Elits disagree over the direction, the control, of our economy, on the surface at least.
Ben Bernanke, federal reserve chief, a quasi-public bureaucrat who must choose the clientele he serves--the private financial sector that funds the agency or the general public, favors the Hamiltonian model.
The federal reserve now faces another potential bailout with a combine of public and private funds as another big investment bank flounders. It could be that Bernanke may let it fail to demonstrate the effects of not supporting the Hamiltonian model of political economy.
The public administration of a consolidated capital does not mean it is not misfeasant or malfeasant. No, it can be just as irresponsible, like most central planners of a consolidated power, because the central authority (the central bank) will not allow it to fail. If the federal reserve does allow an oversized horizontally and vertically integrated financial entity to fail, the integration of which should have been illegal and the scenario prevented in priority, the assets of this company will be consolidated, further centralized, into a command and control economy.
Berkshire Hathaway will be there to consolidate the assets, with Warren Buffet standing in opposition to the federal reserve's Hamiltonian modeling. It will be the pot calling the kettle black, but Buffet will claim it is not a taxpayer bailout, and "the public" will not be paying to keep a private institution of power solvent without sharing in the profits (shareholder class status), just the losses, to be shared by the class of "little people."
The "little people" are not the stupid masses to be taken advantage of by a more clever Hamiltonian elite. No. They are commanded to be the shareholders of detriment by the indirect means of the political-economic process of power, protected by the force and legitimacy of public authority. It is the product of a "command" economy, not free market economics.
The legitimacy must be by force of public authority because command and control by an elite is not Constitutional (publicly legitimate) and the command of the economy (organized consolidation of assets) is not, by definition, a free market mechanism (private legitimacy).
The model is entirely illegitimate.
The illegitimacy must not be managed with overt force in priority, but only as a consequence, like not allowing for consolidation of your assets as a result of the business cycle, which will earn you a forceful visit from the local constabulary.
Extending from the macro level, command and control is by a central planning authority of public/private means to form a bureaucratic model of power and political economy. The private sector operates with a false free-market legitimacy, and the public sector operates to adjust for the externalities, the consequences, mostly in the form of value in demand to be retributed as disposable income. That value, however, is accumulated as capital to deprive demand to increase the supply and maximize the profit on that limited supply.
Ensuring a true free-market legitimacy will cure this problem by organizing to produce the supply to produce the profit, and not its deprivation, or supply-side economics.
John McCain and his neo-conservative company are not supply-side, free marketeers. They are command and control Hamiltonians masquerading the mere mechanics of buying and selling as proof of free market economics. It is a fraud that must be managed and applied by central authority.
At the heart of this central authority is the means of finance through the treasury department and the federal reserve system (the bureaucratic model of power).
The federal reserve system largely functions to manage the volatility of the business cycle, and along with treasury operates to attenuate the negative externalities of illiquidity (an overaccumulation, consolidation, of wealth). The Economic Stimulus Package of 2008, for example, was distributed through treasury and financed by the federal reserve (the public debt).
The volatility we experience now manifests with shorter terms and less depth. Capital, however, becomes so consolidated it literally dictates the economy, but within the limits of fail-safe mechanisms, like limits on trage programme trading (the SEC). Both hedge-fund money and programme trading accounts for at least half the volume of the NYSE every day, more than enough to dictate the direction of prices with an inequity on the bid (a suboptimal distribution of capital wealth).
While the power of a consolidated capital is contrary to the legitimacy of free markets, the choice since the trauma of the Great Depression has been monetarism or socialism. The federal reserve maintains a system of monetarism with a consolidated capital. Socialism decidely does not obtain, but as the economy becomes evermore centralized and power consolidated, all it takes is a political decision to make the switch, but it may well be just a change of legitimacy that reinvents, revolutionizes, the inequity it purports to eliminate.
As many political economists have observed, the switch of legitimacy is just a tragicomedy of a change of elites. This is something to be avoided with insistence for a free and unconsolidated marketplace. Otherwise, despite whatever "ism" you brand it, it is still central authority, a consolidated power--the problem!
The complexity, the confusion, associated with identifying the problem is avoided not by identifying what it is, but by what it is not. If it is not the design of a free and unconsolidated market mechanism, then whatever "it" is, is not sufficient to pluralistically check the elements of power toward a peacefully and prosperous, verifiable legitimacy. Anything other than freedom is just an arbitration of what that is.
Discussions always philosophically reduce to legitimacies and attempts to identify or label the means to ends. It is entirely unresolvable and left to the arbitration and caprice of the powerful. It is much easier and effective to identify what freedom is not.
I can most assuredly identify John McCain and the neo-conservative coaltion as what freedom is not!
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a skilled pragmatist of a high moral intelligence capable of helping us realize what freedom really is.
Don't forge the chains that bind you. Forge the tools to break them.
Build the coaltion for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Can We Have a Depression?
Another Black Monday certainly can happen. It is a post-monetarist event.
Monetarism is a technology invented to stabilize, or predictably manage, the business cycle. It allows for cyclical oscillation without bringing the model of legitimacy--consolidated market capitalism--into question enough to throw it out for another model to be tested for legitimacy (the scientific method).
The current model of political economy in operation, the Hamiltonian model, maintains a hyopthetical legitimacy of regressive taxation (a trickle-down tax burden) to produce economic growth and the general welfare. This regressive tax structure is the fundament that guides and predicts the direction, the cyclical dimensions, of our economy, now in a command mode of stagflation to deflation. Thus, the hypothetical legitimacy of the model is strong-negative, meaning that the model (according to the scientific method) is to be thrown out for a model that will test positive for the general welfare.
The logical remedy is to reverse the fundament; that is, progress the tax code for a progressive tax burden, but that does not happen. Instead, we always have risk-management technologies in place to bureaucratically manage the demand, the need, for change into a cyclical technical correction of managing the supply of money.
Management of the money supply is a demand-side measure. It is adjusting the demand, not increasing supply. In fact, it is designed to reduce supply.
Supply is determined by organization of the markets to allow or disallow the investment to produce supply (economic growth). The added liquidity largely functions to reduce the perennial crisis of overproduction (a lack of disposable income, or demand--a regressive tax burden). This substitutes for the needed progressive tax code by adding liquidity from the central bank in the form of a public debt, to be paid for by a regressive code, and thus ensuring a predictably recurrent cycle of boom and bust (the crisis of overproduction, or insufficient demand).
The deflation we face now is an innovation to "the cycle" by peak-pricing commodities so that it looks like demand is exceeding supply, and so it looks like the crisis of overproduction is not a lack of disposable income due to the regressive tax code (the trickle-down economics), but a fundamental lack of supply.
The problem, however, is fundamentally the same: a Hamiltonian model of political economy in which markets are allowed to consolidate to limit supply on a monetized demand. The investment being made, public and private, is to increase demand, not add supply. The result are unaffordable prices, or a lack of disposable income which eventuates into deflation and an exponetiating public debt to perpetuate "the cycle."
Monetarism was invented to make the severity of the cyclical oscillation manageable; in other words, so that the retributive value does not overaccumulate enough to call for the rejection of the Hamiltonian model. The retributive value is borrowed and stored in the form of a public debt as government programs substitute for a lack of a free market legitimacy.
Hamiltonians falsely argue that government causes the public debt. That, in turn, effects remedies that just cause more debt to be regressively paid. The result is a gigantic accumulation of retributive value to be manifested in a deep cyclical compression.
At this point, the retributive value is demanding to be paid, but argued by Hamiltonians as just being a "natural" swing in the business cycle. It is the job of the monetarist to manage this accumulated debt so that it does not result in rejection of the falsely legitimate model.
Hamiltonians argue that rejection of their model is to reject the free market model of economics. Quit the contrary. Rejecting Hamiltonianism allows for acceptance of the free market model.
It is time to accept your freedom, your right to self-determination and stop being slave to a bunch of feudalistic, want-to-be overlords.
Join the coalition for Barack Obama and declare your natural right to be free from a continuously failed legitimacy of power.
Very best wishes.
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton.
Monetarism is a technology invented to stabilize, or predictably manage, the business cycle. It allows for cyclical oscillation without bringing the model of legitimacy--consolidated market capitalism--into question enough to throw it out for another model to be tested for legitimacy (the scientific method).
The current model of political economy in operation, the Hamiltonian model, maintains a hyopthetical legitimacy of regressive taxation (a trickle-down tax burden) to produce economic growth and the general welfare. This regressive tax structure is the fundament that guides and predicts the direction, the cyclical dimensions, of our economy, now in a command mode of stagflation to deflation. Thus, the hypothetical legitimacy of the model is strong-negative, meaning that the model (according to the scientific method) is to be thrown out for a model that will test positive for the general welfare.
The logical remedy is to reverse the fundament; that is, progress the tax code for a progressive tax burden, but that does not happen. Instead, we always have risk-management technologies in place to bureaucratically manage the demand, the need, for change into a cyclical technical correction of managing the supply of money.
Management of the money supply is a demand-side measure. It is adjusting the demand, not increasing supply. In fact, it is designed to reduce supply.
Supply is determined by organization of the markets to allow or disallow the investment to produce supply (economic growth). The added liquidity largely functions to reduce the perennial crisis of overproduction (a lack of disposable income, or demand--a regressive tax burden). This substitutes for the needed progressive tax code by adding liquidity from the central bank in the form of a public debt, to be paid for by a regressive code, and thus ensuring a predictably recurrent cycle of boom and bust (the crisis of overproduction, or insufficient demand).
The deflation we face now is an innovation to "the cycle" by peak-pricing commodities so that it looks like demand is exceeding supply, and so it looks like the crisis of overproduction is not a lack of disposable income due to the regressive tax code (the trickle-down economics), but a fundamental lack of supply.
The problem, however, is fundamentally the same: a Hamiltonian model of political economy in which markets are allowed to consolidate to limit supply on a monetized demand. The investment being made, public and private, is to increase demand, not add supply. The result are unaffordable prices, or a lack of disposable income which eventuates into deflation and an exponetiating public debt to perpetuate "the cycle."
Monetarism was invented to make the severity of the cyclical oscillation manageable; in other words, so that the retributive value does not overaccumulate enough to call for the rejection of the Hamiltonian model. The retributive value is borrowed and stored in the form of a public debt as government programs substitute for a lack of a free market legitimacy.
Hamiltonians falsely argue that government causes the public debt. That, in turn, effects remedies that just cause more debt to be regressively paid. The result is a gigantic accumulation of retributive value to be manifested in a deep cyclical compression.
At this point, the retributive value is demanding to be paid, but argued by Hamiltonians as just being a "natural" swing in the business cycle. It is the job of the monetarist to manage this accumulated debt so that it does not result in rejection of the falsely legitimate model.
Hamiltonians argue that rejection of their model is to reject the free market model of economics. Quit the contrary. Rejecting Hamiltonianism allows for acceptance of the free market model.
It is time to accept your freedom, your right to self-determination and stop being slave to a bunch of feudalistic, want-to-be overlords.
Join the coalition for Barack Obama and declare your natural right to be free from a continuously failed legitimacy of power.
Very best wishes.
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Iran Threatens Supply
Iran now says it will disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz if any military action is taken against its country.
The price per barrel has soared on this likely threat.
Iran had relucted to make this threat till now. It now is facing signs of escalating military preparations, the latest being the US joint chief of staff meeting with Israeli military officials.
The threat is largely just a threat because any attempted disruption in the strait will result in significant reduction of its military capability, something it wants to maintain in anticipation of US withdrawal from Iraq.
Iran has no intention of disrupting its oil revenue at over $100/bl, and threatening a disruption just increases the risk premium, making the mullahs that much richer and maximizes the value of its reserves toward the inevitable compression of the price and destruction of the value of substitution (the competition).
The threat of war is actually minimal. The stakes are too high for all parties. The risk premium, however, will be deliberately supported with threatening rhetoric and military demonstrations.
Contact griffithlighton@gmail.com for more consultation.
The price per barrel has soared on this likely threat.
Iran had relucted to make this threat till now. It now is facing signs of escalating military preparations, the latest being the US joint chief of staff meeting with Israeli military officials.
The threat is largely just a threat because any attempted disruption in the strait will result in significant reduction of its military capability, something it wants to maintain in anticipation of US withdrawal from Iraq.
Iran has no intention of disrupting its oil revenue at over $100/bl, and threatening a disruption just increases the risk premium, making the mullahs that much richer and maximizes the value of its reserves toward the inevitable compression of the price and destruction of the value of substitution (the competition).
The threat of war is actually minimal. The stakes are too high for all parties. The risk premium, however, will be deliberately supported with threatening rhetoric and military demonstrations.
Contact griffithlighton@gmail.com for more consultation.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Pay More Now or Pay a Lot More Later?
Pay more now or pay a lot more later is the latest argument to justify the excessive shock-price of oil.
The excessive price is being argued as the free-market function of profit indicating the need for added supply.
It is absolutely no such thing!
The shock-price is not a measure of fundamental value reflecting the long term demand-overshoots-supply dimension. Rather, it is a short term measure on the value of the power to command a price of an overconsolidated capital. It is a way to deflate the economy and empirically define class distinction--the haves and the have nots. The more you are made to suffer, the more you are deprived, the lower your demonstrated class. That is what the shock-price of oil is for; to consolidate wealth and demonstrate class.
Arguing you must pay an excessive price now to avoid an even higher price later is a fraud. The people making the argument fully intend for you to pay a higher price later by deflating the economy (deflating your income) even as the artificial peak-price of oil sells off in a technical correction of its real value. There is no intention to add supply because when the economy recovers (a retrace of the down-phase of the cycle falsely argued as economic growth), the cycle of speculative-demand, peak-oil valuation will be repeated as the latest means of cyclical oscillation in a neo-classical, post-monetarist environment.
People that are made to suffer the consequences of deliberate cyclical compression and decompression of the economy are not demonstrably lower class, you are victim of a fraud in the marketplace!
Deny the frauds, the criminals, the practitioners of the politics of deprivation, access to power. It is your legal right, it is your legal obligation.
If you want to grow your business, if you want sustainable economic growth, join the coalition for Barack Obama and start to command your own fate!
Very best wishes.
The excessive price is being argued as the free-market function of profit indicating the need for added supply.
It is absolutely no such thing!
The shock-price is not a measure of fundamental value reflecting the long term demand-overshoots-supply dimension. Rather, it is a short term measure on the value of the power to command a price of an overconsolidated capital. It is a way to deflate the economy and empirically define class distinction--the haves and the have nots. The more you are made to suffer, the more you are deprived, the lower your demonstrated class. That is what the shock-price of oil is for; to consolidate wealth and demonstrate class.
Arguing you must pay an excessive price now to avoid an even higher price later is a fraud. The people making the argument fully intend for you to pay a higher price later by deflating the economy (deflating your income) even as the artificial peak-price of oil sells off in a technical correction of its real value. There is no intention to add supply because when the economy recovers (a retrace of the down-phase of the cycle falsely argued as economic growth), the cycle of speculative-demand, peak-oil valuation will be repeated as the latest means of cyclical oscillation in a neo-classical, post-monetarist environment.
People that are made to suffer the consequences of deliberate cyclical compression and decompression of the economy are not demonstrably lower class, you are victim of a fraud in the marketplace!
Deny the frauds, the criminals, the practitioners of the politics of deprivation, access to power. It is your legal right, it is your legal obligation.
If you want to grow your business, if you want sustainable economic growth, join the coalition for Barack Obama and start to command your own fate!
Very best wishes.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Classic Problem (Perennialism)
There is a philosophical concept called perennialism.
Most philosophers describe a perennialism, grappling with current problems and perception of those problems. Many describe it as inevitable historic recurrence.
A determinism soft or hard, the command mode our economy is in now, the tendency to deflation, is the recurrent bugaboo of capitalism and classical economics--the crisis of overproduction.
All the classic and neo-classic indices are present to suggest a classic economic depression, or a perennial problem. It is a problem even for the beneficiaries of the business cycle (consolidation of wealth) because with each oscillation, within a recent memory especially, the legitimacy of the political-economic process is called into question.
Clearly, the global economy is determined to deflate. It is being commanded by a consolidated wealth. Even though there are differences in the form of the crisis, and the remedial measures available to stabilize it, like monetarism, are more efficient, the result will be the same--overproduction due to a reduction of demand, or deflation. It is a demand-side economics that benefits the consolidation of capital, which is the source of the problem. It is a "classical" economic problem that ALL the classical economists have described, explained, and all predict to be perennially persistent.
The antithesis to demand-side economics is obviously, rationally, in order. Supply-side economics is the solution nature is demanding, awaiting our command.
The solution is simple, it is direct: invest in the supply side, not the demand side like the speculative demand driving the global economy into depression now.
The solution is simple and easily applied. We just have to decide to do it.
Join the coalition for Obama and build the peacefully prosperous world of a self-determined pluralism we all "know" we can have.
Very best wishes.
Most philosophers describe a perennialism, grappling with current problems and perception of those problems. Many describe it as inevitable historic recurrence.
A determinism soft or hard, the command mode our economy is in now, the tendency to deflation, is the recurrent bugaboo of capitalism and classical economics--the crisis of overproduction.
All the classic and neo-classic indices are present to suggest a classic economic depression, or a perennial problem. It is a problem even for the beneficiaries of the business cycle (consolidation of wealth) because with each oscillation, within a recent memory especially, the legitimacy of the political-economic process is called into question.
Clearly, the global economy is determined to deflate. It is being commanded by a consolidated wealth. Even though there are differences in the form of the crisis, and the remedial measures available to stabilize it, like monetarism, are more efficient, the result will be the same--overproduction due to a reduction of demand, or deflation. It is a demand-side economics that benefits the consolidation of capital, which is the source of the problem. It is a "classical" economic problem that ALL the classical economists have described, explained, and all predict to be perennially persistent.
The antithesis to demand-side economics is obviously, rationally, in order. Supply-side economics is the solution nature is demanding, awaiting our command.
The solution is simple, it is direct: invest in the supply side, not the demand side like the speculative demand driving the global economy into depression now.
The solution is simple and easily applied. We just have to decide to do it.
Join the coalition for Obama and build the peacefully prosperous world of a self-determined pluralism we all "know" we can have.
Very best wishes.
Blaming Oil Speculation is a Distraction
According to Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the voice of business in government, blaming the price of oil on speculation "is a distraction" to focusing on demand reduction and adding supply.
It just happens to be that the overwhelming volume of a consolidated capital holding over 70% of oil futures contracts for non-delivery (for speculative purposes) is not being invested in adding supply.
The speculative investment is, however, reducing demand by deflating the economy. The official Republican administration policy, including John McCain, is that the trickle-down economics driving the demand reduction is supply-side economics.
That would be false by the most obvious measure of the evidence used to support their hypothesis: that the price of oil is due to a fundamental lack of supply.
You would think neo-conservatives are intelligent enough to come up with something that at least resembles a convincing argument.
Remove the consolidated capital from the speculative demand, reinvest it in adding supply (economic growth), and this "fundamental" problem of not properly organizing to add supply, but to restrict it, goes away.
If you want economic growth, if you want to grow your business, join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
It just happens to be that the overwhelming volume of a consolidated capital holding over 70% of oil futures contracts for non-delivery (for speculative purposes) is not being invested in adding supply.
The speculative investment is, however, reducing demand by deflating the economy. The official Republican administration policy, including John McCain, is that the trickle-down economics driving the demand reduction is supply-side economics.
That would be false by the most obvious measure of the evidence used to support their hypothesis: that the price of oil is due to a fundamental lack of supply.
You would think neo-conservatives are intelligent enough to come up with something that at least resembles a convincing argument.
Remove the consolidated capital from the speculative demand, reinvest it in adding supply (economic growth), and this "fundamental" problem of not properly organizing to add supply, but to restrict it, goes away.
If you want economic growth, if you want to grow your business, join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Weak Dollar Blamed for Record Oil Price?
The high price of oil is deflating, reducing demand (purchasing power), of the US economy. The result is a weakening dollar.
The option being offered to strengthen the dollar is raising the interest rate to reduce the demand for oil.
The option "commands" deflation of the economy. Not applying the option "commands" deflation of the economy.
I do believe deflation of the economy is in command.
Deflation is being offered as the only option. The other remedy, overwhelmed with the current evidence it does not work, and its advocacy making the advocate look like an absolute fool, is to "make the the tax cuts permanent and reduce government spending" as per John McCain and the neo-conservative coalition in power.
The trickle-down economic policy that causes a weak dollar with slow-to-no-growth and increases the demand for government--the problem--is otherwise being offered as the solution.
The effect, the weak dollar, is being attributed as the cause. It is a fundamental fraud.
It is a deliberate politics of deprivation.
It is fundamentally immoral.
It is the problem. Not the solution.
Advocates of commanding deflation need to be denied access to power.
Join the coalition for Senator Barack Obama!
The option being offered to strengthen the dollar is raising the interest rate to reduce the demand for oil.
The option "commands" deflation of the economy. Not applying the option "commands" deflation of the economy.
I do believe deflation of the economy is in command.
Deflation is being offered as the only option. The other remedy, overwhelmed with the current evidence it does not work, and its advocacy making the advocate look like an absolute fool, is to "make the the tax cuts permanent and reduce government spending" as per John McCain and the neo-conservative coalition in power.
The trickle-down economic policy that causes a weak dollar with slow-to-no-growth and increases the demand for government--the problem--is otherwise being offered as the solution.
The effect, the weak dollar, is being attributed as the cause. It is a fundamental fraud.
It is a deliberate politics of deprivation.
It is fundamentally immoral.
It is the problem. Not the solution.
Advocates of commanding deflation need to be denied access to power.
Join the coalition for Senator Barack Obama!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Technical Correction
Correcting for the Whipsaw
There needs to be a technical correction on income.
The whipsaw is your income going down while costs go up. The result is a redistribution of income that, by a free market legitimacy, is supposed to add supply to control inflation at full employment which is created by the investment to add the supply (liquidity of capital).
The technical measure for correction is a progressive income tax code with no exceptions. The measure will not cause a budget deficit. It will cause a budget surplus. A regressive income tax code causes a budget deficit in every case across all jurisdictional boundaries.
While the detriment of the tax rate progresses, that progression also has the benefit of the highest incomes being assured payment of the public debt held in the highest proportion. Figuring in a risk-free payment of the debt on a declining rate of infaltion is a substantial benefit that more than offsets the loss of the tax increase. The argued inequity and detriment of the progressive tax increase is entirely false.
The Pareto Optimality of the progressive income tax measure is Strong Positive.
The technical correction to income will not interrupt or materially change the productive incentive of a free market mechanics. Rather it will both restore the mechanism and correct for its absence where the distribution of capital was allowed to consolidate into a liquidity crisis of massive proportion. The corrective measure will technically add the liquidity necessary for economic recovery and sustainable economic growth.
The role of the Federal Reserve will be reduced to ensuring the free market mechanics of the financial sector. Adding liquidity will be in large part rendered progressively obsolete being provided for in priority. Violators of the free market mechanism will be strictly prosecuted and convicted by the Department of Justice with the burden of proof on the defendant to show no violation, like it is now with any alleged tax code violation strictly enforced through Treasury and Justice.
Build the coaltion for Obama, and let the technical correction begin!
Very best wishes.
tags:
technical correction,progressive income taxation,free market economics,adjusting for externalities,public finance,election 2008
There needs to be a technical correction on income.
The whipsaw is your income going down while costs go up. The result is a redistribution of income that, by a free market legitimacy, is supposed to add supply to control inflation at full employment which is created by the investment to add the supply (liquidity of capital).
The technical measure for correction is a progressive income tax code with no exceptions. The measure will not cause a budget deficit. It will cause a budget surplus. A regressive income tax code causes a budget deficit in every case across all jurisdictional boundaries.
While the detriment of the tax rate progresses, that progression also has the benefit of the highest incomes being assured payment of the public debt held in the highest proportion. Figuring in a risk-free payment of the debt on a declining rate of infaltion is a substantial benefit that more than offsets the loss of the tax increase. The argued inequity and detriment of the progressive tax increase is entirely false.
The Pareto Optimality of the progressive income tax measure is Strong Positive.
The technical correction to income will not interrupt or materially change the productive incentive of a free market mechanics. Rather it will both restore the mechanism and correct for its absence where the distribution of capital was allowed to consolidate into a liquidity crisis of massive proportion. The corrective measure will technically add the liquidity necessary for economic recovery and sustainable economic growth.
The role of the Federal Reserve will be reduced to ensuring the free market mechanics of the financial sector. Adding liquidity will be in large part rendered progressively obsolete being provided for in priority. Violators of the free market mechanism will be strictly prosecuted and convicted by the Department of Justice with the burden of proof on the defendant to show no violation, like it is now with any alleged tax code violation strictly enforced through Treasury and Justice.
Build the coaltion for Obama, and let the technical correction begin!
Very best wishes.
tags:
technical correction,progressive income taxation,free market economics,adjusting for externalities,public finance,election 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Buyer for Every Seller
Buyer for Every Seller
Futures markets figure prominently in the discussion of the price at the pump.
Futures markets are supposed to be a means of hedging the price of commodities so a business has an even price-input risk. It also allows for a farmer, for example, to have a buyer at any time. Futures are used that way.
Arbitrage, however, also enters the futures market and that's why it was allowed to be unregulated along with all other aspects of the financial sector; and combined with allowing a high concentration, consolidation, of capital, the result has been a PREDICTABLY severe liquidity crisis (not enough capital to drive growth).
Capital is being used to buy and sell the existing supply, and because the supply is being reduced while demand increases along with an inequitable, consolidated, bid on the price, the price of commodities is magnified, distorted, even more. This is happening with both food and fuel and being explained as market fundamentals.
Let's just call it for what it is since we are paying a premium for food and fuel that is supposed to add supply. Attributing the high-demand price, the high premium, to market fundamentals is just an outright lie! It is the product of criminal behavior, and needs to be prosecuted as a knowing and willing fraud in the marketplace.
Let's see, so in the name of global economic development, we are shipping our raw materials to Asia, increasing energy demand; manufacturing a cheap finished product, increasing energy demand; shipping the product back to the US, increasing energy demand while we lose our jobs, reducing purchasing power; we lose our small businesses, reducing purchasing power, supply of employers and the tax base.
Yes, the market has been fundamentally organized into a whipsaw. Demand has been organized to outpace the supply of energy and the supply of employment to deliberately produce a slow growth (uncompetitive) economy of deprivation, and we are being told it is the result of a natrually competitive global economy. It is just an outright lie!
Taxing the beneficiaries is no gimmick! If you want to see gimmick, look at the way the global economy is organized and explained away as a free market economy. Deconsolidate the accumulation of the capital that has been organized by a global command economy and we can have a free market with the legitimacy of market fundamentals. Until then, we are operating with a pack of lies.
Changing this organized tyranny is not difficult once we get past the lies and deceit.
Build the coalition for Senator Obama to be the next President of the United States!
Yes, we can!
Very best wishes.
tags:
market fundamentals,speculative demand,global economy
Futures markets figure prominently in the discussion of the price at the pump.
Futures markets are supposed to be a means of hedging the price of commodities so a business has an even price-input risk. It also allows for a farmer, for example, to have a buyer at any time. Futures are used that way.
Arbitrage, however, also enters the futures market and that's why it was allowed to be unregulated along with all other aspects of the financial sector; and combined with allowing a high concentration, consolidation, of capital, the result has been a PREDICTABLY severe liquidity crisis (not enough capital to drive growth).
Capital is being used to buy and sell the existing supply, and because the supply is being reduced while demand increases along with an inequitable, consolidated, bid on the price, the price of commodities is magnified, distorted, even more. This is happening with both food and fuel and being explained as market fundamentals.
Let's just call it for what it is since we are paying a premium for food and fuel that is supposed to add supply. Attributing the high-demand price, the high premium, to market fundamentals is just an outright lie! It is the product of criminal behavior, and needs to be prosecuted as a knowing and willing fraud in the marketplace.
Let's see, so in the name of global economic development, we are shipping our raw materials to Asia, increasing energy demand; manufacturing a cheap finished product, increasing energy demand; shipping the product back to the US, increasing energy demand while we lose our jobs, reducing purchasing power; we lose our small businesses, reducing purchasing power, supply of employers and the tax base.
Yes, the market has been fundamentally organized into a whipsaw. Demand has been organized to outpace the supply of energy and the supply of employment to deliberately produce a slow growth (uncompetitive) economy of deprivation, and we are being told it is the result of a natrually competitive global economy. It is just an outright lie!
Taxing the beneficiaries is no gimmick! If you want to see gimmick, look at the way the global economy is organized and explained away as a free market economy. Deconsolidate the accumulation of the capital that has been organized by a global command economy and we can have a free market with the legitimacy of market fundamentals. Until then, we are operating with a pack of lies.
Changing this organized tyranny is not difficult once we get past the lies and deceit.
Build the coalition for Senator Obama to be the next President of the United States!
Yes, we can!
Very best wishes.
tags:
market fundamentals,speculative demand,global economy
Monday, June 9, 2008
Threshold of Tolerance
Threshold of Tolerance
The consumer coalition anticipated to counter the oil cartel prompted the Saudis to call a meeting to assure consumers OPEC will not allow a global recesson due to "unjustified prices."
Not only do we see the power of building a coaltion, but admission of a speculative command of the bid and fear of a more pluralistic market environment going forward.
Pluralism works. However, elite control of the global economy being commanded on the bid for both food and fuel is stubbornly persistent in the face of mounting retributive value. This is very dangerous.
Remember that the global elite consider themselves to be beyond the status of sovereign (Hamiltonian politics). Their ruling class status has to be demonstrated to have credibility. That means non-elits must suffer and find relief by the hand of the extra-sovereign power, the supra class of class society. These super elits consider the Saudi sovereign to be weak like all sovereigns. The Saudis, of course, resent the lower class implication and have called the speculative command of the bid to be excessive; and so we have the classic clash of elits that a pluralistic model of power controls by requiring the ambitions of power solicit the accountability of the sovereign (Jeffersonian politics).
This extra-sovereign elite has not reached a threshold of tolerance demanded by the non-elite. It fully intends to test the limit and demonstrate its power despite a crumbling neo-conservative coalition. The demonstration will only serve to expose the abusers and the secretive means of abuse. The supra-sovereigns will fully realize the conceit of their power, losing it by operation of their own, obvious, consolidated means. It is a target so big, we can't miss. Bigger is not better, even for the elite.
Build the new coaltion! End this conceited farce of power politics and get on with living the truth of our natural sovereignty.
Build the coalition for Senator Obama to solicit his skillful and effective leadership, and heightened moral intelligence.
Very best wishes.
The consumer coalition anticipated to counter the oil cartel prompted the Saudis to call a meeting to assure consumers OPEC will not allow a global recesson due to "unjustified prices."
Not only do we see the power of building a coaltion, but admission of a speculative command of the bid and fear of a more pluralistic market environment going forward.
Pluralism works. However, elite control of the global economy being commanded on the bid for both food and fuel is stubbornly persistent in the face of mounting retributive value. This is very dangerous.
Remember that the global elite consider themselves to be beyond the status of sovereign (Hamiltonian politics). Their ruling class status has to be demonstrated to have credibility. That means non-elits must suffer and find relief by the hand of the extra-sovereign power, the supra class of class society. These super elits consider the Saudi sovereign to be weak like all sovereigns. The Saudis, of course, resent the lower class implication and have called the speculative command of the bid to be excessive; and so we have the classic clash of elits that a pluralistic model of power controls by requiring the ambitions of power solicit the accountability of the sovereign (Jeffersonian politics).
This extra-sovereign elite has not reached a threshold of tolerance demanded by the non-elite. It fully intends to test the limit and demonstrate its power despite a crumbling neo-conservative coalition. The demonstration will only serve to expose the abusers and the secretive means of abuse. The supra-sovereigns will fully realize the conceit of their power, losing it by operation of their own, obvious, consolidated means. It is a target so big, we can't miss. Bigger is not better, even for the elite.
Build the new coaltion! End this conceited farce of power politics and get on with living the truth of our natural sovereignty.
Build the coalition for Senator Obama to solicit his skillful and effective leadership, and heightened moral intelligence.
Very best wishes.
Cost of Not Building a New Coalition
Cost of Not Building a New Coalition
The cost of not building a new coaliion from the rubble of the failed neo-conservative legitimacy is the two-party toggle technique will be preserved. The neo-conservative is alive for another day. If real and effective change characterized by continuous improvement is what we want, building a new coalition will be most effective.
Elits fear the possibility of a new coalition because it defeats the two-party technology of preserving the status quo. Pelosi, for example. is being characterized as a left-wing radical bent on driving our nation into an autocratic socialist state with Obama. Ridiculous as that may be, it will nevertheless discourage a new coalition and preserve the two-party dynamic for a retrenchment of solutions reinventing the old problems.
Real pluralism is sustainably possible.
Build the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
The cost of not building a new coaliion from the rubble of the failed neo-conservative legitimacy is the two-party toggle technique will be preserved. The neo-conservative is alive for another day. If real and effective change characterized by continuous improvement is what we want, building a new coalition will be most effective.
Elits fear the possibility of a new coalition because it defeats the two-party technology of preserving the status quo. Pelosi, for example. is being characterized as a left-wing radical bent on driving our nation into an autocratic socialist state with Obama. Ridiculous as that may be, it will nevertheless discourage a new coalition and preserve the two-party dynamic for a retrenchment of solutions reinventing the old problems.
Real pluralism is sustainably possible.
Build the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Theory of Retributive Value
Retributive Value
Positing a theory of retributive value is crucial for understanding the physics of political-economic dynamics; of managing the natural relationships of cause and effect toward predictable, desireable consequences.
Two plus two equals four. Simple, universally understandable, logically positive. If somehow value is removed from the simple, natural equation without adding its value to the natural, necessary, balance of it, the universal balance of the eqation is unstable and naturally acts to correct itself, and will be corrected, without active intervention of the expropriator of the value.
Classical economists were well aware of retributive value. Adam Smith argued nature always equilibriates with the sanction of profit and loss toward continuous improvement much as Darwin observed in nature. Both thinkers posit the theory based on empirical, ontological observation. It was not to support any teleological belief or ideology, but just the pursuit of knowlege from the the particular to the general--the scientific method, a process of induction. It is an exercise in Logical Positivism.
Smith and Darwin are not devoid of moral value. Quite the contrary. They both observed the ontological result of natural forces was a continuous improvement to environmental conditions. It is naturally, teleologically, positive.
If someone removes value from the equation and declares that doing so has rendered the naturally stable and logically positive equation to now be 2+2=5, the eqation is now naturally unstable and illogical. The expropriator will constantly have to act to "conserve" the value removed from the equation to prevent it from returning to its natural condition.
While it is possible to expand the pie, transform nature into wealth, the physics--the logically positive attributes--are naturally conserved. Creating wealth does not create more matter or energy to be utilized: 2+2=5 can only be maintained by political proclamation and practice--by an abstraction of the sociological imagination.
There is a retributive value, a cost, that is accumulated over time as society suffers the unnatural equation of 2+2=3 and the political dissonance of a cognitively abstract 2+2=5 legitimacy. Conserving the removed value can be by brute force, legal proclamation, bureaucratic management. It can be theorized, systematized and monetized many times over, but still, something has got to give.
We are in a highly progressed phase of bureaucratic management. Without it, we regress to legal proclamation and then to brute force, much as our founding fathers observed and has characteristized much of the 20th Century, moving back and forth between the phases of managing the accumulated, surplused, retributive value.
The fundamental empirical measure of this surplused retributive value, always being mortgaged to the future, is the nominal value of the accumulating public debt. Progress will be the simple, fundamental function of a progressive tax code to surrender the retributive value to distributive justice. A simple calculus that is easily verified by the outcome, the evidence.
A simple, progressive tax code, with no exceptions, is clearly and verifiably fair and equitable. Rather than the subject of political parsing, fallacious rhetoric and pious frauds, the legitimacy of power is rendered simple, universally understandable, and scientifically unambiguous. The difference betweem belief and knowlege, validation and verification, is rendered an easy, naturally occuring operation of common life rather than the abstruse, safely impractical and accessibly limited domain of deliberate, scholarly pursuit.
Although the reactionary tendency to regress has been mitigated by improved organizational technologies, the natural tendency to correct the equation naturally, inexorably, persits and can be observed in persistent pluralistic tendencies that take the form of bureaucratic power and public authority as markets are allowed to consolidate and maintain an unstable equation.
The Federal Reserve argues its function is to organize, manage, chaos. It is not! What we see is the private sector preventing the organized efficiency of free markets to produce a stable social environment and a genuine, easily verifiable legitimacy. The result is inherent instability that requires management of a highly centralized authority with a false legitimacy of protecting us from what we would naturally have without it--a peacefully prosperous pluralism.
Assuring a peaceful and prosperous pluralisitic market environment always holds the possibility for choosing to live a collectively moral life that is individually motivated. In the mean time, the struggle for survival and the ambition to power can occur as a productive competition within a peaceful context. Until we find utopia, or utopia finds us, a free and unconsolidated marketplace will make that progression a peaceful and prosperous one.
We do not have to suffer the conceits of power to realize the good life if we do not choose to. Our Constitution provides the means if we choose to go the way of what we are all naturally endowed: freedom.
The next step is to build a broad based coalition from the rubble of the failed legitimacy of a collapsed neo-conservative coalitional regime. Build a coalition for Mr. Obama to solicit his leadership skill. The function of the moral ends will properly and legitimately follow the form of the moral means to power.
Very best wishes.
Positing a theory of retributive value is crucial for understanding the physics of political-economic dynamics; of managing the natural relationships of cause and effect toward predictable, desireable consequences.
Two plus two equals four. Simple, universally understandable, logically positive. If somehow value is removed from the simple, natural equation without adding its value to the natural, necessary, balance of it, the universal balance of the eqation is unstable and naturally acts to correct itself, and will be corrected, without active intervention of the expropriator of the value.
Classical economists were well aware of retributive value. Adam Smith argued nature always equilibriates with the sanction of profit and loss toward continuous improvement much as Darwin observed in nature. Both thinkers posit the theory based on empirical, ontological observation. It was not to support any teleological belief or ideology, but just the pursuit of knowlege from the the particular to the general--the scientific method, a process of induction. It is an exercise in Logical Positivism.
Smith and Darwin are not devoid of moral value. Quite the contrary. They both observed the ontological result of natural forces was a continuous improvement to environmental conditions. It is naturally, teleologically, positive.
If someone removes value from the equation and declares that doing so has rendered the naturally stable and logically positive equation to now be 2+2=5, the eqation is now naturally unstable and illogical. The expropriator will constantly have to act to "conserve" the value removed from the equation to prevent it from returning to its natural condition.
While it is possible to expand the pie, transform nature into wealth, the physics--the logically positive attributes--are naturally conserved. Creating wealth does not create more matter or energy to be utilized: 2+2=5 can only be maintained by political proclamation and practice--by an abstraction of the sociological imagination.
There is a retributive value, a cost, that is accumulated over time as society suffers the unnatural equation of 2+2=3 and the political dissonance of a cognitively abstract 2+2=5 legitimacy. Conserving the removed value can be by brute force, legal proclamation, bureaucratic management. It can be theorized, systematized and monetized many times over, but still, something has got to give.
We are in a highly progressed phase of bureaucratic management. Without it, we regress to legal proclamation and then to brute force, much as our founding fathers observed and has characteristized much of the 20th Century, moving back and forth between the phases of managing the accumulated, surplused, retributive value.
The fundamental empirical measure of this surplused retributive value, always being mortgaged to the future, is the nominal value of the accumulating public debt. Progress will be the simple, fundamental function of a progressive tax code to surrender the retributive value to distributive justice. A simple calculus that is easily verified by the outcome, the evidence.
A simple, progressive tax code, with no exceptions, is clearly and verifiably fair and equitable. Rather than the subject of political parsing, fallacious rhetoric and pious frauds, the legitimacy of power is rendered simple, universally understandable, and scientifically unambiguous. The difference betweem belief and knowlege, validation and verification, is rendered an easy, naturally occuring operation of common life rather than the abstruse, safely impractical and accessibly limited domain of deliberate, scholarly pursuit.
Although the reactionary tendency to regress has been mitigated by improved organizational technologies, the natural tendency to correct the equation naturally, inexorably, persits and can be observed in persistent pluralistic tendencies that take the form of bureaucratic power and public authority as markets are allowed to consolidate and maintain an unstable equation.
The Federal Reserve argues its function is to organize, manage, chaos. It is not! What we see is the private sector preventing the organized efficiency of free markets to produce a stable social environment and a genuine, easily verifiable legitimacy. The result is inherent instability that requires management of a highly centralized authority with a false legitimacy of protecting us from what we would naturally have without it--a peacefully prosperous pluralism.
Assuring a peaceful and prosperous pluralisitic market environment always holds the possibility for choosing to live a collectively moral life that is individually motivated. In the mean time, the struggle for survival and the ambition to power can occur as a productive competition within a peaceful context. Until we find utopia, or utopia finds us, a free and unconsolidated marketplace will make that progression a peaceful and prosperous one.
We do not have to suffer the conceits of power to realize the good life if we do not choose to. Our Constitution provides the means if we choose to go the way of what we are all naturally endowed: freedom.
The next step is to build a broad based coalition from the rubble of the failed legitimacy of a collapsed neo-conservative coalitional regime. Build a coalition for Mr. Obama to solicit his leadership skill. The function of the moral ends will properly and legitimately follow the form of the moral means to power.
Very best wishes.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Refreshing Our Role in International Affairs
Refreshing Our Role in International Affairs
US history teaches us our founders relucted to engage international affairs. While isolation is impossible and impractical, we should not lose the wisdom and, perhaps, refresh our role.
Mr. Obama has already demonstrated a refreshing approach to what the founders considered to be "their" problems. Immediately suggesting the two-state solution is to recognize a much needed pluralism that will allow a process of improvement to occur that just needs diplomatic tweeking. It allows for a peacefully legitimate process of self-determination to occur that a command and control can only simulate, and not at all well.
It was not long that the founders realized that a global marketplace engaged the wealth of nations. It is too seductive. Isolation limits your wealth, so it is necessary to cultivate a peaceful environment for commerce to take place. Has our economy become so mature with deliberately elitist tendencies that we MUST apply dangerous foreign entanglements?
It is entirely reasonable for small businesses worldwide to ensure a peaceful environment for commerce to take place. The bigger a business becomes, the more it is able to manage the risk of instability, if not by causing it. Risk is minimized if you can know when and where it will happen making small business bear all the risk. That would be a good reason for our founders to not engage big sovereigns to do business.
In the US, every individual is constitutionally sovereign. The power structure is legally pluralistic. Engaging foreign powers compromises that pluralism. International terrorism has led to the Patriot Act, for example.
Pluralism is something that needs to be cultivated internationally for the wealth of nations. The reason big corporates become international conglomerates is to unilaterally control a natural tendency for pluralism. These large coporates are in fact considered to be the large sovereigns that our founders largely considered to be incompatible with the more sophisticated means of a legal pluralistic legitimacy.
Transnational corporates consider themselves beyond the status of sovereignty, and a global elite has evolved a self-concept of the ruling class. Sovereigns are considered objects to be controlled and managed, not cultivated, just like when the bourgeoise began its ascension to power. This elitist model of power and ploitical economy, this global Hamiltonianism, is conceptually operationalized into a false legitimacy of the general welfare that is argued superior to the chaos of pluralism. It is really a recipe for disaster contained within the conceptual model, the false legitimacy, operationalized into the practical model of power.
The time has come to replace the practical model for instability with the proven model of equitable stability. A peaceful and prosperous process for continuous improvement will not just be possible, but probable.
It is up to the voters to build a broad based coalition that the leadership can join to redifine the legitimacy of power as the natural right to self-determination, the right of the sovereign to actualize, to choose, a peaceful and prosperous existence together.
Allow Mr. Obamam the choice of leading a broad based coalition for real, much needed change.
Very best wishes.
tags:
international affairs,Hamiltonianism,practical models,commercial pluralism,coalition politics,organization theory
US history teaches us our founders relucted to engage international affairs. While isolation is impossible and impractical, we should not lose the wisdom and, perhaps, refresh our role.
Mr. Obama has already demonstrated a refreshing approach to what the founders considered to be "their" problems. Immediately suggesting the two-state solution is to recognize a much needed pluralism that will allow a process of improvement to occur that just needs diplomatic tweeking. It allows for a peacefully legitimate process of self-determination to occur that a command and control can only simulate, and not at all well.
It was not long that the founders realized that a global marketplace engaged the wealth of nations. It is too seductive. Isolation limits your wealth, so it is necessary to cultivate a peaceful environment for commerce to take place. Has our economy become so mature with deliberately elitist tendencies that we MUST apply dangerous foreign entanglements?
It is entirely reasonable for small businesses worldwide to ensure a peaceful environment for commerce to take place. The bigger a business becomes, the more it is able to manage the risk of instability, if not by causing it. Risk is minimized if you can know when and where it will happen making small business bear all the risk. That would be a good reason for our founders to not engage big sovereigns to do business.
In the US, every individual is constitutionally sovereign. The power structure is legally pluralistic. Engaging foreign powers compromises that pluralism. International terrorism has led to the Patriot Act, for example.
Pluralism is something that needs to be cultivated internationally for the wealth of nations. The reason big corporates become international conglomerates is to unilaterally control a natural tendency for pluralism. These large coporates are in fact considered to be the large sovereigns that our founders largely considered to be incompatible with the more sophisticated means of a legal pluralistic legitimacy.
Transnational corporates consider themselves beyond the status of sovereignty, and a global elite has evolved a self-concept of the ruling class. Sovereigns are considered objects to be controlled and managed, not cultivated, just like when the bourgeoise began its ascension to power. This elitist model of power and ploitical economy, this global Hamiltonianism, is conceptually operationalized into a false legitimacy of the general welfare that is argued superior to the chaos of pluralism. It is really a recipe for disaster contained within the conceptual model, the false legitimacy, operationalized into the practical model of power.
The time has come to replace the practical model for instability with the proven model of equitable stability. A peaceful and prosperous process for continuous improvement will not just be possible, but probable.
It is up to the voters to build a broad based coalition that the leadership can join to redifine the legitimacy of power as the natural right to self-determination, the right of the sovereign to actualize, to choose, a peaceful and prosperous existence together.
Allow Mr. Obamam the choice of leading a broad based coalition for real, much needed change.
Very best wishes.
tags:
international affairs,Hamiltonianism,practical models,commercial pluralism,coalition politics,organization theory
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)