that has the teleology of human habilations converging with human ethical intelligence to form the pragmatics of achieving the good life, which cannot be attained without it being "spread around."
Obama naturally fits this ontological convergence to form a new iteration of our self-concept that conservatives have hopelessly endeavored to prevent by every possible means throughout our political-economic history. The ontology of the corrective event is not to be transcended by operation of elitist conceit to power. The truth just "is" and ontologically asserts itself regardless of our teleological means to induce the ends of power.
Obama is the catalyst for change, not the cause of it. He will build the coalition for change we need, but We The People make it happen, We iterate the good life to the upper echelons of power, from family to neighborhood, from community to nation, from nation to the world. We The People are truly sovereign.
Organization theorists generally agree that the morality of the population generally reflects its leadership. The deduction is only partially true. The economic crisis we are in reflects a conformity with a morality of greed and avarice, for example, that is systematically instilled by a practical model of elitist power that iterates throughout the bureaucratic structure right down to the individual.
At the individual level is where we see the structuralist model break down. A more Jeffersonian model of government in which the legitimacy of power is empirically built and verified from the bottom up will iterate a new structure of power.
A more pluralistic model allows for the morality of The People's wisdom to iterate a self-similarity into the echelons of leadership. The result will be an organizational efficiency of means to ends that moral concepts are largely concerned with in practice, but become the teleological claptrap of elitist moral inducements, like "spreading the wealth around will makes us less productive," and even more insidious, to suggest that re-capitalizing the accumulated capital through a more progressive tax code is tantamount to stealing it from its rightful owner.
The moral concepts and practices, like anything in Nature, are due for a technical correction. To correct itself for what is truly righteous. It is an ontological event that has the teleology of human habilations converging with human ethical intelligence to form the pragmatics of achieving the good life, which cannot be attained without it being "spread around."
Obama naturally fits this ontological convergence to form a new iteration of our self-concept that conservatives have hopelessly endeavored to prevent by every possible means throughout our political-economic history. The ontology of the corrective event is not to be transcended by operation of elitist conceit to power. The truth just "is" and ontologically asserts itself regardless of our teleological means to induce the ends of power.
Obama is the catalyst for change, not the cause of it. He will build the coalition for change we need, but We The People make it happen, We iterate the good life to the upper echelons of power, from family to neighborhood, from community to nation, from nation to the world. We The People are truly sovereign.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Who Decides?
The conservative criticism of Obama's message and the fear of a socialist sentiment is a legitimate concern related to the promise of freedom in which We are ALL Constitutionally endowed.
To brand Obama as a socialist is ridiculous. Unlike his predecessor, and would-be successor, when he swears to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States it will not be to antithetically administer the command and control of a power elite.
Socialism is a consolidated conceptual model of government. It is an elitist model of power and political economy in which an elite decide what is to be produced, the quantity, the quality, the price, who is to produce it and the value, the compensation, of the producers, including the management. It is a command economy.
The elite of our consolidated capitalism, of our command economy, decide whether we produce expensive homes and yachts and other class commodities while the rest of the world goes without the basic needs. The higher value is supposed to, in theory, trickle down to provide for the general welfare by deciding who and what has the most value in service to it, and by force of the argument, what is not provided for, by command of the bid on the price, is the best approximation of what the general welfare is.
Like Obama says, this economic theory is a very clear failure. The trickle-down hypothesis is disconfirmed by the brutal force of the evidence. If We do not throw it out to test a new hypothesis (the obvious alternative being to finance a pluralistic economic model--what a model of consolidated power is not and what our Constitution is designed to prevent), then We The People must be entirely stupid, and stupid We are not!
We are a creative, innovative, pragmatic, highly productive people. Relying on the leadership of McCain and company just condemns us to the failed model and legitimacy of the past.
Arguing we should conserve the model we have now to ensure a self-determined fate that is clearly not our own, now that's stupid!
The People are sovereign.
Let The Will of the People rule.
Let freedom reign!
Obama/Biden 2008!
To brand Obama as a socialist is ridiculous. Unlike his predecessor, and would-be successor, when he swears to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States it will not be to antithetically administer the command and control of a power elite.
Socialism is a consolidated conceptual model of government. It is an elitist model of power and political economy in which an elite decide what is to be produced, the quantity, the quality, the price, who is to produce it and the value, the compensation, of the producers, including the management. It is a command economy.
The elite of our consolidated capitalism, of our command economy, decide whether we produce expensive homes and yachts and other class commodities while the rest of the world goes without the basic needs. The higher value is supposed to, in theory, trickle down to provide for the general welfare by deciding who and what has the most value in service to it, and by force of the argument, what is not provided for, by command of the bid on the price, is the best approximation of what the general welfare is.
Like Obama says, this economic theory is a very clear failure. The trickle-down hypothesis is disconfirmed by the brutal force of the evidence. If We do not throw it out to test a new hypothesis (the obvious alternative being to finance a pluralistic economic model--what a model of consolidated power is not and what our Constitution is designed to prevent), then We The People must be entirely stupid, and stupid We are not!
We are a creative, innovative, pragmatic, highly productive people. Relying on the leadership of McCain and company just condemns us to the failed model and legitimacy of the past.
Arguing we should conserve the model we have now to ensure a self-determined fate that is clearly not our own, now that's stupid!
The People are sovereign.
Let The Will of the People rule.
Let freedom reign!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Simple and Direct
A politician you can trust is simple, direct, and empirical.
Senator Obama says the crisis we are in is no accident. "It is the direct result of a failed economic theory." It is a political statement that does not rely on soliciting the confidence of a sophisticated rhetoric to be believed in or not, but simply relies on the empirical confidence that can only compel a person's trust.
This simple, direct, empirical speech, "my friends," condemns ideology to the dustbin of failed beliefs and expectations.
It's time for the means to real freedom, to real prosperity, to a real creative, entrepreneurial spirit that is not defined by being in servitude to the conceits of others, but the fulfillment of the self, actualized in the pursuit of the good life. It is time for the political will to allow it to happen.
The People are already standing in line to make it happen!
The utility of providing the rich with all the capital they want, the poor with what they then need, and being stuck with the bill in the middle, is spent. It is passe'. It's time to move on.
Sharing the burden to fully Provide for the General Welfare will not rob the rich of their success, "my friends," but allow for the success of The People's wise beneficence and productive providence to have the full effect of a peaceful prosperity.
The line is long to cast the vote for change we need!
Obama/Biden, and David Boswell, U.S. House for the 2nd District of Kentucky!
David Boswell will not sell your jobs to the highest bidder and leave you with a huge tax bill to pay the employer for a job. He will not put your jobs on a boat to China! Republican Bret Guthrie will!!
Senator Obama says the crisis we are in is no accident. "It is the direct result of a failed economic theory." It is a political statement that does not rely on soliciting the confidence of a sophisticated rhetoric to be believed in or not, but simply relies on the empirical confidence that can only compel a person's trust.
This simple, direct, empirical speech, "my friends," condemns ideology to the dustbin of failed beliefs and expectations.
It's time for the means to real freedom, to real prosperity, to a real creative, entrepreneurial spirit that is not defined by being in servitude to the conceits of others, but the fulfillment of the self, actualized in the pursuit of the good life. It is time for the political will to allow it to happen.
The People are already standing in line to make it happen!
The utility of providing the rich with all the capital they want, the poor with what they then need, and being stuck with the bill in the middle, is spent. It is passe'. It's time to move on.
Sharing the burden to fully Provide for the General Welfare will not rob the rich of their success, "my friends," but allow for the success of The People's wise beneficence and productive providence to have the full effect of a peaceful prosperity.
The line is long to cast the vote for change we need!
Obama/Biden, and David Boswell, U.S. House for the 2nd District of Kentucky!
David Boswell will not sell your jobs to the highest bidder and leave you with a huge tax bill to pay the employer for a job. He will not put your jobs on a boat to China! Republican Bret Guthrie will!!
A Vote for Productive Incentive
We hear candidate McCain argue that Obama's economic policy will deprive The People of productive incentive.
It is the classic conservative argument that productive incentive comes from the top down, from the managerial skill of organizing, or "factoring" resources to provide what we want and need. A progressive tax code, they argue, renders the capital necessary for factoring unproductive because it does not have the full capacity of the return on investment. It therefore will not be optimally invested.
Furthermore, they argue, a regressive tax code is only necessary to support the needless operation of government regulatory authority and wasteful welfare programs. The conclusion is that taxation is a non-productive incentive and should be minimized if not eliminated.
According to the conservative argument, a federal government was founded to ensure the sovereignty of The People; that is, to ensure eliminating the non-productive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth. The best way to provide society with what it wants and needs is to deconsolidate power and constitutionally endow The People with organizing its means.
That is exactly what Obama's economic plan will do: diminish the verified unproductive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth.
It is exactly what McCain's economic plan will not do: provide the means of The People the productive incentive, the opportunity, to provide what we want and need; what allowing for the consolidation of the capital will not verifiably do without punctuated periods of deprivational crisis like we have now.
If you want to vote for sure means of deprivcation and a non-productive incentive of the capital, vote for McCain.
If you want to ensure the free flow of capital and the maximum productive incentive that comes with it, vote for Obama/Biden.
It is the classic conservative argument that productive incentive comes from the top down, from the managerial skill of organizing, or "factoring" resources to provide what we want and need. A progressive tax code, they argue, renders the capital necessary for factoring unproductive because it does not have the full capacity of the return on investment. It therefore will not be optimally invested.
Furthermore, they argue, a regressive tax code is only necessary to support the needless operation of government regulatory authority and wasteful welfare programs. The conclusion is that taxation is a non-productive incentive and should be minimized if not eliminated.
According to the conservative argument, a federal government was founded to ensure the sovereignty of The People; that is, to ensure eliminating the non-productive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth. The best way to provide society with what it wants and needs is to deconsolidate power and constitutionally endow The People with organizing its means.
That is exactly what Obama's economic plan will do: diminish the verified unproductive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth.
It is exactly what McCain's economic plan will not do: provide the means of The People the productive incentive, the opportunity, to provide what we want and need; what allowing for the consolidation of the capital will not verifiably do without punctuated periods of deprivational crisis like we have now.
If you want to vote for sure means of deprivcation and a non-productive incentive of the capital, vote for McCain.
If you want to ensure the free flow of capital and the maximum productive incentive that comes with it, vote for Obama/Biden.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Support and Resistance
If you trade equities, you probably notice that support more often than not becomes resistance. Popular analytics are full of this observation and refer to it as psychological modeling rather than identify it as the elitist model that it is to accurately predict price movements. Admitting an elitist model of consolidated wealth will not get you published.
While being psychologically tricked into a market position is licit, manipulation through a disproportionate amount of concentrated capital smacks of an illicit means for fixing the price.
The support-becomes-resistance technique of price manipulation forces the trader to buy-in to a ceiling in order to establish a predictable basis. The result is to manipulate the small investor into a constant wash. It is less important for the power of consolidated capital to profit from program trading--if "you" buy in at X THEN resist at X--than to consolidate the funds available to the market, like 401k funds. It is all important to acquire the means to consolidate, even if it means taking a loss, because it is THE formula for gaining power and keeping it.
Consolidating the value affords the ability to command it in the guise of predicting it; to, in other words, manipulate prices.
Support-to-resistance program trading triggers exchanges to automatically suspend trading to prevent a program collapse of the market. It is rather emblematic of our faceless, impersonal consolidation of wealth and power that, if left unchecked, could result in untold devastation, even for the elite of power, so it is programmed, fixed, to be technically impossible.
The countermove for the small investor is to average-in at the new support level determined by the short-interest program indicator. The bad part is that it requires the small investor use twice the capital to achieve the expected return on a typical technical indication. The indicator must be modified to account for the program trade manipulation of the price with the consolidated capital, which is at record levels. The trader cannot wait for the modifier, per se, and not spend the extra cash since whether a position is taken or not triggers the resistance program.
That record level of consolidation is the prime determinant of our current macro-economic status, in a crisis mode. Where the economy should be at a level of technical support, it becomes resistance. So, we are looking at interest rates getting resistance at historically low levels with high levels of inflation. The result is a highly arbitrary, unpredictable, bureaucratic macro model of command and control that is only predictable from the inside--the elitist model of power.
Command control of our economy is what ails us. It will be an Obama/Biden executive that will reverse the trend for command economy that comes with the over-consolidation of the capital. This reversal will not be socialism which preserves the consolidation of power. We will continue with the command macro if we have a McCain executive.
The progressive tax code Obama proposes will begin to deconsolidate the capital for a macro that will allow typical technical indicators to have predicitve utility without modification. That lack of a needed modifier will indicate that the progression of the tax code is working to deconsolidate the capital to build a more pluralistic economy and a model of power that does not consolidate the opportunity to grow your personal wealth, but fully allows for it!
Obama/Biden 2008!
While being psychologically tricked into a market position is licit, manipulation through a disproportionate amount of concentrated capital smacks of an illicit means for fixing the price.
The support-becomes-resistance technique of price manipulation forces the trader to buy-in to a ceiling in order to establish a predictable basis. The result is to manipulate the small investor into a constant wash. It is less important for the power of consolidated capital to profit from program trading--if "you" buy in at X THEN resist at X--than to consolidate the funds available to the market, like 401k funds. It is all important to acquire the means to consolidate, even if it means taking a loss, because it is THE formula for gaining power and keeping it.
Consolidating the value affords the ability to command it in the guise of predicting it; to, in other words, manipulate prices.
Support-to-resistance program trading triggers exchanges to automatically suspend trading to prevent a program collapse of the market. It is rather emblematic of our faceless, impersonal consolidation of wealth and power that, if left unchecked, could result in untold devastation, even for the elite of power, so it is programmed, fixed, to be technically impossible.
The countermove for the small investor is to average-in at the new support level determined by the short-interest program indicator. The bad part is that it requires the small investor use twice the capital to achieve the expected return on a typical technical indication. The indicator must be modified to account for the program trade manipulation of the price with the consolidated capital, which is at record levels. The trader cannot wait for the modifier, per se, and not spend the extra cash since whether a position is taken or not triggers the resistance program.
That record level of consolidation is the prime determinant of our current macro-economic status, in a crisis mode. Where the economy should be at a level of technical support, it becomes resistance. So, we are looking at interest rates getting resistance at historically low levels with high levels of inflation. The result is a highly arbitrary, unpredictable, bureaucratic macro model of command and control that is only predictable from the inside--the elitist model of power.
Command control of our economy is what ails us. It will be an Obama/Biden executive that will reverse the trend for command economy that comes with the over-consolidation of the capital. This reversal will not be socialism which preserves the consolidation of power. We will continue with the command macro if we have a McCain executive.
The progressive tax code Obama proposes will begin to deconsolidate the capital for a macro that will allow typical technical indicators to have predicitve utility without modification. That lack of a needed modifier will indicate that the progression of the tax code is working to deconsolidate the capital to build a more pluralistic economy and a model of power that does not consolidate the opportunity to grow your personal wealth, but fully allows for it!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Value Schemas
Keeping Account of Value and Values
The 11 percent uptick of the U.S. equity market yesterday is explained with a schema that accounts for the value gained in terms of preserving the expected normative values associated with the interpretation of profit and loss. The recent devaluation of assets then appears less as a zero-sum gain of possible retributed value.
The strong uptick fits a technical schema, a bear market bounce, for example, that safely describes the volatility as a natural occurrence of corrected valuation. The most significant determinant, however, is the over-accumulation of capital that is arbiting, commanding, valuations instead of free-market economics.
Yes, it is a function of supply and demand, but an over-supply of capital in the hands of just a few market players that oversold the market shares to buy them back yesterday with a capital gain at both ends of the margin with little benefit to anyone else. Big noney flow out, big money flow in accounts for the volatility and the valuations. It is the determinant least talked about because it is the source of power (the determinant) that if changed, if deconsolidated, changes the balance of power.
The real determinant that accounts for value is not a part of the normative schema except to regard its change as a moral hazard (a normative cognitive value) that disrupts the "natural" order and stability of the power structure (a predictive empirical value of ensuring the status quo ante).
Like Obama says, McCain describes bottom-up growth as socialism (a conservative schema) when it is really economic opportunity, simple, direct (not trickled down with complex financial derivatives), with value easily accounted for both in means and ends.
We all think with concepts that are schematized into categories and hierarchies to decsribe and explain, if not to predict, what we perceive to be reality.
Plato is often described as the first psychologist because he describes a world of ideas, concepts, and a schema for perfecting the state he called "The Republic." His description of the individual and the state is more an accurate description of the cognitive process than an ideal state, but the relationship he describes is timelessly useful and fundamental to our understanding of the cognitive process when we make an account of value.
Much of what we concern ourselves with to be accounted for in relation to the state is an economic value. What am I worth? What is the value of my assets and why? Who must sacrifice for the good of the state and why?
The answer to these questions are built into a schema of what value is, conceptualized and operationalized into categories and hierarchies of value classification. The cognitive process of accounting for the value gives the process of creating that value a legitimacy that is the essence of both economic and political power and the way it is structured, or schematized, into a cognitive understanding, or accountability, of it and what is to be expected of it.
The legitimacy of power based on the schema creates an expected value on the outcome. When that value is violated, the failed expectation becomes a value that must be managed to preserve the legitimate value of the schema and the loss of value that was expected. That requires a cognitive process, a story, a narrative, that describes and explains the missing value, and accounts for it in the world of ideas while it is absent in the real, material world.
Reconciling the two values is to manage the retributive value inherent to any economic system. It can be rationalized, put off and accumulated, or it can be paid.
The process of creating economic value, storing it and sharing it in a political-economic process of accumulation and distribution is as much a cognitive process of schematic accounting of the value in abstraction as the reality of its conspicuous consumption and a demonstration of class and an expected hierarchy of power to support it.
Where once war was primarily the means of distributing accumulated value (the capital), a cycle of war and peace, we now monetize the value into complex abstractions that are "ideal" for schematic cognitive control of the accounted value.
We find ourselves in an evolved system of creating and storing value, and a schema to account for it, with a failing expectation and an accumulated retributive value that is evermore demanded to be paid in the real world. A good part of the means to manage the demand for payment of the value is to micro manage it into micro schemas of seemingly unpredictable, random events that cannot account for value gained or lost, like the volatility of equity markets.
Any economidt will tell you that not much changes day to day to account for a ten percent or more intraday swing in the equities market. It just seems to happen with a panoply of schemas offered to explain it that tends to keep our expectation of the value to be retributed safely in the world of ideas.
Notice how the Obama campaign went from "change we can believe in" to "change we need." The change reflects the reality of an extreme failure of expectation, an accurate accounting of the missing value, an expected retributing of that value without endlessly searching for it within the boundless domain of the ideal world whether it be socialism, capitalism, or any other prototypical "ism."
A clear, unadorned accounting of value is being demanded with an "ism" that is not prototypically confined to, and lost in, the world of ideas, but to be categorically identified and accurately attributed in the real world of what is righteously expected. That is the a-prototypical alternative of pragmatism. Not what fits the prototypical schema of class consciousness, but the practicality of what righteously works to create and distribute wealth, value, with an accountability fully verified by the reality of our expectations.
The 11 percent uptick of the U.S. equity market yesterday is explained with a schema that accounts for the value gained in terms of preserving the expected normative values associated with the interpretation of profit and loss. The recent devaluation of assets then appears less as a zero-sum gain of possible retributed value.
The strong uptick fits a technical schema, a bear market bounce, for example, that safely describes the volatility as a natural occurrence of corrected valuation. The most significant determinant, however, is the over-accumulation of capital that is arbiting, commanding, valuations instead of free-market economics.
Yes, it is a function of supply and demand, but an over-supply of capital in the hands of just a few market players that oversold the market shares to buy them back yesterday with a capital gain at both ends of the margin with little benefit to anyone else. Big noney flow out, big money flow in accounts for the volatility and the valuations. It is the determinant least talked about because it is the source of power (the determinant) that if changed, if deconsolidated, changes the balance of power.
The real determinant that accounts for value is not a part of the normative schema except to regard its change as a moral hazard (a normative cognitive value) that disrupts the "natural" order and stability of the power structure (a predictive empirical value of ensuring the status quo ante).
Like Obama says, McCain describes bottom-up growth as socialism (a conservative schema) when it is really economic opportunity, simple, direct (not trickled down with complex financial derivatives), with value easily accounted for both in means and ends.
We all think with concepts that are schematized into categories and hierarchies to decsribe and explain, if not to predict, what we perceive to be reality.
Plato is often described as the first psychologist because he describes a world of ideas, concepts, and a schema for perfecting the state he called "The Republic." His description of the individual and the state is more an accurate description of the cognitive process than an ideal state, but the relationship he describes is timelessly useful and fundamental to our understanding of the cognitive process when we make an account of value.
Much of what we concern ourselves with to be accounted for in relation to the state is an economic value. What am I worth? What is the value of my assets and why? Who must sacrifice for the good of the state and why?
The answer to these questions are built into a schema of what value is, conceptualized and operationalized into categories and hierarchies of value classification. The cognitive process of accounting for the value gives the process of creating that value a legitimacy that is the essence of both economic and political power and the way it is structured, or schematized, into a cognitive understanding, or accountability, of it and what is to be expected of it.
The legitimacy of power based on the schema creates an expected value on the outcome. When that value is violated, the failed expectation becomes a value that must be managed to preserve the legitimate value of the schema and the loss of value that was expected. That requires a cognitive process, a story, a narrative, that describes and explains the missing value, and accounts for it in the world of ideas while it is absent in the real, material world.
Reconciling the two values is to manage the retributive value inherent to any economic system. It can be rationalized, put off and accumulated, or it can be paid.
The process of creating economic value, storing it and sharing it in a political-economic process of accumulation and distribution is as much a cognitive process of schematic accounting of the value in abstraction as the reality of its conspicuous consumption and a demonstration of class and an expected hierarchy of power to support it.
Where once war was primarily the means of distributing accumulated value (the capital), a cycle of war and peace, we now monetize the value into complex abstractions that are "ideal" for schematic cognitive control of the accounted value.
We find ourselves in an evolved system of creating and storing value, and a schema to account for it, with a failing expectation and an accumulated retributive value that is evermore demanded to be paid in the real world. A good part of the means to manage the demand for payment of the value is to micro manage it into micro schemas of seemingly unpredictable, random events that cannot account for value gained or lost, like the volatility of equity markets.
Any economidt will tell you that not much changes day to day to account for a ten percent or more intraday swing in the equities market. It just seems to happen with a panoply of schemas offered to explain it that tends to keep our expectation of the value to be retributed safely in the world of ideas.
Notice how the Obama campaign went from "change we can believe in" to "change we need." The change reflects the reality of an extreme failure of expectation, an accurate accounting of the missing value, an expected retributing of that value without endlessly searching for it within the boundless domain of the ideal world whether it be socialism, capitalism, or any other prototypical "ism."
A clear, unadorned accounting of value is being demanded with an "ism" that is not prototypically confined to, and lost in, the world of ideas, but to be categorically identified and accurately attributed in the real world of what is righteously expected. That is the a-prototypical alternative of pragmatism. Not what fits the prototypical schema of class consciousness, but the practicality of what righteously works to create and distribute wealth, value, with an accountability fully verified by the reality of our expectations.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
It's Only Money
The Perception of Value and Money
If you have been following the analytics on the current economic crisis, what most analysts agree on is that it is easy to overvalue assets and leverage into a crisis.
We need to operate with a predictive utility that allows for policies and programs that avoid crisis.
I am forever hearing that the candidates and the pundits did not foresee the current economic crisis. Punditry requires an understanding that fundamentally makes the pundit aware of the effects of overvalued assets and the leveraging of value that is empirically measured by the value of the currency--money.
Rather than the complexity, a willingness to ignore the indicators of crisis, or at least not account for it, explains the lack of predictive utility, and reflects a generally conservative bias.
Biased control over policy is something to be marginalized for a People's Pragmatism in which a predictive utility is operationalized to provide policies and programs that are devised, implemented and evaluated with an empirical methodology of verification. The best verification is an easy verification of The People, with the true consent of the governed.
So what is your house really worth? What's your 401k really worth? What's the value of your labor really worth? The empirical measure is the value of the money supply--a Keynesian measure of supply and demand--being determined by financial elits that consider themselves to be better than the mere sovereignty of The People, and should be rewarded with value that they determine to be more for them and less for The People.
That added, elite value must be, through a market system, leveraged from The People through the invisible, inscrutible, gnostic mysticism of monetary mechanics. The legitimacy is, however, easily verifiable: does it result in a crisis of technical re-pricing of risk and valuation of assets that just results in the wealthy elit having more and The People having less? If yes, then the process is verifiably illegitimate and does not have the legal consent of the governed. Throw it out! and test another hypothesis. Don't just keep making the same mistake over and over. That's idiocy! The People are not idiots! They are the trusting victims of elits that rig the system to violate the public trust without accountability.
A system is needed, therefore, that allows for the necessary ease of direct accountability, an ease of verification and a ready sanction. That mechanism is a free and unconsoolidated marketplace. Without it, there is just an eternal sea of arbitrary valuations that require technical correction with punctuated crisis events.
For example, the samll investor never knows what an equity is really worth because the people that manage the assets are apt to commit a fraud on that value and, often can get away with it at a huge profit. The real value is only known on the inside. When the truth is revealed, the value is lost to the outsider and results in a zer-sum gain for the fraud.
A free market that allows for a more equitable bid and a quick and sure replevin of ill-gotten gain will assuredly minimize the fraud and effect a verifiable valuation in priority.
Insurance companies and auto manufacturers are now in line to receive public-financed bail out funding. They are organized to be too big to fail. Their valuation, therefore, is determined by the organizational model. That model can be easily reversed to produce a testable, verifiable, easily measureable result that is likely to be the reverse of the failed alternative.
Instead of publicly financing to merge them up into inefficient behemoths prone to fraud and all manner of abuse, finance them into an organized technology that requires a clearly accountable efficiency, responsibility, in order to survive. The way the market is being financed now, in crisis to crisis, is to reward fraud, abuse and inefficiency. The bigger and, therefore, more apt to be overvalued with corruption and inefficiencies, the more likely to survive.
That not allowing for multi-million dollar compensation of executives that drive our economy into crisis is considered to be a moral hazard because it discourages "the best and the brightest" from seeking the top positions of decisional power and administration of power is quite telling. That valuation is from the top down, not the bottom up valuation of a free-market accountability. The value is the arbitrary product of a command structure of power (elitism), not the consent of the governed (pluralism).
The Fed is poised to reduce the interest rate a half point, a top-down measure that will devalue the currency. It will not spur growth, it will, rather, give the banks an additional spread on the leverage which distorts valuations from the top down.
The effect of all this support for inefficiency accumulates in the value of the national debt which affects the value of the currency, and that serves to arbitrate the value of your home, your savings, the value of your labor, instead of your direct accountability in the marketplace. The system is so huge that it seems out of our control, and money is so readily handed out to reward corrupt inefficiencies that it is trivialized. "It's only money." The value of The People is trivialized right along with it. It's time for that to change!
It's time for change we need!
Obama/Biden 2008!
If you have been following the analytics on the current economic crisis, what most analysts agree on is that it is easy to overvalue assets and leverage into a crisis.
We need to operate with a predictive utility that allows for policies and programs that avoid crisis.
I am forever hearing that the candidates and the pundits did not foresee the current economic crisis. Punditry requires an understanding that fundamentally makes the pundit aware of the effects of overvalued assets and the leveraging of value that is empirically measured by the value of the currency--money.
Rather than the complexity, a willingness to ignore the indicators of crisis, or at least not account for it, explains the lack of predictive utility, and reflects a generally conservative bias.
Biased control over policy is something to be marginalized for a People's Pragmatism in which a predictive utility is operationalized to provide policies and programs that are devised, implemented and evaluated with an empirical methodology of verification. The best verification is an easy verification of The People, with the true consent of the governed.
So what is your house really worth? What's your 401k really worth? What's the value of your labor really worth? The empirical measure is the value of the money supply--a Keynesian measure of supply and demand--being determined by financial elits that consider themselves to be better than the mere sovereignty of The People, and should be rewarded with value that they determine to be more for them and less for The People.
That added, elite value must be, through a market system, leveraged from The People through the invisible, inscrutible, gnostic mysticism of monetary mechanics. The legitimacy is, however, easily verifiable: does it result in a crisis of technical re-pricing of risk and valuation of assets that just results in the wealthy elit having more and The People having less? If yes, then the process is verifiably illegitimate and does not have the legal consent of the governed. Throw it out! and test another hypothesis. Don't just keep making the same mistake over and over. That's idiocy! The People are not idiots! They are the trusting victims of elits that rig the system to violate the public trust without accountability.
A system is needed, therefore, that allows for the necessary ease of direct accountability, an ease of verification and a ready sanction. That mechanism is a free and unconsoolidated marketplace. Without it, there is just an eternal sea of arbitrary valuations that require technical correction with punctuated crisis events.
For example, the samll investor never knows what an equity is really worth because the people that manage the assets are apt to commit a fraud on that value and, often can get away with it at a huge profit. The real value is only known on the inside. When the truth is revealed, the value is lost to the outsider and results in a zer-sum gain for the fraud.
A free market that allows for a more equitable bid and a quick and sure replevin of ill-gotten gain will assuredly minimize the fraud and effect a verifiable valuation in priority.
Insurance companies and auto manufacturers are now in line to receive public-financed bail out funding. They are organized to be too big to fail. Their valuation, therefore, is determined by the organizational model. That model can be easily reversed to produce a testable, verifiable, easily measureable result that is likely to be the reverse of the failed alternative.
Instead of publicly financing to merge them up into inefficient behemoths prone to fraud and all manner of abuse, finance them into an organized technology that requires a clearly accountable efficiency, responsibility, in order to survive. The way the market is being financed now, in crisis to crisis, is to reward fraud, abuse and inefficiency. The bigger and, therefore, more apt to be overvalued with corruption and inefficiencies, the more likely to survive.
That not allowing for multi-million dollar compensation of executives that drive our economy into crisis is considered to be a moral hazard because it discourages "the best and the brightest" from seeking the top positions of decisional power and administration of power is quite telling. That valuation is from the top down, not the bottom up valuation of a free-market accountability. The value is the arbitrary product of a command structure of power (elitism), not the consent of the governed (pluralism).
The Fed is poised to reduce the interest rate a half point, a top-down measure that will devalue the currency. It will not spur growth, it will, rather, give the banks an additional spread on the leverage which distorts valuations from the top down.
The effect of all this support for inefficiency accumulates in the value of the national debt which affects the value of the currency, and that serves to arbitrate the value of your home, your savings, the value of your labor, instead of your direct accountability in the marketplace. The system is so huge that it seems out of our control, and money is so readily handed out to reward corrupt inefficiencies that it is trivialized. "It's only money." The value of The People is trivialized right along with it. It's time for that to change!
It's time for change we need!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Pricing the Risk
It looks like the bailout funds will be mostly used to consolidate rather than pluralize the financial sector. Easily predictabe.
The economic model of efficiency being used is "bigger is better" which translated means "bigger is too big to fail" and receives public funding to consolidate and cause more crisis for more funding.
The current price on this risk is greater than $700 billion with a perfect probability of failure at 100 percent. I guesse we can't accuse our elits of not striving for perfection.
The bigger the firm, the more likely, if not certain, it will leverage risk for a magnified return, which caused the crisis we are now in. Banks will not be in the business of risking capital to grow the economy--lending to The People and their businesses--but to leverage a pure profit by bidding up futures contracts, straddling rate spreads and securitizing the risk into inscrutible value with bogus marks to the market.
The bureaucratic managers to discharge the TARP are sector executives that are likely to price the risk based on returns for the private sector and the consolidation of market share, recycling crisis with the legitimacy of public authority.
Instead of better products, services and prices, the consumer is financing an organization inimical to its interests.
Instead of financing a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace in which risk is priced in terms of the best value for the customer (The People), the risk is priced to shift it all it to The People with the least possible benefit and the greatest gain for the private corporate entity, thereby securing exploitation of The People, the perfect probability for crisis, and the public funding that it causes, all with the legitimacy of public authority which is defined by the consent of the governed.
The risk is priced out of the market and into the public domain so that the accountability is all with a bogus consent of the governed. The risk is priced by dumpimg all the cost into the public domain. The result will be crisis and the need to service the inefficieny of "bigger is better" with public finance, always being supported as the confirmed model of efficiency with the empirical verification of the huge amount of public money spent to bail it out, and preserve it, by popular consent.
The People's capital needs to invest a deconsolidation of industry and markets, not pay for the organized means for The People's deprivation.
Obama/Biden 2008!
The economic model of efficiency being used is "bigger is better" which translated means "bigger is too big to fail" and receives public funding to consolidate and cause more crisis for more funding.
The current price on this risk is greater than $700 billion with a perfect probability of failure at 100 percent. I guesse we can't accuse our elits of not striving for perfection.
The bigger the firm, the more likely, if not certain, it will leverage risk for a magnified return, which caused the crisis we are now in. Banks will not be in the business of risking capital to grow the economy--lending to The People and their businesses--but to leverage a pure profit by bidding up futures contracts, straddling rate spreads and securitizing the risk into inscrutible value with bogus marks to the market.
The bureaucratic managers to discharge the TARP are sector executives that are likely to price the risk based on returns for the private sector and the consolidation of market share, recycling crisis with the legitimacy of public authority.
Instead of better products, services and prices, the consumer is financing an organization inimical to its interests.
Instead of financing a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace in which risk is priced in terms of the best value for the customer (The People), the risk is priced to shift it all it to The People with the least possible benefit and the greatest gain for the private corporate entity, thereby securing exploitation of The People, the perfect probability for crisis, and the public funding that it causes, all with the legitimacy of public authority which is defined by the consent of the governed.
The risk is priced out of the market and into the public domain so that the accountability is all with a bogus consent of the governed. The risk is priced by dumpimg all the cost into the public domain. The result will be crisis and the need to service the inefficieny of "bigger is better" with public finance, always being supported as the confirmed model of efficiency with the empirical verification of the huge amount of public money spent to bail it out, and preserve it, by popular consent.
The People's capital needs to invest a deconsolidation of industry and markets, not pay for the organized means for The People's deprivation.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Distribution Phase
From the deflationary phase of the business cycle, which includes the disinflationary part of that phase like we see with the price of energy where supply exceeds demand despite the opposite prediction, our economy proceeds into the distribution phase from here.
The price of energy is a significant factor in this distribution because it was a primary causal factor for the deflationary phase of the cycle. Seventy percent of the demand on the price of energy and, consequently, food was speculative following modification of commodity futures trading law back in 2002. An acute slope in the price from that time supports the null peak-oil hypothesis, and more fully confirmed by the latest attempts to support the price of oil.
There was very little indication that peak-oil was nothing but a fraud on the market fundamentals to justify a generally deflationary price. The consolidated capital is still intact to drive the bid on energy commodities to a peak, deflationary level, but since deflation has been attained, there is not only the oil on the market from the artificially high price--the fundamental fraud--but the declining demand. The result is a retrace on the value, a technical correction, that will compress the price of oil below $50/bbl.
The retrace on energy values marks the beginning of the distribution phase of the business cycle. It will be supported by the political cycle.
The reports on increased sales of homes is not a part of the distribution phase of this cycle. It is a part of the deflationary phase and is not disinflationary. These homes are being bought on forclosure to be retailed in the distribution phase.
Like I said, the real estate sector operates inimical to our economy in every phase. The profits need to be recapitalized to "disinflate" prices so that The People can have a place to live affordably without speculators, and that includes their agents, that ridiculously arbitrate the values, control local governments, and pocket the benefit out of pure greed and entirely at the expense of the average working American. It produces phony wealth that steals value form honest, hard working Americans to satisfy a bogus, inimical sense of class status that unnecessarily inflates property values and taxes.
A Democratic legislature and executive is extremely bullish for financials, and the economy generally, because there will not be a tax increase, but a rebalancing of the tax burden from a regressive, deflationary value to a progressive, pro-growth value.
Progressing the tax code combined with strategic reinvestment from the consolidated capital into consolidated markets like energy, a pluralizing of the marketplace, will be highly disinflationary and extremely bullish for asset values, quickly reflected in equity valuations.
An Obama/Biden executive is a very strong positive. It will be a highly pragmatic, non-ideological administration that will effectively minister to the needs of The People. We will be able to quickly move from providing for what We need to what We want, making for a very robust growth factor that, if We ensure pluralism of the marketplace, will be sustainable with full employment and low inflation.
The distribution phase of this cycle can be exponential and timely so We may move forward with an efficiency that is by-and-for The People.
Crisis will be just the memory of what "We The People" don't want, don't need, don't deserve, and are self-determined to not allow.
Vote Obama/Biden, and the change We need is on the way!
The price of energy is a significant factor in this distribution because it was a primary causal factor for the deflationary phase of the cycle. Seventy percent of the demand on the price of energy and, consequently, food was speculative following modification of commodity futures trading law back in 2002. An acute slope in the price from that time supports the null peak-oil hypothesis, and more fully confirmed by the latest attempts to support the price of oil.
There was very little indication that peak-oil was nothing but a fraud on the market fundamentals to justify a generally deflationary price. The consolidated capital is still intact to drive the bid on energy commodities to a peak, deflationary level, but since deflation has been attained, there is not only the oil on the market from the artificially high price--the fundamental fraud--but the declining demand. The result is a retrace on the value, a technical correction, that will compress the price of oil below $50/bbl.
The retrace on energy values marks the beginning of the distribution phase of the business cycle. It will be supported by the political cycle.
The reports on increased sales of homes is not a part of the distribution phase of this cycle. It is a part of the deflationary phase and is not disinflationary. These homes are being bought on forclosure to be retailed in the distribution phase.
Like I said, the real estate sector operates inimical to our economy in every phase. The profits need to be recapitalized to "disinflate" prices so that The People can have a place to live affordably without speculators, and that includes their agents, that ridiculously arbitrate the values, control local governments, and pocket the benefit out of pure greed and entirely at the expense of the average working American. It produces phony wealth that steals value form honest, hard working Americans to satisfy a bogus, inimical sense of class status that unnecessarily inflates property values and taxes.
A Democratic legislature and executive is extremely bullish for financials, and the economy generally, because there will not be a tax increase, but a rebalancing of the tax burden from a regressive, deflationary value to a progressive, pro-growth value.
Progressing the tax code combined with strategic reinvestment from the consolidated capital into consolidated markets like energy, a pluralizing of the marketplace, will be highly disinflationary and extremely bullish for asset values, quickly reflected in equity valuations.
An Obama/Biden executive is a very strong positive. It will be a highly pragmatic, non-ideological administration that will effectively minister to the needs of The People. We will be able to quickly move from providing for what We need to what We want, making for a very robust growth factor that, if We ensure pluralism of the marketplace, will be sustainable with full employment and low inflation.
The distribution phase of this cycle can be exponential and timely so We may move forward with an efficiency that is by-and-for The People.
Crisis will be just the memory of what "We The People" don't want, don't need, don't deserve, and are self-determined to not allow.
Vote Obama/Biden, and the change We need is on the way!
It's No Mistake
As we progress into the distribution phase of the lomg-term cycle on an accumulation of income in the top 10 percent not attained since 1938, or The Great Depression, the rhetoric will now be that the crisis it causes is just a bureaucratic mismanagement of our economy, like blaming Greenspan, or Paulson, or Cox....
It's no mistake. The long-term cycle is confirmed, and it has been skillfully managed to where we are now to successfully consolidate the wealth and allow the disribution phase to occur under the banner of the Democratic Party.
If the Party does not take the opportunity to operate with a new economic model to replace the disconfirmed model, the cycle, both politically and economically, repeats itself.
The change we need will be described and explained by mainstream economic theory as a moral hazard. The rhetoric will be presented as declarative knowledge, despite being disconfirmed.
The attribute of the moral hazard is why economics is known as "the dismal science." While we know that the general utility of depriving The People of necessities so that a high income class can enjoy the fruits of labor and. therby, trickle it down to be enjoyed by everyone else is a disconfirmed hypothesis, and categorically immoral, mainstream economics maintains that abandoning the theory that supports the hypothesis is a moral hazard.
The hazard, described as moral because of its dimension of behavioral modification, is dismally described as a non-productive incentive that historically brings societies to collapse.
As Jefferson carefully noted, profligate accumulation of wealth and power is historically a sure indicator of impending collapse, avoided by constitutional provision for a plurality of power and not its consolidation. That way, the prosperity of The People is peaceful, sustainable, and ensured through an empirical process of historical improvement in which making the same mistake over and over again is not supposed to happen. If the society is not allowed to learn from its mistakes, modify its behavior, then the processes of pluralism are not being allowed to fully operate.
So, we have a distribution phase of the cycle that ensures we make the same mistake over and over again. The mistake is a "normative" cycle that if modified is a moral hazard.
What is dismal about the dismal science is that it tends to be dismally unscientific. Instead of describing and explaining the brutal truth of economic existence, it serves to validate the brutal reality of it with self-fufilled mechanics and detrimental effects explained away as misfeasance that if thrown out would be morally hazardous. That hazard is, of course, validated with the name of "science," suggesting it is not a property of belief, or bias, but knowledge.
The scientific method requires confirmation or nullification--verification, not logical proof or disproof--validation.
Something is either verified or not. Having to prove or disprove something through argument and rhetorical manipulation indicates an unwillingness to accept the empirical method and the knowledge it produces.
Much of what is presented for analytical public consumption is a validation process, not a verification process for continuous improvement. That is why we recycle the same "mistake" over and over again.
The change we need is to preserve the value of The People's assets, and doing that will also be the means for economic growth, and stability, that We The People can describe and explain as the moral imperative that verifiably avoids the moral hazard.
Obam/Biden 2008!
It's no mistake. The long-term cycle is confirmed, and it has been skillfully managed to where we are now to successfully consolidate the wealth and allow the disribution phase to occur under the banner of the Democratic Party.
If the Party does not take the opportunity to operate with a new economic model to replace the disconfirmed model, the cycle, both politically and economically, repeats itself.
The change we need will be described and explained by mainstream economic theory as a moral hazard. The rhetoric will be presented as declarative knowledge, despite being disconfirmed.
The attribute of the moral hazard is why economics is known as "the dismal science." While we know that the general utility of depriving The People of necessities so that a high income class can enjoy the fruits of labor and. therby, trickle it down to be enjoyed by everyone else is a disconfirmed hypothesis, and categorically immoral, mainstream economics maintains that abandoning the theory that supports the hypothesis is a moral hazard.
The hazard, described as moral because of its dimension of behavioral modification, is dismally described as a non-productive incentive that historically brings societies to collapse.
As Jefferson carefully noted, profligate accumulation of wealth and power is historically a sure indicator of impending collapse, avoided by constitutional provision for a plurality of power and not its consolidation. That way, the prosperity of The People is peaceful, sustainable, and ensured through an empirical process of historical improvement in which making the same mistake over and over again is not supposed to happen. If the society is not allowed to learn from its mistakes, modify its behavior, then the processes of pluralism are not being allowed to fully operate.
So, we have a distribution phase of the cycle that ensures we make the same mistake over and over again. The mistake is a "normative" cycle that if modified is a moral hazard.
What is dismal about the dismal science is that it tends to be dismally unscientific. Instead of describing and explaining the brutal truth of economic existence, it serves to validate the brutal reality of it with self-fufilled mechanics and detrimental effects explained away as misfeasance that if thrown out would be morally hazardous. That hazard is, of course, validated with the name of "science," suggesting it is not a property of belief, or bias, but knowledge.
The scientific method requires confirmation or nullification--verification, not logical proof or disproof--validation.
Something is either verified or not. Having to prove or disprove something through argument and rhetorical manipulation indicates an unwillingness to accept the empirical method and the knowledge it produces.
Much of what is presented for analytical public consumption is a validation process, not a verification process for continuous improvement. That is why we recycle the same "mistake" over and over again.
The change we need is to preserve the value of The People's assets, and doing that will also be the means for economic growth, and stability, that We The People can describe and explain as the moral imperative that verifiably avoids the moral hazard.
Obam/Biden 2008!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Moralizing the Hazard
According to the McCain campaign, spreading the wealth is a moral hazard.
Mainstream economists, and the McCain campaign, argue that without the consolidation of wealth and power, capitalism will not operate to make the necessary sacrifice to produce capital and investment needed to produce economic growth and the wealth for The People. Spreading the wealth nullifies the sacrifice necessary to produce capital and wealth. It is, therefore, a "moral hazard."
Redistribution of the wealth is to be avoided because, as Sarah Palin proclaims, with her professed deeper understanding of what is right and good for The People, giving the wealth away to the people that labor to create it will ultimately make them unproductive. To suffer deprivation of the wealth is the sacrifice necessary to accumulate capital so that The People will be willing to suffer for its creation.
The deeper understanding neo-conservatives have, accordingly, is that the sacrifice of The People--the crisis we are now experiencing--is a necessary condition for the creation of the wealth. Not allowing for it to occur will result in crisis, so the solution to our crisis is to be sure that it happens. Avoiding the crisis is a hazard to be avoided, so we should be sure to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and realizing that is the product of a higher moral intelligence.
In order to have all the things a wealthy person buys but does not need that trickles the wealth down to The People, must be suffered by The People not being able to buy what they need. The result is a debtor economy. Not to allow for the sacrifice is, by the deeper understanding, immoral because it deprives consolidation of the wealth, falsely argued as the formation of capital.
The capital does not have to be consolidated. Consolidating the capital, the sacrifice, causes debt, economic crisis. It always has and always will.
Instead of avoiding a moral hazard, the conservative, Hamiltonian argument moralizes the hazard.
The Good Lord Says: "...forgive us our debts as We forgive those that have debts against us." The McCain campaign has a deeper understanding of this: forgiving the debt, not allowing the debt to be suffered, is a moral hazard. It will ultimately make us all unproductive.
The Lord's Prayer is not just sanctified sentiment for soothing the soul. It is a call to action!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Mainstream economists, and the McCain campaign, argue that without the consolidation of wealth and power, capitalism will not operate to make the necessary sacrifice to produce capital and investment needed to produce economic growth and the wealth for The People. Spreading the wealth nullifies the sacrifice necessary to produce capital and wealth. It is, therefore, a "moral hazard."
Redistribution of the wealth is to be avoided because, as Sarah Palin proclaims, with her professed deeper understanding of what is right and good for The People, giving the wealth away to the people that labor to create it will ultimately make them unproductive. To suffer deprivation of the wealth is the sacrifice necessary to accumulate capital so that The People will be willing to suffer for its creation.
The deeper understanding neo-conservatives have, accordingly, is that the sacrifice of The People--the crisis we are now experiencing--is a necessary condition for the creation of the wealth. Not allowing for it to occur will result in crisis, so the solution to our crisis is to be sure that it happens. Avoiding the crisis is a hazard to be avoided, so we should be sure to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and realizing that is the product of a higher moral intelligence.
In order to have all the things a wealthy person buys but does not need that trickles the wealth down to The People, must be suffered by The People not being able to buy what they need. The result is a debtor economy. Not to allow for the sacrifice is, by the deeper understanding, immoral because it deprives consolidation of the wealth, falsely argued as the formation of capital.
The capital does not have to be consolidated. Consolidating the capital, the sacrifice, causes debt, economic crisis. It always has and always will.
Instead of avoiding a moral hazard, the conservative, Hamiltonian argument moralizes the hazard.
The Good Lord Says: "...forgive us our debts as We forgive those that have debts against us." The McCain campaign has a deeper understanding of this: forgiving the debt, not allowing the debt to be suffered, is a moral hazard. It will ultimately make us all unproductive.
The Lord's Prayer is not just sanctified sentiment for soothing the soul. It is a call to action!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Function of Crisis and Bailout
Interlocking the Directorate
The financial crisis and the bailout functions to organize a directorate that is otherwise illegal to avoid the tyranny of command economy.
Interclocking directorates is illegal because it is fundamentally anithtetical to democracy and a free-market economy, but is argued to be a necessary condition in theory and practice so that The People will not suffer tyranny by ensuring its organized practice.
The People are too sophisticated for this hoax!
The bailout money--the TARP--had no legislative directive because that would be socialism. The effect is to interlock the directorates in the private administration of power with the legitimacy of public authority. The difference is that the private administration will tend not to produce results that are favorable to The People, like ensuring a free market will, but to administer their exploitation in their self-interest by bureaucratic directive--by command.
Not using the bailout funds to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in which The People are in command will result in forcing the legitimacy of the socialist alternative.
If you do not want socialism, do not organize the political economy as it is being organized now with the crisis-management funding from the top down.
The more consolidated the capital becomes, the more probable the switch to a socialist administration of the state and capital from the top down--a confirmed command economy.
McCain's economic plan will continue the consolidation of capital that causes crisis and the need for command and control. It is the elitist model of power that will not empower Joe Six Pack, but enslave him to the arbitrations of a bureaucratic command elit whether organized for state capitalism or state socialism.
Top-down legitimacy for the administration of power is always subject to an illegitimate administering and is not easily accounted for or made accountable. Isn't that the neo-conservative plan?
It is possible to secure the ends of freedom by ensuring its means.
Obama/Biden 2008!
The financial crisis and the bailout functions to organize a directorate that is otherwise illegal to avoid the tyranny of command economy.
Interclocking directorates is illegal because it is fundamentally anithtetical to democracy and a free-market economy, but is argued to be a necessary condition in theory and practice so that The People will not suffer tyranny by ensuring its organized practice.
The People are too sophisticated for this hoax!
The bailout money--the TARP--had no legislative directive because that would be socialism. The effect is to interlock the directorates in the private administration of power with the legitimacy of public authority. The difference is that the private administration will tend not to produce results that are favorable to The People, like ensuring a free market will, but to administer their exploitation in their self-interest by bureaucratic directive--by command.
Not using the bailout funds to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in which The People are in command will result in forcing the legitimacy of the socialist alternative.
If you do not want socialism, do not organize the political economy as it is being organized now with the crisis-management funding from the top down.
The more consolidated the capital becomes, the more probable the switch to a socialist administration of the state and capital from the top down--a confirmed command economy.
McCain's economic plan will continue the consolidation of capital that causes crisis and the need for command and control. It is the elitist model of power that will not empower Joe Six Pack, but enslave him to the arbitrations of a bureaucratic command elit whether organized for state capitalism or state socialism.
Top-down legitimacy for the administration of power is always subject to an illegitimate administering and is not easily accounted for or made accountable. Isn't that the neo-conservative plan?
It is possible to secure the ends of freedom by ensuring its means.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Keynesian Crisis
Keynesian economics was an innovation for organizing production so that growth, success in the marketplace, could still be measured by the profit margin in the classical economic sense.
Monetarism allows the measure of legitimate success of the classical model into the neo-classical world of managing cyclical crisis that does not necessarilly produce legitimately pluralistic, free-market results measured by the profit. It allows for maximum profit with minimal growth, and a way to "successfully" manage the instability that causes.
The promise of the new technique for stabilizing the economy was to calibrate the money supply as needed to control inflation with growth, what a free market will achieve on its own if the capital, industry and markets are not allowed to consolidate.
If capital is always available for investment in profitable markets (buying the greed), the economy can grow with adequate supply to control inflation, and that added supply requires full employment, thus, full employment with low inflation. The effect is a declining rate of profits and return on investment that minimizes an accumulation of wealth and an income-class distinction. Aspiring to the "ruling class" requires a return on investment ensuring a free-market economic through the monetary system denies.
Monetarism was invented to largely stabilize the business cycle of a consolidated capital. It was not invented to finance the competition, but to provide liquidity (interbank lending) when the capital becomes so consolidated that it locks up and has nowhere else to go but to be redistributed to the consumer (spreading the wealth around) to reduce the inventory of overproduction. Rather than finance the competition, causing full employment with low inflation, the recovery is monetized (trickled down) through the central bank system and the treasury, allowing the consolidated capital--the problem--to persist.
The process of economic stimulation and stabilization we have now is the "monetizing of the debt" so that it is not quite as obvious that the business cycle operates to consolidate the capital. Consolidation is antithetical to a free-market legitimacy in which power is sufficiently pluralized to be self-correcting and requires little need for government regulatory authority.
Since monetarism is not used to pluralize, but stabilize the marketplace, there is a big demand for government. That demand has evolved in favor of consolidation of the marketplace, so we have The People's tax money being given to a healthy bank (PNC Bank) to buy an unhealthy bank (National City Bank). Public finance, and the power of legitimacy it represents, is used to consolidate, and not just the accumulated capital. The return on the investment comes in the form of the interest paid on the public debt which, you may have noticed, is a perpetual-debt (leveraging) machine that grows infinitely if it is paid with a regressive tax code.
Keynesian monetarism is easily switched to finance a genuine free-market economic system. The way it is being used now to keep the capital, industry and markets consolidated through an unstable business cycle, "the switch" will eventually become the socialist alternative.
Avoiding a global liquidity crisis, and general instability, is entirely possible. It is time for the political will to do it.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Monetarism allows the measure of legitimate success of the classical model into the neo-classical world of managing cyclical crisis that does not necessarilly produce legitimately pluralistic, free-market results measured by the profit. It allows for maximum profit with minimal growth, and a way to "successfully" manage the instability that causes.
The promise of the new technique for stabilizing the economy was to calibrate the money supply as needed to control inflation with growth, what a free market will achieve on its own if the capital, industry and markets are not allowed to consolidate.
If capital is always available for investment in profitable markets (buying the greed), the economy can grow with adequate supply to control inflation, and that added supply requires full employment, thus, full employment with low inflation. The effect is a declining rate of profits and return on investment that minimizes an accumulation of wealth and an income-class distinction. Aspiring to the "ruling class" requires a return on investment ensuring a free-market economic through the monetary system denies.
Monetarism was invented to largely stabilize the business cycle of a consolidated capital. It was not invented to finance the competition, but to provide liquidity (interbank lending) when the capital becomes so consolidated that it locks up and has nowhere else to go but to be redistributed to the consumer (spreading the wealth around) to reduce the inventory of overproduction. Rather than finance the competition, causing full employment with low inflation, the recovery is monetized (trickled down) through the central bank system and the treasury, allowing the consolidated capital--the problem--to persist.
The process of economic stimulation and stabilization we have now is the "monetizing of the debt" so that it is not quite as obvious that the business cycle operates to consolidate the capital. Consolidation is antithetical to a free-market legitimacy in which power is sufficiently pluralized to be self-correcting and requires little need for government regulatory authority.
Since monetarism is not used to pluralize, but stabilize the marketplace, there is a big demand for government. That demand has evolved in favor of consolidation of the marketplace, so we have The People's tax money being given to a healthy bank (PNC Bank) to buy an unhealthy bank (National City Bank). Public finance, and the power of legitimacy it represents, is used to consolidate, and not just the accumulated capital. The return on the investment comes in the form of the interest paid on the public debt which, you may have noticed, is a perpetual-debt (leveraging) machine that grows infinitely if it is paid with a regressive tax code.
Keynesian monetarism is easily switched to finance a genuine free-market economic system. The way it is being used now to keep the capital, industry and markets consolidated through an unstable business cycle, "the switch" will eventually become the socialist alternative.
Avoiding a global liquidity crisis, and general instability, is entirely possible. It is time for the political will to do it.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Selling the Greed
"Buy the greed, sell the fear," so the saying goes, but as we emerge from a period of our economic history in which this philosophy has been practiced to the nines, and the result has been to cultivate a culture of corruption and crisis, the small number of beneficiaries and their huksters now need to sell the greed and persuade The People to buy the fear.
"Greed is good," so the argument goes, and we must now manage the crisis component of this practical, utilitarian philosophy with the neo-conservative element, like the McCain camp, arguing that The People must buy into the fear of socialism in order to preserve what motivates the creation of wealth and, therefore, the privilege of determining its distribution.
Wealth shared is wealth squandered by not making the scarifice necessary to create it, so they argue, but The People are not seeing an empirical verification of that hypothesis. The utility is not verified, but disconfirmed by the clearly observable evidence.
Yet, we still have the aspiring non-elits that cling to the absurd belief that if we share the wealth, the wealthy will no longer be wealthy and the poor will still be poor. The result is a Non-Pareto Optimal, dead-weight loss in which everyone loses.
The argument is irrational because it is the product of greed, an emotion accepted, bought, as a practical philosophy instead of an indicator for behavior modification that avoids an impending crisis of a few that have too much at the expense of everyone else having too little--what we have now.
Conservatives argue that the criticism of the utility of greed is overly academic. We are thinking about it too much. That a sacrifice has to be made for the production of wealth, savings, is obvious, and the elite, they argue, are best suited to own and manage that sacrifice, the savings, so that we can have more savings by it being deprived of The People. It is, of course, illogical to claim the deprivation of value adds value. No, it redistributes the value to cause an easily avoidable crisis--a cyclical liquidity crisis characteristic of a debtor economy.
Since the elite are best suited for managing the capital (the savings, the sacrifice), they must be rewarded with the "privilege" of not having to share in that sacrifice, conservatives argue, because they will not, then, take the risk to organize the production of wealth we all enjoy. The privilege is the reward for successfully providing The People with what they want, and that is motivated by the emotion of greed with the result being an accumulation of wealth that indicates the value added in the form of the capital.
The problem with the conservative argument is that the value was not added, it was accumulated. The result is a debtor economy (a leverage economy in which more value is added than produced) that is always being managed, organized, to buy the greed and sell the fear even when it is illogical and empirically not beneficial for The People that give it both the value and the legitimacy of its power.
Conservatives argue recognition of the problem as socialism. The logic required to solve the problem is reduced to the fear, the emotion of it, which otherwise serves to indicate danger to protect and promote the welfare of the species. Conservatives are utilizing this primordial survival instinct to destroy its utility for The People. Reversing that would be to, as they say, think about it too much. Providing for their welfare, I dare say, is what The People want, and providing for recurrent crisis does not, then, fit the reward of privilege.
The privilege of accumulating value by leveraging it into an artificially added value is supported by the innovation of productive capacity. The more per-unit production added per dollar invested, the more value can be added, or accumulated, to be greedily reinvested for more accumulation through innovation. The problem is that the accumulation does not allow for a competitive reinvestment based on the profit margin. The result is to greedily innovate ways to add value without growth, which leads to the crisis of overproduction in which demand is overburdened with debt, like we have now.
The growth that occurred was largely in the real estate development sector, where you can get rich quick, but because the wealth is greedily accumulated, instruments of finance were innovated to allow the demand to be driven by debt that could not be paid. The result is the crisis of overproduction, or the inability to pay--the foreclosure crisis.
According to conservatives, the capital is greedily invested to innovate production which adds wealth. If the reward of greed is denied by sharing the wealth, it will not create it. If we do not allow the reward to be fully enjoyed by the risk taker, the risk will not be taken, and the reward will not be had to be unduly redistributed with a socialist model, or reinvested to cause competition and disinflation with full employment and maximum consumer choice provided by a free-market model.
Greed drives the incentive to risk the capital. Without it, risk, or innovation, will not occur. This equates risk of loss with productivity and innovation. If you are not productive and innovative--greedy, you lose.
So, the argument goes, we were much better off before we started flirting with spreading the wealth around. That has made the capital not willing to take the risk of growth and innovation. It becomes illiquid. If we do not allow greed to operate, we will self-determine, choose by operation of our intellect, an extreme deprivation. We are all better off if we all embrace the reality of our greedy impulses and ignore the latest fashion of intellect.
Never mind that greed is likely to result in the indifferent deprivation of others, which brought us to the crisis of illiquidity. It was the greed--the overwhelming, irrational, fearless passion for risk and reward, the supreme confidence in its virtue without thinking about it too much, not the lack of it--that caused the illiquidity. If greed is the problem, how is it the solution?
Now that the greed has been overbought into a major crisis, the fear is now oversold. The People are not buying it. It is illogical. It is unreasonable to accpet the problem as the solution.
Where The People once accepted the business cycle as a naturally recurrent event of undirected determinism, like the weather, We now know it can be the directed product of our self-determination, not driven by greed and fear, but the virtue of our intellect.
Obama/Biden!
"Greed is good," so the argument goes, and we must now manage the crisis component of this practical, utilitarian philosophy with the neo-conservative element, like the McCain camp, arguing that The People must buy into the fear of socialism in order to preserve what motivates the creation of wealth and, therefore, the privilege of determining its distribution.
Wealth shared is wealth squandered by not making the scarifice necessary to create it, so they argue, but The People are not seeing an empirical verification of that hypothesis. The utility is not verified, but disconfirmed by the clearly observable evidence.
Yet, we still have the aspiring non-elits that cling to the absurd belief that if we share the wealth, the wealthy will no longer be wealthy and the poor will still be poor. The result is a Non-Pareto Optimal, dead-weight loss in which everyone loses.
The argument is irrational because it is the product of greed, an emotion accepted, bought, as a practical philosophy instead of an indicator for behavior modification that avoids an impending crisis of a few that have too much at the expense of everyone else having too little--what we have now.
Conservatives argue that the criticism of the utility of greed is overly academic. We are thinking about it too much. That a sacrifice has to be made for the production of wealth, savings, is obvious, and the elite, they argue, are best suited to own and manage that sacrifice, the savings, so that we can have more savings by it being deprived of The People. It is, of course, illogical to claim the deprivation of value adds value. No, it redistributes the value to cause an easily avoidable crisis--a cyclical liquidity crisis characteristic of a debtor economy.
Since the elite are best suited for managing the capital (the savings, the sacrifice), they must be rewarded with the "privilege" of not having to share in that sacrifice, conservatives argue, because they will not, then, take the risk to organize the production of wealth we all enjoy. The privilege is the reward for successfully providing The People with what they want, and that is motivated by the emotion of greed with the result being an accumulation of wealth that indicates the value added in the form of the capital.
The problem with the conservative argument is that the value was not added, it was accumulated. The result is a debtor economy (a leverage economy in which more value is added than produced) that is always being managed, organized, to buy the greed and sell the fear even when it is illogical and empirically not beneficial for The People that give it both the value and the legitimacy of its power.
Conservatives argue recognition of the problem as socialism. The logic required to solve the problem is reduced to the fear, the emotion of it, which otherwise serves to indicate danger to protect and promote the welfare of the species. Conservatives are utilizing this primordial survival instinct to destroy its utility for The People. Reversing that would be to, as they say, think about it too much. Providing for their welfare, I dare say, is what The People want, and providing for recurrent crisis does not, then, fit the reward of privilege.
The privilege of accumulating value by leveraging it into an artificially added value is supported by the innovation of productive capacity. The more per-unit production added per dollar invested, the more value can be added, or accumulated, to be greedily reinvested for more accumulation through innovation. The problem is that the accumulation does not allow for a competitive reinvestment based on the profit margin. The result is to greedily innovate ways to add value without growth, which leads to the crisis of overproduction in which demand is overburdened with debt, like we have now.
The growth that occurred was largely in the real estate development sector, where you can get rich quick, but because the wealth is greedily accumulated, instruments of finance were innovated to allow the demand to be driven by debt that could not be paid. The result is the crisis of overproduction, or the inability to pay--the foreclosure crisis.
According to conservatives, the capital is greedily invested to innovate production which adds wealth. If the reward of greed is denied by sharing the wealth, it will not create it. If we do not allow the reward to be fully enjoyed by the risk taker, the risk will not be taken, and the reward will not be had to be unduly redistributed with a socialist model, or reinvested to cause competition and disinflation with full employment and maximum consumer choice provided by a free-market model.
Greed drives the incentive to risk the capital. Without it, risk, or innovation, will not occur. This equates risk of loss with productivity and innovation. If you are not productive and innovative--greedy, you lose.
So, the argument goes, we were much better off before we started flirting with spreading the wealth around. That has made the capital not willing to take the risk of growth and innovation. It becomes illiquid. If we do not allow greed to operate, we will self-determine, choose by operation of our intellect, an extreme deprivation. We are all better off if we all embrace the reality of our greedy impulses and ignore the latest fashion of intellect.
Never mind that greed is likely to result in the indifferent deprivation of others, which brought us to the crisis of illiquidity. It was the greed--the overwhelming, irrational, fearless passion for risk and reward, the supreme confidence in its virtue without thinking about it too much, not the lack of it--that caused the illiquidity. If greed is the problem, how is it the solution?
Now that the greed has been overbought into a major crisis, the fear is now oversold. The People are not buying it. It is illogical. It is unreasonable to accpet the problem as the solution.
Where The People once accepted the business cycle as a naturally recurrent event of undirected determinism, like the weather, We now know it can be the directed product of our self-determination, not driven by greed and fear, but the virtue of our intellect.
Obama/Biden!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Negative Equity
A Real Estate Reinvestment Act
The negative equity in homes is a positive gain for who?
Real estate interests.
This sector is in very large part responsible for wrecking our economy and has received very little criticism for doing so.
A Real Estate Reinvestment Act is in order to recapitalize the benefit into positive home equity toward building an economy that invests the homeowner not with just a fair and equitable mortgage, but the ability to pay it.
Accomplishing that is not by encouraging the leverage financing that makes the greedy rich with an inimical sense of status, but righteous value that comes with providing for each other rather than taking it in declaration of your class superiority.
Real estate is infested with people looking to get rich quick, and they did. The cost of this over-concern with one's personal worth, of class status, has been tremendous. To allow this value to be enjoyed without being retributed to, reinvested in, the hard-working Americans from which it was bilked is entirely wrong!
Instead of an economic sector infested with status-conscious frauds looking to con its customers into just making them rich, and leave the customer holding the devalued bag of goods, let's invest the real estate sector with the value The People deserve without having to borrow their way out of debt. That value exists in the net worth of developers, brokers, lenders, and their agents. That value needs to be reinvested to make the homewoner whole, not just a reward for unfettered greed and fraudulent practices.
Retribute that value with a Real Estate Reinvestment Act. It will very quickly help set our economy on a very sound fundament for quick and sustainable recovery.
The negative equity in homes is a positive gain for who?
Real estate interests.
This sector is in very large part responsible for wrecking our economy and has received very little criticism for doing so.
A Real Estate Reinvestment Act is in order to recapitalize the benefit into positive home equity toward building an economy that invests the homeowner not with just a fair and equitable mortgage, but the ability to pay it.
Accomplishing that is not by encouraging the leverage financing that makes the greedy rich with an inimical sense of status, but righteous value that comes with providing for each other rather than taking it in declaration of your class superiority.
Real estate is infested with people looking to get rich quick, and they did. The cost of this over-concern with one's personal worth, of class status, has been tremendous. To allow this value to be enjoyed without being retributed to, reinvested in, the hard-working Americans from which it was bilked is entirely wrong!
Instead of an economic sector infested with status-conscious frauds looking to con its customers into just making them rich, and leave the customer holding the devalued bag of goods, let's invest the real estate sector with the value The People deserve without having to borrow their way out of debt. That value exists in the net worth of developers, brokers, lenders, and their agents. That value needs to be reinvested to make the homewoner whole, not just a reward for unfettered greed and fraudulent practices.
Retribute that value with a Real Estate Reinvestment Act. It will very quickly help set our economy on a very sound fundament for quick and sustainable recovery.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Technical Correction to Tax Policy
McCain argues that the Obama/Biden tax plan will require the average income to write a check to itself because the tax reduction will have to be financed through the deficit, or monetized, by borrowing it from the upper class of incomes.
The argument is pure deceit.
The average income, under the current regressive tax code, writes a check to upper class incomes to finance what the rich do not pay in taxes but is borrowed in record amounts through a regressive tax policy that McCain not only wants to sustain but increase to ensure our productivity, or the creation of wealth.
First of all, regressive tax policy is proven pro-profit, not pro-growth. The policy is deflationary because it increases the tax libaility of The People, reduces buying power and increases debt. The result is deflationary crisis.
Regressive tax policy does not improve productivity, it decreases it.
Second, the tax reduction for the average income is offset by a progressive increase for upper incomes who can afford to pay down the debt, immediately improving buying power, reversing the deflationary trend and strengthening the dollar.
The Obama/Biden plan is a much-needed technical correction to tax policy and the macro economic.
Obama/Biden is change we need!
The argument is pure deceit.
The average income, under the current regressive tax code, writes a check to upper class incomes to finance what the rich do not pay in taxes but is borrowed in record amounts through a regressive tax policy that McCain not only wants to sustain but increase to ensure our productivity, or the creation of wealth.
First of all, regressive tax policy is proven pro-profit, not pro-growth. The policy is deflationary because it increases the tax libaility of The People, reduces buying power and increases debt. The result is deflationary crisis.
Regressive tax policy does not improve productivity, it decreases it.
Second, the tax reduction for the average income is offset by a progressive increase for upper incomes who can afford to pay down the debt, immediately improving buying power, reversing the deflationary trend and strengthening the dollar.
The Obama/Biden plan is a much-needed technical correction to tax policy and the macro economic.
Obama/Biden is change we need!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Economy of Innovation
President Bush says that regulatory reform of the financial sector should allow for innovation. The general suggestion is that regulation of industry and markets stifles innovation, including financials.
That is incorrect.
First, innovation is likely to occur where the capital is, and if the capital is allowed to concentrate as much as it is (not spreading the wealth around), then innovative ways to produce profit without growth are assured, has occured, and has resulted in general crisis.
Innovative ways to prevent crisis (optimal investment), instead of causing crisis, requires spreading the wealth around, or deconsolidating the capital.
Regulation can also produce innovation to control externalities, like pollution. Unfortunately, the capital is so consolidated, the innovation is resisted, considered a cost, not a benefit, so it suffers deficient investment (economic growth) and tends to be exported along with the jobs associated with it.
Neo-conservatives opt to keep the regulatory authority proactively cooperative, acquiescent, and a sycophantic satrapy organized to give the abuses of consolidated power the legitimacy of public authority, and to reactively manage the risk, the cost, to a minimum.
For the financial sector, the lack of regulatory authority produced negative innovations that are now being dealt with as negative externalities to be crisis-managed by the regulatory authority.
The negative externalities are the product of extreme misfeasance if not malfeasance of a public/private power structure called "The Iron Triangle." It is the bureaucratic model of power and political economy and it yielded a competence for corruption because its power is so huge and concentrated (non-pluralistic). The result is a systematic, structural, failure not seen since the Great Depression.
There is no reason to believe switching this bureaucratic form of power to a socialist legitimacy will be any less corrupt, and here is where the conservative rhetoric is focused to instill fear, loathing, and logical fallacy.
What needs to be innovative about the financial sector?
Innovative ways to lure consolidated capital out of its horded haunts yields crisis. We have incontrovertible empirical proof of that by living it now, but McCain still wants us to "believe" that innovation of leverage finance, encouraging it with a highly regressive tax code, will "create wealth." No, it creates crisis!
According to McCain, and what has proven to be a greedy, malfeasant, neo-conservative cohort, ensuring a very clear means of verifying class distinction drives productivity, innovation, and wealth. The argument is that if we do not subsidize the rich to stay rich, by not spreading the wealth around, we will suffer the effects of socialism--low productivity.
Policies and programs that encourage innovation of financial instruments yields low productivity and economic growth with the empirical proof of the current crisis. The employment we have had has been mostly to confirm ensuring class society of rich and poor so that we will be productive by exporting our good paying non-service jobs. A service economy, that is, an economy of servitude was created. Being assured A 2.50 an hour job serving food is not the model of innovative financing that assures creating the wealth. What it does assure is consolidation of the wealth and a workforce structurally enslaved to serve it up.
Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin... NO THANKS!
We need our financial sector to very simply finance innovation of productivity in the marketplace. If the talent we have now--greedy, self-involved, incapable of seeing past their self-interest and the consciousness of their class--cannot identify the entrepreneurial talent that will pluralize the marketplace and cause productive capacity, full employment and low inflation, then let's get those that will, and we know all too well that will not be the party of McCain and neo-conservatives.
That is incorrect.
First, innovation is likely to occur where the capital is, and if the capital is allowed to concentrate as much as it is (not spreading the wealth around), then innovative ways to produce profit without growth are assured, has occured, and has resulted in general crisis.
Innovative ways to prevent crisis (optimal investment), instead of causing crisis, requires spreading the wealth around, or deconsolidating the capital.
Regulation can also produce innovation to control externalities, like pollution. Unfortunately, the capital is so consolidated, the innovation is resisted, considered a cost, not a benefit, so it suffers deficient investment (economic growth) and tends to be exported along with the jobs associated with it.
Neo-conservatives opt to keep the regulatory authority proactively cooperative, acquiescent, and a sycophantic satrapy organized to give the abuses of consolidated power the legitimacy of public authority, and to reactively manage the risk, the cost, to a minimum.
For the financial sector, the lack of regulatory authority produced negative innovations that are now being dealt with as negative externalities to be crisis-managed by the regulatory authority.
The negative externalities are the product of extreme misfeasance if not malfeasance of a public/private power structure called "The Iron Triangle." It is the bureaucratic model of power and political economy and it yielded a competence for corruption because its power is so huge and concentrated (non-pluralistic). The result is a systematic, structural, failure not seen since the Great Depression.
There is no reason to believe switching this bureaucratic form of power to a socialist legitimacy will be any less corrupt, and here is where the conservative rhetoric is focused to instill fear, loathing, and logical fallacy.
What needs to be innovative about the financial sector?
Innovative ways to lure consolidated capital out of its horded haunts yields crisis. We have incontrovertible empirical proof of that by living it now, but McCain still wants us to "believe" that innovation of leverage finance, encouraging it with a highly regressive tax code, will "create wealth." No, it creates crisis!
According to McCain, and what has proven to be a greedy, malfeasant, neo-conservative cohort, ensuring a very clear means of verifying class distinction drives productivity, innovation, and wealth. The argument is that if we do not subsidize the rich to stay rich, by not spreading the wealth around, we will suffer the effects of socialism--low productivity.
Policies and programs that encourage innovation of financial instruments yields low productivity and economic growth with the empirical proof of the current crisis. The employment we have had has been mostly to confirm ensuring class society of rich and poor so that we will be productive by exporting our good paying non-service jobs. A service economy, that is, an economy of servitude was created. Being assured A 2.50 an hour job serving food is not the model of innovative financing that assures creating the wealth. What it does assure is consolidation of the wealth and a workforce structurally enslaved to serve it up.
Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin... NO THANKS!
We need our financial sector to very simply finance innovation of productivity in the marketplace. If the talent we have now--greedy, self-involved, incapable of seeing past their self-interest and the consciousness of their class--cannot identify the entrepreneurial talent that will pluralize the marketplace and cause productive capacity, full employment and low inflation, then let's get those that will, and we know all too well that will not be the party of McCain and neo-conservatives.
Tax Havens
European ministers of finance are suggesting they will begin prosecuting tax havens and the unregulated hadege funds that use them to evade tax liability.
Use of these high income class tax-evasive havens causes budget deficits by increasing the need for government while severely reducing revenues, and inflationary tax pressure on lower income classes with deflationary macro economic pressure that reduces their ability to pay it. In other words, because the trickle-down economic model of tax reduction for the top income classes does not work, despite the counter-empirical claims of the McCain campaign, but instead causes crisis with overwhelming evidence, it is time to reverse the policy based on that empirical evidence.
That is very bullish news for markets because trillions of dollars will be more available for macro-economic finance policy, like recapitalizing a recovery from the bottom up, that will hasten recovery and stability instead of being hidden and horded, only brought out to spike markets for a quick, zero-sum capital gain, that is not pro growth and just devalues the savings and pensions of non-upper class incomes.
The rhetoric is very strong positive for markets, the valuation of The People's savings and reinvestment of the capital to allow for economic growth and general economic security that will not only benefit The People, but elits as well. Policies that benefit the rich in priority are just to deprive The People. International markets fully recognize that and will not even begin to support a McCain presidency.
A McCain presidency would be, empirically, verifiably, bad for global markets.
Use of these high income class tax-evasive havens causes budget deficits by increasing the need for government while severely reducing revenues, and inflationary tax pressure on lower income classes with deflationary macro economic pressure that reduces their ability to pay it. In other words, because the trickle-down economic model of tax reduction for the top income classes does not work, despite the counter-empirical claims of the McCain campaign, but instead causes crisis with overwhelming evidence, it is time to reverse the policy based on that empirical evidence.
That is very bullish news for markets because trillions of dollars will be more available for macro-economic finance policy, like recapitalizing a recovery from the bottom up, that will hasten recovery and stability instead of being hidden and horded, only brought out to spike markets for a quick, zero-sum capital gain, that is not pro growth and just devalues the savings and pensions of non-upper class incomes.
The rhetoric is very strong positive for markets, the valuation of The People's savings and reinvestment of the capital to allow for economic growth and general economic security that will not only benefit The People, but elits as well. Policies that benefit the rich in priority are just to deprive The People. International markets fully recognize that and will not even begin to support a McCain presidency.
A McCain presidency would be, empirically, verifiably, bad for global markets.
Economic Stimulus
Analysis in popular media tends to attribute the retrace to deflation following the stimulus package in 2008 to the consumer paying down debt rather than spemding it. It is a fundamental misattribution that identifies the problem.
The stimulus money was inflationary. It went right to the profits of the corporate and was paid out to the shareholders who are largely, disproportionately, the top ten percent of incomes, which causes the need for the other 90% to incur debt borrowed from the very rich. The result was consolidation of the stimulus, or deflationary crisis.
According to Ivy-League analysts that pop media offers us as the experts that will lead us out of the crisis with the intimate understanding of having engineered it and having led us into it for the General Welfare, this is not a matter of Wall Street versus Main Street. It most certainly is and indicates where their leadership will lead us--crisis!
Without reversing the regressive tax code, economic stimulus just stimulates consolidation of the wealth and recession.
While stimulus will cause a steep V-curve in equity valuations, this will not indicate economic recovery. That will be a sell signal. If you do not sell, you will be left holding the bag, and once again Wall Street wins at the expense of Main Street. The People's dependancy on Wall Street is thereby supported through the credit economy in which paying down your debt means you are less likely to have a job which, of course, means you must incur debt, and who are you going to get that from?
Interesting how if The People are forgiven debt, it is taxed as income, while the capital organized to produce the debt is regressively taxed if at all by various accounting rules available only to the very rich. The People need to seriously ask why that analysis is not a part of the pop-media presentation. That it is not included defines the analysis of pop media as mere propaganda that cannot be trusted.
Consider that the trillions of dollars applied for a worldwide, coordinated bailout plan being administered by treasuries and central banks still yields the prospect of global recession. That measures how much value has been expropriated from The People by financial, Wall Street, interests and used against The People. Expecting financial interests to fix it is foolish. The "fix" is in, and fixing that is the political will of The People to identify leadership that will not use The People's value against them. That would not be a person like this Governor Palin that regurgitates Republican platitudes on cue.
Arguing, for example, that spreading the wealth around--that The People fully sharing in the value they produce--will deprive them of the value they produce because they are depriving the investors of the value they need to cause financial panic and crisis is a complete comedy of errors. McCain's bottom-up proposal to buy out bad mortgages at full value, for example, does not recapitalize the benefit which is what is required to allow the mortgage to be affordable with economic conditions that adds the ability to pay for it at any price.
If we consider that the Economic Stabilization Act leaves the use of bailout funds entirely to the discretion of institutions that are prone to cause crisis for The People--the kind of decisionmaking Palin says is good for The People, the probability for risking the funds to perpetuate the crisis and another stimulus package does not indicate recovery.
The recovery funds are likely to be used to buy back shares, pay debt, and buy smaller regional banks with the argument that such consolidation is to ensure stability of the banking system when it has proven destabilizing.
Stabilization and stimulus will produce only a short term recovery because the causal factors of recession are both left intact and reinforced. It does not imdicate a bullish trend till we decide to recpaitalize the benefit with a more progressive tax code and deconsolidate the financial sector. Otherwise, we are locked in short-term oscillations (volatility) indefinitely. Improved leading indicators will only serve to indicate the volatility.
An Obama/Biden victory is a sure bullish indicator.
The stimulus money was inflationary. It went right to the profits of the corporate and was paid out to the shareholders who are largely, disproportionately, the top ten percent of incomes, which causes the need for the other 90% to incur debt borrowed from the very rich. The result was consolidation of the stimulus, or deflationary crisis.
According to Ivy-League analysts that pop media offers us as the experts that will lead us out of the crisis with the intimate understanding of having engineered it and having led us into it for the General Welfare, this is not a matter of Wall Street versus Main Street. It most certainly is and indicates where their leadership will lead us--crisis!
Without reversing the regressive tax code, economic stimulus just stimulates consolidation of the wealth and recession.
While stimulus will cause a steep V-curve in equity valuations, this will not indicate economic recovery. That will be a sell signal. If you do not sell, you will be left holding the bag, and once again Wall Street wins at the expense of Main Street. The People's dependancy on Wall Street is thereby supported through the credit economy in which paying down your debt means you are less likely to have a job which, of course, means you must incur debt, and who are you going to get that from?
Interesting how if The People are forgiven debt, it is taxed as income, while the capital organized to produce the debt is regressively taxed if at all by various accounting rules available only to the very rich. The People need to seriously ask why that analysis is not a part of the pop-media presentation. That it is not included defines the analysis of pop media as mere propaganda that cannot be trusted.
Consider that the trillions of dollars applied for a worldwide, coordinated bailout plan being administered by treasuries and central banks still yields the prospect of global recession. That measures how much value has been expropriated from The People by financial, Wall Street, interests and used against The People. Expecting financial interests to fix it is foolish. The "fix" is in, and fixing that is the political will of The People to identify leadership that will not use The People's value against them. That would not be a person like this Governor Palin that regurgitates Republican platitudes on cue.
Arguing, for example, that spreading the wealth around--that The People fully sharing in the value they produce--will deprive them of the value they produce because they are depriving the investors of the value they need to cause financial panic and crisis is a complete comedy of errors. McCain's bottom-up proposal to buy out bad mortgages at full value, for example, does not recapitalize the benefit which is what is required to allow the mortgage to be affordable with economic conditions that adds the ability to pay for it at any price.
If we consider that the Economic Stabilization Act leaves the use of bailout funds entirely to the discretion of institutions that are prone to cause crisis for The People--the kind of decisionmaking Palin says is good for The People, the probability for risking the funds to perpetuate the crisis and another stimulus package does not indicate recovery.
The recovery funds are likely to be used to buy back shares, pay debt, and buy smaller regional banks with the argument that such consolidation is to ensure stability of the banking system when it has proven destabilizing.
Stabilization and stimulus will produce only a short term recovery because the causal factors of recession are both left intact and reinforced. It does not imdicate a bullish trend till we decide to recpaitalize the benefit with a more progressive tax code and deconsolidate the financial sector. Otherwise, we are locked in short-term oscillations (volatility) indefinitely. Improved leading indicators will only serve to indicate the volatility.
An Obama/Biden victory is a sure bullish indicator.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Stakes
The stakes are driving the "unthawing" of credit markets more than the action of coordinated central banking.
Commanding capital markets (top-down, trickle-down management) falsely suggests that management of the capital in a concentrated, centralized state is the solution and not the problem.
The capital that has been consolidated is detecting siginificant pressure to retribute the value. For concentrated capital, retributing the value is a cost to be minimized. Much better to lend the capital for a return on the accumulated private equity and lobby for keeping a regressive tax code to pay it than to allow the retributive value to accumulate with a credit deficiency. The cost, and benefit, however, is an increased debt burden.
The trick is to be sure you do not end up with the debtor (the payer) assignment, and with the regressive tax code we have now, that would be The People experiencing crisis.
The markets are sensing the sensitivity of policymakers to manage the retributive value with a quick turnaround. Another stimulus package in the U.S. (a bottom-up measure) is being floated and is likely. However, without a more progressive tax code, a bottom-up stimulus is inflationary because it swells the deficit.
Another stimulus package without a more progressive tax code, like the previous stimulus package and temporary middle class tax cuts, will not recapitalize the benefit toward a stable recovery. It reinvests the benefit to relieve the pressure for retributing the value, the power, of the benefit (accumulation of the capital) to its source, The People, without an economic rent (the interest on the debt The People pay through a regressive tax code).
The best another stimulus without a more progressive tax code will do for The People will allow for a very short-term recovery of financial assets that will likely be sold (shook out, or consolidated), still well below their highs.
Since Republicans can't win with an appeal to reason and logic, there is an emotional appeal to fear the logical tendency to a more progressive tax code as that scary monster, "socialism."
The obvious need for a more progressive tax code is not a call for socialism. The capital and means of production is not owned by the state, but is more apt to be reinvested for a more competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, pluralism, instead of consolidation of wealth and power.
If you want socialism, and you need something to fear, just stay the course of the last eight years and vote for McCain. If you want free enterprise and the fullest capacity for choosing what you want to produce and at what price: recapitalize with a more progressive tax code the high accumulation of capital that is causing, commanding, liquidity crisis, and pluralize the marketplace.
Not sharing the wealth, not "spreading the wealth around," not having an equitably distributive ownership of the capital, results in liquidity crisis and massive debt--what we have now. Stop and reversal of the deflationary trend in a timely and equitable fashion REQUIRES that the wealth be shared--recapitalized from the benefit of the last eight years. That is not socialism!
Capitalism does not require the capital be owned by a privileged few elits unless, of course, you want to deprive The People through the indirect means of crisis by establishing and maintaining a cycle of boom and bust in which The People's assets are devalued and consolidated--the business cycle.
If we are going to have socialism, it won't be because we have free enterprise, it will be because we don't. If you want the lack of free enterprise that results from consolidated capital, industry and markets causing crisis of liquidity and overwhelming debt, if you want to cause socialism, vote conservative, vote for McCain.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Commanding capital markets (top-down, trickle-down management) falsely suggests that management of the capital in a concentrated, centralized state is the solution and not the problem.
The capital that has been consolidated is detecting siginificant pressure to retribute the value. For concentrated capital, retributing the value is a cost to be minimized. Much better to lend the capital for a return on the accumulated private equity and lobby for keeping a regressive tax code to pay it than to allow the retributive value to accumulate with a credit deficiency. The cost, and benefit, however, is an increased debt burden.
The trick is to be sure you do not end up with the debtor (the payer) assignment, and with the regressive tax code we have now, that would be The People experiencing crisis.
The markets are sensing the sensitivity of policymakers to manage the retributive value with a quick turnaround. Another stimulus package in the U.S. (a bottom-up measure) is being floated and is likely. However, without a more progressive tax code, a bottom-up stimulus is inflationary because it swells the deficit.
Another stimulus package without a more progressive tax code, like the previous stimulus package and temporary middle class tax cuts, will not recapitalize the benefit toward a stable recovery. It reinvests the benefit to relieve the pressure for retributing the value, the power, of the benefit (accumulation of the capital) to its source, The People, without an economic rent (the interest on the debt The People pay through a regressive tax code).
The best another stimulus without a more progressive tax code will do for The People will allow for a very short-term recovery of financial assets that will likely be sold (shook out, or consolidated), still well below their highs.
Since Republicans can't win with an appeal to reason and logic, there is an emotional appeal to fear the logical tendency to a more progressive tax code as that scary monster, "socialism."
The obvious need for a more progressive tax code is not a call for socialism. The capital and means of production is not owned by the state, but is more apt to be reinvested for a more competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, pluralism, instead of consolidation of wealth and power.
If you want socialism, and you need something to fear, just stay the course of the last eight years and vote for McCain. If you want free enterprise and the fullest capacity for choosing what you want to produce and at what price: recapitalize with a more progressive tax code the high accumulation of capital that is causing, commanding, liquidity crisis, and pluralize the marketplace.
Not sharing the wealth, not "spreading the wealth around," not having an equitably distributive ownership of the capital, results in liquidity crisis and massive debt--what we have now. Stop and reversal of the deflationary trend in a timely and equitable fashion REQUIRES that the wealth be shared--recapitalized from the benefit of the last eight years. That is not socialism!
Capitalism does not require the capital be owned by a privileged few elits unless, of course, you want to deprive The People through the indirect means of crisis by establishing and maintaining a cycle of boom and bust in which The People's assets are devalued and consolidated--the business cycle.
If we are going to have socialism, it won't be because we have free enterprise, it will be because we don't. If you want the lack of free enterprise that results from consolidated capital, industry and markets causing crisis of liquidity and overwhelming debt, if you want to cause socialism, vote conservative, vote for McCain.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Organizing for the Conditioned Response
There are two types of behavioral responses to stimulus: reflexive and conditioned.
Reflexive is a physiological response like blinking the eye in response to an impact stimulus. Conditioned is a learned response that occurs with an event expected to correlate with the reflexive response.
Our conditined, learned, response to our current economic crisis, for example, is to regard what is recognized to be a problem to be solved as a normative cycle--the business cycle. We have a process, or procedural knowledge, of the problem that modifies our reflexive response, our behavior, with an organized learning that is operantly conditioned.
Even though the reflexive response is to retribute the value lost, the value of your work, your savings, which is being interpreted by the experts as being an arbitrary abstraction subject to loss, the conditioned response is to allow the solution to cycle into the recovery phase, creating an engram of organized memory that is associated with McCain's recent cue for recall of the memory trace by saying, "We are a nation for creating wealth, not just spreading it around."
While the diminished value is the factor of sharing the wealth, it is, however, the determining variable for solution to the problem. The organized memory trace, the conditioned response, is to allow for the problem to be applied as the solution in the form of a popular consent, or self-dtermination.
It is time for a self-determined re-cognition of the problem by reviewing it.
If the problem reoccurs, it has not been solved. If we are conditioned to believe that being subject to perennial cycles of deprivation and depreciation of our productive value instills the strength of our patriotic conviction, that is both true and false. We are likely to believe in something we had to suffer for, creating a cognitive dissonance that reinforces the conditioned response.
While the conditioned organizational response is for a top-down bailout in which The People must wait for the solution of the problem to "trickle down," despite that the theory and practice is antecedent to the recurring crisis, The People will learn that it is an effective solution even though the crisis cycles into recovery without it. Using the problem as the solution is falsely confirmed, or learned and stored in memory as knowledge. The conditioned response is mistakenly declared as empirical knowledge.
It is time to relearn, recondition, the response. Joe the Plummer is the classic condition where he expresses fear of what will free him to patriotically pursue life, liberty and happiness.
The conditioned response is to fear the real solution.
With productive capacity well in hand and soundly established into reliable organized technologies, the next step is to share the wealth it produces, which will prevent the recurring algorythm of crisis, not cause it. The natural tendency to pluralism is a threat to the consolidation of power, and that power relies heavily on the conditioned response stored in organizational memory as the experience, the knowledge, of the expected outcome.
It is time to recondition the response, and the expected outcome.
That starts with this election cycle.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Reflexive is a physiological response like blinking the eye in response to an impact stimulus. Conditioned is a learned response that occurs with an event expected to correlate with the reflexive response.
Our conditined, learned, response to our current economic crisis, for example, is to regard what is recognized to be a problem to be solved as a normative cycle--the business cycle. We have a process, or procedural knowledge, of the problem that modifies our reflexive response, our behavior, with an organized learning that is operantly conditioned.
Even though the reflexive response is to retribute the value lost, the value of your work, your savings, which is being interpreted by the experts as being an arbitrary abstraction subject to loss, the conditioned response is to allow the solution to cycle into the recovery phase, creating an engram of organized memory that is associated with McCain's recent cue for recall of the memory trace by saying, "We are a nation for creating wealth, not just spreading it around."
While the diminished value is the factor of sharing the wealth, it is, however, the determining variable for solution to the problem. The organized memory trace, the conditioned response, is to allow for the problem to be applied as the solution in the form of a popular consent, or self-dtermination.
It is time for a self-determined re-cognition of the problem by reviewing it.
If the problem reoccurs, it has not been solved. If we are conditioned to believe that being subject to perennial cycles of deprivation and depreciation of our productive value instills the strength of our patriotic conviction, that is both true and false. We are likely to believe in something we had to suffer for, creating a cognitive dissonance that reinforces the conditioned response.
While the conditioned organizational response is for a top-down bailout in which The People must wait for the solution of the problem to "trickle down," despite that the theory and practice is antecedent to the recurring crisis, The People will learn that it is an effective solution even though the crisis cycles into recovery without it. Using the problem as the solution is falsely confirmed, or learned and stored in memory as knowledge. The conditioned response is mistakenly declared as empirical knowledge.
It is time to relearn, recondition, the response. Joe the Plummer is the classic condition where he expresses fear of what will free him to patriotically pursue life, liberty and happiness.
The conditioned response is to fear the real solution.
With productive capacity well in hand and soundly established into reliable organized technologies, the next step is to share the wealth it produces, which will prevent the recurring algorythm of crisis, not cause it. The natural tendency to pluralism is a threat to the consolidation of power, and that power relies heavily on the conditioned response stored in organizational memory as the experience, the knowledge, of the expected outcome.
It is time to recondition the response, and the expected outcome.
That starts with this election cycle.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)