I recently published an article about the practical philosophy of phenomenology. Let's look at a practical case study.
Consider commodities prices.
The "reason" oil prices are in retrace of the uptrend is be"cause" of the macro deflationary trend, so the story goes.
The deflationary trend was, in reality, "caused" by the peak price of oil.
The peak price was a fundamental fraud. The story for the uptrend, the narrative, was a fraud. The story for the downtrend is equally, by the necessary tautology of the narrative causational argument (by the validity, not the verification of the argument) a fraud.
Remove the perceptual manipulation of the argument (the phenomenology), what is left to explain the entire cyclical (physical) phenomena of the trends is the consolidation of the capital.
Consolidation of the capital (a lack of pluralism that is the defining characteristic of democracy) is the source, the sole "cause" of the problem.
If you want to "really" solve the problem, eliminating the cause is a necessary condition. Nationalizing the consolidated capital does not solve the problem, it just reorganizes it.
The money flow indicator (the movement of consolidated capital) is the sole determinant of the trends. The story, the narrative, to explain, to justify, the outcome is ex-post-facto: it is a phenomenology. The explanation of the phenomena is argued as the cause when it is "really" an effect (occurring after the fact).
So this is "literally," philosophically, with the legitimacy of the built-in rhetoric of verification (the scientific method), what I mean when I say that government must ensure a deconsolidated capital and markets "in priority." It is a necessary condition for solving "the problem."
So... which is reality: the narrative phenomenology of the political economy, or my reflection (the critique) of the phenomena?
So you see how phenomenology works as a practical philosophy. Reality is just whatever you want it to be, a priori or posteriori. Reality is not independent of perception: phenomena is "really" phenomenon (God, the Spirit, Nature, is pure perception of being, not mere existence). Existence is nothing (no thing) without your perception of it.
It's time to make reality what you want it to be.
It's time to speak truth to power.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Bailing Out the Bush Economy
If you do not like the Bush administration's economy, do not vote for McCain!
Bush says it is not good for the government to bailout the economy. It is self-correcting.
Herbert Hoover, during the Great Depression, said, roughly, it is not the function of government to provide for the general economic well being of the people.
No difference. Keynesian adjustments, manipulating the money supply (monetarism) is no substitute for lessons learned and continuous improvement. According to conservatives, however, including McCain, what we have now, as it was then, cannot be improved.
From Hoover to Bush, the model is "trickle down" economics. It has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. It is about keeping the apparatus of power consolidated, that is the primary function of government...and that is what is wrong with it!
Sure, if you keep your hands off it, the way it is now operating with a premise of consolidated power, the economy will naturally cycle around to recovery, just like everything in nature, cycle up, cycle down.
Conservatives want us all to forget that humans have the capacity to manipulate or control natural cycles to our benefit, and that can be described as "the general well being of the people," and not just a power elite. This is a matter of rejection and acceptance of a working practical model, like rejecting superstitious beliefs and pratices for scientific knowlege and technology. The time is right to take this step in matters of political economy.
Keeping the apparatus of power, business and government, consolidated is the problem, not the solution.
It should be the primary function of government, rather, to keep the apparatus of power unconsolidated.
The billions of liquidity the Fed has pumped into the economy is being used to support financials from the top down. It has improved profitability without growth, which is what is wrong with it. A pro-growth application would be those billions pumped in from the bottom up, but that would not fit the working model.
Bottom-up priming increases the probability that eager entrepreneurs will incorporate new banking entities not burdened with the failures of the existing "competition." Consolidated entities do not want to encourage a competitive advantage, thus the trickle-down model.
The problem is not a function of a free and unconsolidated marketplace that conservatives say we should keep our hands off for it to correct itself, but the very lack of it. The model for self-correction is not in application, so the economy will not cycle toward verifiable improvement, but the validity of its predictable conservation.
Trickle-down economics is the problem. Now is the time to accept a model of political economy that genuinely applies and effects the general welfare with empirical measures of continuous improvement, not cyclical measures of crisis management.
Build the coalition for Obama, 2008!
Bush says it is not good for the government to bailout the economy. It is self-correcting.
Herbert Hoover, during the Great Depression, said, roughly, it is not the function of government to provide for the general economic well being of the people.
No difference. Keynesian adjustments, manipulating the money supply (monetarism) is no substitute for lessons learned and continuous improvement. According to conservatives, however, including McCain, what we have now, as it was then, cannot be improved.
From Hoover to Bush, the model is "trickle down" economics. It has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. It is about keeping the apparatus of power consolidated, that is the primary function of government...and that is what is wrong with it!
Sure, if you keep your hands off it, the way it is now operating with a premise of consolidated power, the economy will naturally cycle around to recovery, just like everything in nature, cycle up, cycle down.
Conservatives want us all to forget that humans have the capacity to manipulate or control natural cycles to our benefit, and that can be described as "the general well being of the people," and not just a power elite. This is a matter of rejection and acceptance of a working practical model, like rejecting superstitious beliefs and pratices for scientific knowlege and technology. The time is right to take this step in matters of political economy.
Keeping the apparatus of power, business and government, consolidated is the problem, not the solution.
It should be the primary function of government, rather, to keep the apparatus of power unconsolidated.
The billions of liquidity the Fed has pumped into the economy is being used to support financials from the top down. It has improved profitability without growth, which is what is wrong with it. A pro-growth application would be those billions pumped in from the bottom up, but that would not fit the working model.
Bottom-up priming increases the probability that eager entrepreneurs will incorporate new banking entities not burdened with the failures of the existing "competition." Consolidated entities do not want to encourage a competitive advantage, thus the trickle-down model.
The problem is not a function of a free and unconsolidated marketplace that conservatives say we should keep our hands off for it to correct itself, but the very lack of it. The model for self-correction is not in application, so the economy will not cycle toward verifiable improvement, but the validity of its predictable conservation.
Trickle-down economics is the problem. Now is the time to accept a model of political economy that genuinely applies and effects the general welfare with empirical measures of continuous improvement, not cyclical measures of crisis management.
Build the coalition for Obama, 2008!
Government Supported Enterprise
GSE's as they are known, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are quasi-private enterprise. The reason it is not appropriate to refer to them as quasi-public enterprise is because the underlying legitimacy that is fundamental to the power structure of enterprise is the ownership of private property.
The question posed is fundamental: should the legitimacy of enterprise be fundamentally "switched" from state capitalism to state socialism?
Operationally there would be little difference, and both claim the legal, constitutional, legitimacy of the popular consent of the governed.
Nationalizing Fannie and Freddie would be a switch to state socialism. The institutions would be funded by means of public finance, directly by the government through the treasury and not through the Federal Reserve which is financed through private banks (private ownership of capital, or property). The public debt, for example, is held publicly but paid privately through the Federal Reserve system. The interest on the debt is paid publicly through taxation (consent of the governed) and the treasury.
A person that owns enough capital (savings) to privately own (buy) the public debt and collect interest and is taxed to pay it is essentially sending themselves a check in the mail. In order to avoid this contradiction, this financial dissonance, we have the Federal Reserve "system" and all manner of regressing the tax code into a complexity that is always demanding simplicity like a flat tax, which will be a regressive burden by popular consent.
It is not difficult to see that "the system" is organized to be overly complex and requires central management of a controlling bureaucratic authority that is not necessarily elected and accountable to the consent of the governed, but operates in a supra-sovereign fashion that demands "the switch" to achieve the legal public legitimacy of authority.
Nationalization is not in this way the deliberate folly of the masses to secure a free lunch, but the natural process of satisfying a constitutional legitimacy. It does not mean "the switch" from private to a purely public legitimacy will not be corrupted, but that it will naturally occur despite the deliberate systematic organization to prevent it, which entrenches its inevitability by its own organizational devices.
Being assured direct accountability of any organized means of power by the consent of the governed requires deconsolidation of power (deliberately organized pluralism), not just a change of its legitimacy which is easily manipulated and the civility of its liberty easily denied by a centralized power of authority be it public or private.
Very best wishes.
The question posed is fundamental: should the legitimacy of enterprise be fundamentally "switched" from state capitalism to state socialism?
Operationally there would be little difference, and both claim the legal, constitutional, legitimacy of the popular consent of the governed.
Nationalizing Fannie and Freddie would be a switch to state socialism. The institutions would be funded by means of public finance, directly by the government through the treasury and not through the Federal Reserve which is financed through private banks (private ownership of capital, or property). The public debt, for example, is held publicly but paid privately through the Federal Reserve system. The interest on the debt is paid publicly through taxation (consent of the governed) and the treasury.
A person that owns enough capital (savings) to privately own (buy) the public debt and collect interest and is taxed to pay it is essentially sending themselves a check in the mail. In order to avoid this contradiction, this financial dissonance, we have the Federal Reserve "system" and all manner of regressing the tax code into a complexity that is always demanding simplicity like a flat tax, which will be a regressive burden by popular consent.
It is not difficult to see that "the system" is organized to be overly complex and requires central management of a controlling bureaucratic authority that is not necessarily elected and accountable to the consent of the governed, but operates in a supra-sovereign fashion that demands "the switch" to achieve the legal public legitimacy of authority.
Nationalization is not in this way the deliberate folly of the masses to secure a free lunch, but the natural process of satisfying a constitutional legitimacy. It does not mean "the switch" from private to a purely public legitimacy will not be corrupted, but that it will naturally occur despite the deliberate systematic organization to prevent it, which entrenches its inevitability by its own organizational devices.
Being assured direct accountability of any organized means of power by the consent of the governed requires deconsolidation of power (deliberately organized pluralism), not just a change of its legitimacy which is easily manipulated and the civility of its liberty easily denied by a centralized power of authority be it public or private.
Very best wishes.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Technical Indicators (the SOI Bulletin)
The technicals indicate what is wrong with our economy.
The latest Statistics of Income (the SOI Bulletin) issued by the IRS shows a disparity of income not seen since 1928.
Also, looking at charts from 1920-2008, there was an accumulation of income in the top one percent peaking in 1928 with a distribution to the 1980s when an accumulation again occured (Reaganomics). Accumulation continued through the 90s (a period of a more progressive tax code) and has now peaked to a level exceeding the previous 1928 level prior to the Great Depression (periods of a highly regressive tax code).
We will not see another Great Depression, but it is a highly negative, crisis-indicator and gives empirical evidence confirming the perils, the moral hazard, of "making the tax cuts permanent."
A more progressive tax code does not necessarily mean the rich do not get richer, it means that it is not at the expense of all other income classes because it expands the pie instead of depriving it (Pareto Optimality).
Understand that if you have money to burn, a politics of deprivation does not affect you negatively. Rather, it has a positive affect of feeling powerful--the ability to reward and deprive (a zero-sum)--and empirically confirms social status. It is a demonstration of power. It is much more difficult to demonstrate power and status in a meaningful and effective way if everyone is getting wealthy together (a non-zero-sum). Deprivation magnifies the meaning of being powerful whether it is feudalism, capitalism, socialism, or any other kind of "ism."
I am always hearing that the benefit of this current economic hardship, the deprivation, is that it will force people to save more. It will discourage the negative savings rate.
Again, understand, the negative savings rate is an indicator of some people having money to burn. It is a politics of deprivation to satisfy the conceit of power.
The savings rate is not negative, it is just not owned by you! Dividing total income by the number of positive gross income tax returns yields a savings rate that is far from negative.
Your savings has been consolidated into a surplus of capital and made the personal property of the top income classes. The evidence is clearly convincing, a matter of public record and being verified in the most up close and personal way when merely living is an exercise in going bankrupt! The average income is being told the economy is fundamentally sound when it clearly, obviously, is not. For an elite, that very ineptly magnifies the retributive value accumulated.
There's a good article on the income indicator published in 2007 at http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Wealthy_grabbing_larger_share_of_US_1012.html.
The latest Statistics of Income (the SOI Bulletin) issued by the IRS shows a disparity of income not seen since 1928.
Also, looking at charts from 1920-2008, there was an accumulation of income in the top one percent peaking in 1928 with a distribution to the 1980s when an accumulation again occured (Reaganomics). Accumulation continued through the 90s (a period of a more progressive tax code) and has now peaked to a level exceeding the previous 1928 level prior to the Great Depression (periods of a highly regressive tax code).
We will not see another Great Depression, but it is a highly negative, crisis-indicator and gives empirical evidence confirming the perils, the moral hazard, of "making the tax cuts permanent."
A more progressive tax code does not necessarily mean the rich do not get richer, it means that it is not at the expense of all other income classes because it expands the pie instead of depriving it (Pareto Optimality).
Understand that if you have money to burn, a politics of deprivation does not affect you negatively. Rather, it has a positive affect of feeling powerful--the ability to reward and deprive (a zero-sum)--and empirically confirms social status. It is a demonstration of power. It is much more difficult to demonstrate power and status in a meaningful and effective way if everyone is getting wealthy together (a non-zero-sum). Deprivation magnifies the meaning of being powerful whether it is feudalism, capitalism, socialism, or any other kind of "ism."
I am always hearing that the benefit of this current economic hardship, the deprivation, is that it will force people to save more. It will discourage the negative savings rate.
Again, understand, the negative savings rate is an indicator of some people having money to burn. It is a politics of deprivation to satisfy the conceit of power.
The savings rate is not negative, it is just not owned by you! Dividing total income by the number of positive gross income tax returns yields a savings rate that is far from negative.
Your savings has been consolidated into a surplus of capital and made the personal property of the top income classes. The evidence is clearly convincing, a matter of public record and being verified in the most up close and personal way when merely living is an exercise in going bankrupt! The average income is being told the economy is fundamentally sound when it clearly, obviously, is not. For an elite, that very ineptly magnifies the retributive value accumulated.
There's a good article on the income indicator published in 2007 at http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Wealthy_grabbing_larger_share_of_US_1012.html.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Political-Economic Curiosities
Senator Obama visits Berlin soon. Pundits speculate how he will compare with other high profile visits to the previous vertex of capitalism and communism.
It is curious that Reagan's visit was a critique of communism's failure as an economic system.
Is it not curious that he was proffering an alternative system of monumental failure--a system that always promises full employment and low inflation through "freedom" of the marketplace, and always fails?
Not only has capitalism been a complete failure of providing full employment with low inflation, always trading the two off, but produces perennial tragic failure with one of the very best examples of the failure being Reaganomics, Senator McCain now its chief proponent following the Bush administration.
Even though it cyclically proves itself a failure, over and over again, requiring socialist policies and programs to maintain a false free-market legitimacy (a mixed economy), Reagan, in a demonstration of fundamental illogic emblematic of his entire administration, confidently declared a system that virtually achieves full employment and NO inflation with sustainable success as a failure.
Reagan did not recognize the tyranny of oligarchs in a command economy (the political system) as a failure. That would be an indictment of his own subscribed model of power (elitism).
Instead of advocating political assurance of free market economics (pluralism), Reagan effectively argued as virtue unconstrained profiteering which results in inflation and deflation at the same time with perennial deprivation and suffering through consolidation and command of markets, and providing for the general welfare as vice.
Both systems are a command economy operationalized with an elitist model of power (the bureaucratic model of power and political economy). They both lack the critical element of freedom that provides the virtue of a stable legitimacy operationalized with a pluralist model of power, politically and economically congruent, and with both the means and ends of power, in the same way, convergent and not illegitimately divergent which requires a command and control to stabilize it.
Reagan's rhetoric in Berlin is a curiosity of reason, a freak of logic, not the experience of a historical political-economic irony. It is the experience of a corrupt incompetence that we should learn very well not to allow access to power.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
It is curious that Reagan's visit was a critique of communism's failure as an economic system.
Is it not curious that he was proffering an alternative system of monumental failure--a system that always promises full employment and low inflation through "freedom" of the marketplace, and always fails?
Not only has capitalism been a complete failure of providing full employment with low inflation, always trading the two off, but produces perennial tragic failure with one of the very best examples of the failure being Reaganomics, Senator McCain now its chief proponent following the Bush administration.
Even though it cyclically proves itself a failure, over and over again, requiring socialist policies and programs to maintain a false free-market legitimacy (a mixed economy), Reagan, in a demonstration of fundamental illogic emblematic of his entire administration, confidently declared a system that virtually achieves full employment and NO inflation with sustainable success as a failure.
Reagan did not recognize the tyranny of oligarchs in a command economy (the political system) as a failure. That would be an indictment of his own subscribed model of power (elitism).
Instead of advocating political assurance of free market economics (pluralism), Reagan effectively argued as virtue unconstrained profiteering which results in inflation and deflation at the same time with perennial deprivation and suffering through consolidation and command of markets, and providing for the general welfare as vice.
Both systems are a command economy operationalized with an elitist model of power (the bureaucratic model of power and political economy). They both lack the critical element of freedom that provides the virtue of a stable legitimacy operationalized with a pluralist model of power, politically and economically congruent, and with both the means and ends of power, in the same way, convergent and not illegitimately divergent which requires a command and control to stabilize it.
Reagan's rhetoric in Berlin is a curiosity of reason, a freak of logic, not the experience of a historical political-economic irony. It is the experience of a corrupt incompetence that we should learn very well not to allow access to power.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Pop Analysis on Oil Prices: Avoiding the False Technicals
The probability for any short-term disruption to supply is virtually no different now than when the price peaked. The quick 14% drop follows Bernanke's price signal on the price of money--raising the interest rate.
The popular analytic on oil prices continues to be a fraud. These analysts are the minions of elite power. If they are not so inept to actually believe the analysis because they have been educated to, they know that they have to produce analytics that please the plutocrats, the supra-sovereign ruling class, to keep their jobs. These slaves are as corrupt as their masters.
Markets are being determined, commanded, by a post-monetarist consolidation of capital. A model of consolidated power (the elitist model) has the most predicitive utility. Using a pluralist model is either inept or a deliberate fraud with the inaccuracies explained away with fallacies of fundamental attribution, typically with effects being attributed as cause.
In either case, inept or corrupt is not in the public interest, but systematically engineered to produce a predictable result that is a special interest. It is the function of the pop analyst to give both the means and ends a pluralistic legitimacy because a command legitimacy is not legal by statute or in theory.
Free market economics cannot be verified with the command economy of a consolidated capital. It must be validated with a false legitimacy, with the perpetration of a fraud. Fraud in the marketplace is a crime. The criminals need to be prosecuted not rewarded.
Predicting prices is a technical function of mass movement, momentum, and fast stochastics. It is a function of an extreme overconsolidation of capital and command economy. Nothing has value unless the plutocrats, the ruling class says so. It is a power structure that lacks both political and economic legitimacy. The remedy is to replace the elitist model with the pluralist model of power. Until then, the system operates with a false legitimacy and the need to monetize the retributive value supported by false technocratic analytics.
The oil market will be a noisy trend down. The result will be an unpredictable (unorthodox) improvement of macro fundamentals in correlation with rising rates with the determining variable being solely the mass movement of capital into equities. The movement will cause the recovery (a more progressive tax code will have the same effect but with a true legitimacy). The improved macro will just be a technical excuse, a fraud, to sham the illegitimate operation of a command economy.
For the small investor, always staying opposite the momentum (selling into the momentum strength) the probability of losing money to false technicals (the stock in trade of a consolidated capital and its MBA management) is close to zero. Chasing momentum is a strong negative. Buy and hold is also a very risky strategy with a consolidated capital like we have now. The probability that investment will be shocked in a sudden reversal is nearly one (1). You can count on it. Just look at the price of oil.
The way to make the market safe for small investors is to render it with a genuine pluralistic legitimacy.
The best probability for that is to build the coalition for Senator Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.
Very best wishes.
The popular analytic on oil prices continues to be a fraud. These analysts are the minions of elite power. If they are not so inept to actually believe the analysis because they have been educated to, they know that they have to produce analytics that please the plutocrats, the supra-sovereign ruling class, to keep their jobs. These slaves are as corrupt as their masters.
Markets are being determined, commanded, by a post-monetarist consolidation of capital. A model of consolidated power (the elitist model) has the most predicitive utility. Using a pluralist model is either inept or a deliberate fraud with the inaccuracies explained away with fallacies of fundamental attribution, typically with effects being attributed as cause.
In either case, inept or corrupt is not in the public interest, but systematically engineered to produce a predictable result that is a special interest. It is the function of the pop analyst to give both the means and ends a pluralistic legitimacy because a command legitimacy is not legal by statute or in theory.
Free market economics cannot be verified with the command economy of a consolidated capital. It must be validated with a false legitimacy, with the perpetration of a fraud. Fraud in the marketplace is a crime. The criminals need to be prosecuted not rewarded.
Predicting prices is a technical function of mass movement, momentum, and fast stochastics. It is a function of an extreme overconsolidation of capital and command economy. Nothing has value unless the plutocrats, the ruling class says so. It is a power structure that lacks both political and economic legitimacy. The remedy is to replace the elitist model with the pluralist model of power. Until then, the system operates with a false legitimacy and the need to monetize the retributive value supported by false technocratic analytics.
The oil market will be a noisy trend down. The result will be an unpredictable (unorthodox) improvement of macro fundamentals in correlation with rising rates with the determining variable being solely the mass movement of capital into equities. The movement will cause the recovery (a more progressive tax code will have the same effect but with a true legitimacy). The improved macro will just be a technical excuse, a fraud, to sham the illegitimate operation of a command economy.
For the small investor, always staying opposite the momentum (selling into the momentum strength) the probability of losing money to false technicals (the stock in trade of a consolidated capital and its MBA management) is close to zero. Chasing momentum is a strong negative. Buy and hold is also a very risky strategy with a consolidated capital like we have now. The probability that investment will be shocked in a sudden reversal is nearly one (1). You can count on it. Just look at the price of oil.
The way to make the market safe for small investors is to render it with a genuine pluralistic legitimacy.
The best probability for that is to build the coalition for Senator Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.
Very best wishes.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Science and Moral Intelligence
Natural scientists report "the dead zone" is increasing because of the increased fertilizer used to increase the yield for biofuel production.
It is an inefficiency that is a byproduct of organizing our economy to maximize profit with a false shortage and a capital gain with a tax subsidy (the trickle-down tax policy) on energy and commodities.
It is an organizational scenario that lacks good moral intelligence. The science, "the knowlege," of it was easily predictable, and avoidable; and even now, after the fact, with adequate and reliable indication, the "choice," the responsibility, the freedom that comes with knowlege, is reduced to a moral intelligence, as it was in priority.
We, the species human, evolved to enable the experience of "the mind," as the spirit, to command nature as homo habilas, now need to evolve the moral intelligence to manage it responsibly--homo ethicus. The choice is a matter of determinism indeed; it is a choice of self-determination. It is the experience of freedom that through reason God shares with us and we return with the experience of a natural existence.
The climate-change debate, for example, presents a philosophical question that most people are, unfortunately, ill-prepared to consider.
Philosophy is not core curriculum mainly because it cultivates critical thinking and enables the thinker to quickly identify logical fallacy. Big business wants compliant subjects, servants. It does not want critical, free thinking humans, but appetitive, habilitated, consumers enslaved to consolidated capital for its satisfaction like an animal with just enough educated intelligence to function in a highly technical environment with as little supervision as possible.
Cultivating a moral intelligence that comes with critical thinking through the educational process would produce a demanding civil authority from the ground up that is entirely inimical to a command authority and the elitist model of power.
Despite, ironically, the inherent philosophical value of the scientific "ethic" of thinking with empirically verifiable means, the method is applied for technological innovation and practical operations for the production of wealth and the reduction of labor costs.
The scientific method is not applied for the adminstration of a moral intelligence that is fundamentally the same ethical standard to be applied to the common good and a proper understanding of our natural existence beyond the economic animal of class consciousness.
Consider, for example, what "the natural" is. What does it mean to live a natural existence?
We need to understand, there is nothing "unnatural." Human activity produces consequences that are all natural, but may be negative to the human condition--what is nature without the experience of it? Who "knows" and who cares, right?
Science is a method of averting or correcting for the negative consequences, or for producing positive ones with predicitive utility.
Science is the means in which we, the species human, may properly observe the commandment given to Moses: "Do not take the name of God in vain." Attributing, for example, the unnecessary suffering of the business cycle to satisfy the conceited class distinctions of a power elite to "nature" and to a natural existence, or the deliberate means to its ends as the will of God, is to take the Lord's name in vain. It is no less the case for creating hazards like the dead zone.
There are positive and negative consequences to human activity. Science gives us the "freedom" to choose those consequences; it gives us the freedom to choose between right and wrong with a degree of certainty that clearly identifies the righteous without specious rhetoric. It allows us to live justly and righteously within nature.
It is time to recognize the righteousness of our natural existence. It is time to recognize that science is not just a cognitive tool for organizing our animal instincts into a hierarchy of human rewards and deprivations to satisfy the conceits of power. Life is so much more meaningful than that.
It is our Natural Right, our Constitutional Duty to realize our ethical humanity; to actualize the true meaning of our existence and enjoy the good life through empirical means of verifiable legitimacies.
Very best wishes.
It is an inefficiency that is a byproduct of organizing our economy to maximize profit with a false shortage and a capital gain with a tax subsidy (the trickle-down tax policy) on energy and commodities.
It is an organizational scenario that lacks good moral intelligence. The science, "the knowlege," of it was easily predictable, and avoidable; and even now, after the fact, with adequate and reliable indication, the "choice," the responsibility, the freedom that comes with knowlege, is reduced to a moral intelligence, as it was in priority.
We, the species human, evolved to enable the experience of "the mind," as the spirit, to command nature as homo habilas, now need to evolve the moral intelligence to manage it responsibly--homo ethicus. The choice is a matter of determinism indeed; it is a choice of self-determination. It is the experience of freedom that through reason God shares with us and we return with the experience of a natural existence.
The climate-change debate, for example, presents a philosophical question that most people are, unfortunately, ill-prepared to consider.
Philosophy is not core curriculum mainly because it cultivates critical thinking and enables the thinker to quickly identify logical fallacy. Big business wants compliant subjects, servants. It does not want critical, free thinking humans, but appetitive, habilitated, consumers enslaved to consolidated capital for its satisfaction like an animal with just enough educated intelligence to function in a highly technical environment with as little supervision as possible.
Cultivating a moral intelligence that comes with critical thinking through the educational process would produce a demanding civil authority from the ground up that is entirely inimical to a command authority and the elitist model of power.
Despite, ironically, the inherent philosophical value of the scientific "ethic" of thinking with empirically verifiable means, the method is applied for technological innovation and practical operations for the production of wealth and the reduction of labor costs.
The scientific method is not applied for the adminstration of a moral intelligence that is fundamentally the same ethical standard to be applied to the common good and a proper understanding of our natural existence beyond the economic animal of class consciousness.
Consider, for example, what "the natural" is. What does it mean to live a natural existence?
We need to understand, there is nothing "unnatural." Human activity produces consequences that are all natural, but may be negative to the human condition--what is nature without the experience of it? Who "knows" and who cares, right?
Science is a method of averting or correcting for the negative consequences, or for producing positive ones with predicitive utility.
Science is the means in which we, the species human, may properly observe the commandment given to Moses: "Do not take the name of God in vain." Attributing, for example, the unnecessary suffering of the business cycle to satisfy the conceited class distinctions of a power elite to "nature" and to a natural existence, or the deliberate means to its ends as the will of God, is to take the Lord's name in vain. It is no less the case for creating hazards like the dead zone.
There are positive and negative consequences to human activity. Science gives us the "freedom" to choose those consequences; it gives us the freedom to choose between right and wrong with a degree of certainty that clearly identifies the righteous without specious rhetoric. It allows us to live justly and righteously within nature.
It is time to recognize the righteousness of our natural existence. It is time to recognize that science is not just a cognitive tool for organizing our animal instincts into a hierarchy of human rewards and deprivations to satisfy the conceits of power. Life is so much more meaningful than that.
It is our Natural Right, our Constitutional Duty to realize our ethical humanity; to actualize the true meaning of our existence and enjoy the good life through empirical means of verifiable legitimacies.
Very best wishes.
The Pragmatic Alternative
The alternative to all the complexity we experience with political-economic issues can be obviated with a very simple political measure: ensuring a free and unconsolidated economic model in priority.
Ensuring a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, Adam Smith said, is the first and foremost job of government.
Why is it we don't hear big business mention that part of Adam Smith's prescription for free market economics? How come we don't hear Bernanke or Paulson say anything about ensuring a practical pluralism instead of ensuring that what is big cannot be allowed to fail? How pragmatic is it to not put all the eggs in one basket? I do believe an MBA can figure that out as being of a very high practical utility, yet it is suffering a complete technocratic deficiency.
Why is because it does not have priority. In fact, it has no priority for the administration of power. The alternative we need to achieve an efficienct accountability of power is being denied access to its constitutional apparatus. It is barred from entry, and those barriers must be removed to achieve a genuine constitutional legitimacy of power. The antithesis of the true legitimacy is not just a bad approximation of the perfect model, it is the lack of it. It is wholly illegitimate.
Notice that the inflation has been increasing most in sectors that have been allowed to consolidate the most. That clearly identifies a direct causal relationship that can be effectively treated with ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority instead of trying, or not trying, to regulate it with an easily cooptable authority.
Pluralism is poison to a consolidated model of power. It ensures accountability, low prices, full employment and adequate compensation for sustainable growth through innovation in priority. It is a deconsolidation of power that centralized power authorities consider inimical to its interests and must falsely sell to The People as the general welfare.
We need to stop buying it and strive for the perfect market model. Practice makes perfect, and if we try, we can get close enough for all practical purposes. What do we have to lose but the chains that bind us with what we have now.
The antithesis of what we have now is ensuring a free market model, not ensuring a consolidation of power.
Obama is the consumate pragmatist. He is most suited to allow for the pragmatic processes of a legitimately free market mechanism that allows for the innovative empirics of a continuous improvement and a quality of life we all deserve, that we all KNOW we can have, if we try!
Very best wishes.
Ensuring a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, Adam Smith said, is the first and foremost job of government.
Why is it we don't hear big business mention that part of Adam Smith's prescription for free market economics? How come we don't hear Bernanke or Paulson say anything about ensuring a practical pluralism instead of ensuring that what is big cannot be allowed to fail? How pragmatic is it to not put all the eggs in one basket? I do believe an MBA can figure that out as being of a very high practical utility, yet it is suffering a complete technocratic deficiency.
Why is because it does not have priority. In fact, it has no priority for the administration of power. The alternative we need to achieve an efficienct accountability of power is being denied access to its constitutional apparatus. It is barred from entry, and those barriers must be removed to achieve a genuine constitutional legitimacy of power. The antithesis of the true legitimacy is not just a bad approximation of the perfect model, it is the lack of it. It is wholly illegitimate.
Notice that the inflation has been increasing most in sectors that have been allowed to consolidate the most. That clearly identifies a direct causal relationship that can be effectively treated with ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority instead of trying, or not trying, to regulate it with an easily cooptable authority.
Pluralism is poison to a consolidated model of power. It ensures accountability, low prices, full employment and adequate compensation for sustainable growth through innovation in priority. It is a deconsolidation of power that centralized power authorities consider inimical to its interests and must falsely sell to The People as the general welfare.
We need to stop buying it and strive for the perfect market model. Practice makes perfect, and if we try, we can get close enough for all practical purposes. What do we have to lose but the chains that bind us with what we have now.
The antithesis of what we have now is ensuring a free market model, not ensuring a consolidation of power.
Obama is the consumate pragmatist. He is most suited to allow for the pragmatic processes of a legitimately free market mechanism that allows for the innovative empirics of a continuous improvement and a quality of life we all deserve, that we all KNOW we can have, if we try!
Very best wishes.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Shifting Focus
The focus is being placed on allowing the failures of capitalism to occur and, of course, those failures result in consolidation of the capital.
Horizontal and vertical integration of financial entities with deregulation was not a measure for pluralism. It was integration of markets shammed as a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace through the deregulation of the financial sector. It allowed for consolidation that does not allow the "bigness" of a particular business to fail without dragging others down with it. That is not pluralism. That is consolidation and shifts the risk to the public debt; and who is identified as the debtor on that debt when the regressive quality of trickle-down economics is figured in?
It devolves the debt to those least able to pay, which is the new rule for not lending the money that has led to the liquidity crisis. Why is it not OK for a mortgage, but OK for paying the public debt? The result, of course, is just a continuously accumulating public debt until it is stopped and reversed with a more progressive tax code.
Allowing for integration of industries and markets occurs through deregulation if the goal is to ensure crisis without risk of failure and consolidation of the wealth (the reward of success without the legitimacy of risk in either case of failure or not) as a result.
Trickle down economics was sold as a benefit to those that it assigns the larger part of debtor status on the public debt. If you do not buy government debt (bonds)--and you are not likely to if you have to pay all that debt both public and private--you've been had, but good, by this system of capitalism that is being falsely sold to you as the operation of free market economics.
It is capitalism with illegitimate consolidation of markets. It is a systematic means of stealing value and calling it your personal property. It is theft. That's why consolidating markets,including their integration by diversification within an industry or sector, has been, and should be illegal.
Payment of the value on the risk can be equitably assigned by operation of public process toward a more progressive tax code. That is where the focus needs to be, along with prosecuting the criminals that corrupt the free marketplace into tyranny, in our courts of criminal justice and with the verifiable legitimacy of your popular vote.
Join the coalition for Obama and build a system for ensuring the freedom to prosper your business, your job, your nation, your world, instead of enslaving it!
Very best wishes.
Horizontal and vertical integration of financial entities with deregulation was not a measure for pluralism. It was integration of markets shammed as a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace through the deregulation of the financial sector. It allowed for consolidation that does not allow the "bigness" of a particular business to fail without dragging others down with it. That is not pluralism. That is consolidation and shifts the risk to the public debt; and who is identified as the debtor on that debt when the regressive quality of trickle-down economics is figured in?
It devolves the debt to those least able to pay, which is the new rule for not lending the money that has led to the liquidity crisis. Why is it not OK for a mortgage, but OK for paying the public debt? The result, of course, is just a continuously accumulating public debt until it is stopped and reversed with a more progressive tax code.
Allowing for integration of industries and markets occurs through deregulation if the goal is to ensure crisis without risk of failure and consolidation of the wealth (the reward of success without the legitimacy of risk in either case of failure or not) as a result.
Trickle down economics was sold as a benefit to those that it assigns the larger part of debtor status on the public debt. If you do not buy government debt (bonds)--and you are not likely to if you have to pay all that debt both public and private--you've been had, but good, by this system of capitalism that is being falsely sold to you as the operation of free market economics.
It is capitalism with illegitimate consolidation of markets. It is a systematic means of stealing value and calling it your personal property. It is theft. That's why consolidating markets,including their integration by diversification within an industry or sector, has been, and should be illegal.
Payment of the value on the risk can be equitably assigned by operation of public process toward a more progressive tax code. That is where the focus needs to be, along with prosecuting the criminals that corrupt the free marketplace into tyranny, in our courts of criminal justice and with the verifiable legitimacy of your popular vote.
Join the coalition for Obama and build a system for ensuring the freedom to prosper your business, your job, your nation, your world, instead of enslaving it!
Very best wishes.
Predictable Patterns
The last time we had a mortgage crisis and bailouts in financials was when we had Reaganomics--full blown trickle-down economics--in operation.
The results of the Bush administration's latest retrenchment of the regressive-taxation working hypothesis is, predictably, deflation and a liquidity crisis, just like last time.
The reason these neo-conservatives can't learn from their mistakes is because they are a slave to their ideology. They are not pragmatists of the common good. They are ideologues and fully expect the highly predictable result of an exclusive, zero-sum benefit the economy is organized to produce. The cost and the benefit produced is not considered to be a mistake, but the natural consequence of people that are fittest to lead in a free republic (Hamiltonianism). The measure of that "fitness" is the status of your income and the willingness to be in service to its conservation.
The economy's distressed assets, the wealth of the nation, are bought and consolidated to be retailed back to "The People" in the recovery phase of the business cycle.
This process is a legal means of expropriation that can be legitimately stopped and reversed by a coalition of non-elits in the political marketplace, where the current trend began.
Every policy and program effort you will see from neo-conservatives will be to stop and reverse the current trend without progressive tax measures and a more pluralistic economic environment (bailing out financials, executive orders to lift the ban on offshore drilling...). Anything but to reverse the fundamentals that they have organized to command the business cycle to expropriate a highly exclusive benefit with a massive deprivation of the wealth. The new coalition must resist those efforts because they are the source of the problem.
The beneficiaries of the current political-economic organization will benefit plenty from the stop and reversal of the current deflationary trend with progressive tax policies and investment in a deconsolidated marketplace (Jefferosnian pluralism). The biggest difference is that non-elits will not "suffer" being continuously set up for crisis and deprivation.
Everyone benefits with a more Jeffersonian model of a democratic republic in which the elite are rewarded access to power through pluralistic processes and consent of the governed, a pragmatics of continuous improvement toward the common good, not the other way around.
The change we need will not be the product of ideology, left or right. It will be the product of a practical pragmatism guided by a moral intelligence to be rewarded by the empirical proof of the popular vote, not the command machinations of a bureaucratized elite authority shammed with a false pluralistic legitimacy.
Build a coalition for lasting change in which everyone benefits.
Build the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
The results of the Bush administration's latest retrenchment of the regressive-taxation working hypothesis is, predictably, deflation and a liquidity crisis, just like last time.
The reason these neo-conservatives can't learn from their mistakes is because they are a slave to their ideology. They are not pragmatists of the common good. They are ideologues and fully expect the highly predictable result of an exclusive, zero-sum benefit the economy is organized to produce. The cost and the benefit produced is not considered to be a mistake, but the natural consequence of people that are fittest to lead in a free republic (Hamiltonianism). The measure of that "fitness" is the status of your income and the willingness to be in service to its conservation.
The economy's distressed assets, the wealth of the nation, are bought and consolidated to be retailed back to "The People" in the recovery phase of the business cycle.
This process is a legal means of expropriation that can be legitimately stopped and reversed by a coalition of non-elits in the political marketplace, where the current trend began.
Every policy and program effort you will see from neo-conservatives will be to stop and reverse the current trend without progressive tax measures and a more pluralistic economic environment (bailing out financials, executive orders to lift the ban on offshore drilling...). Anything but to reverse the fundamentals that they have organized to command the business cycle to expropriate a highly exclusive benefit with a massive deprivation of the wealth. The new coalition must resist those efforts because they are the source of the problem.
The beneficiaries of the current political-economic organization will benefit plenty from the stop and reversal of the current deflationary trend with progressive tax policies and investment in a deconsolidated marketplace (Jefferosnian pluralism). The biggest difference is that non-elits will not "suffer" being continuously set up for crisis and deprivation.
Everyone benefits with a more Jeffersonian model of a democratic republic in which the elite are rewarded access to power through pluralistic processes and consent of the governed, a pragmatics of continuous improvement toward the common good, not the other way around.
The change we need will not be the product of ideology, left or right. It will be the product of a practical pragmatism guided by a moral intelligence to be rewarded by the empirical proof of the popular vote, not the command machinations of a bureaucratized elite authority shammed with a false pluralistic legitimacy.
Build a coalition for lasting change in which everyone benefits.
Build the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Office of Thrift Supervision
Observe the Iron Triangle, the bureaucratic model of power and political economy, in operation.
Since we have a federal executive Office of Thrift Management, thrift institutions are efficiently managed toward the constitutional legitimacy of the general welfare, right?
IndyMac bank is a current case study with deposits of $19 billion.
The FDIC has seized IndyMac's assets and its Office of Thrift Supervision will "supervise" liquidation of its assets due to what the supervisor describes as "a liquidity crisis."
There was a run on the bank back in June when a US congressman urged the OTS to do some supervising for a change, but of course, it was too late.
The MBA in charge of IndyMac worked up a scheme using the FDIC for $5-10 billion of government-backed loans (the federal deficit) to keep it solvent which failed due to the run on the bank.
Taxpayers are liable for about $6 billion of government insured deposits that will prevent a Depression-era unwinding of financials. With the trickle-down tax code currently in operation, the avergae income will be paying the liability disproportionately to income.
In conclusion, the OTS is functioning to consolidate the capital, that is the direct cause of the crisis, even more.
The "liquidity crisis" the bureaucracy refers to is the lack of income required to pay the outstanding mortgages and artificially inflated prices of the homes--the whipsaw effect.
Back early last year I was asked about the health of mortgage finance. My recommendation was to sell because the savings rate was negative and most of the mortgages were double mortgages on unsustainably inflated asset values; in other words, because the market was being racketeered by MBA's!
We need to provide a more pluralistic environment for MBA's to do something besides racketeer in loyalty to a consolidated capital. We might want to try financing economic growth with that capital through a more progressive tax code and reinvestment that is NOT subsidizing consolidation of the capital!
The savings rate is still negative, even more so as more than half of households have no disposable income after paying the bills (deflation--the "mental" depression we are all "whining" about).
Adding to the strength of the negative macro indicators, and our mental depression, is the negative interest rate as well. Please allow me to officially whine about that! The policies of Phil Gramm and cohort are directly responsible for this strong negative condition...wah!!
I'm through whining!
Dump the Hamiltonians!
That will fix the problem!
Join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Since we have a federal executive Office of Thrift Management, thrift institutions are efficiently managed toward the constitutional legitimacy of the general welfare, right?
IndyMac bank is a current case study with deposits of $19 billion.
The FDIC has seized IndyMac's assets and its Office of Thrift Supervision will "supervise" liquidation of its assets due to what the supervisor describes as "a liquidity crisis."
There was a run on the bank back in June when a US congressman urged the OTS to do some supervising for a change, but of course, it was too late.
The MBA in charge of IndyMac worked up a scheme using the FDIC for $5-10 billion of government-backed loans (the federal deficit) to keep it solvent which failed due to the run on the bank.
Taxpayers are liable for about $6 billion of government insured deposits that will prevent a Depression-era unwinding of financials. With the trickle-down tax code currently in operation, the avergae income will be paying the liability disproportionately to income.
In conclusion, the OTS is functioning to consolidate the capital, that is the direct cause of the crisis, even more.
The "liquidity crisis" the bureaucracy refers to is the lack of income required to pay the outstanding mortgages and artificially inflated prices of the homes--the whipsaw effect.
Back early last year I was asked about the health of mortgage finance. My recommendation was to sell because the savings rate was negative and most of the mortgages were double mortgages on unsustainably inflated asset values; in other words, because the market was being racketeered by MBA's!
We need to provide a more pluralistic environment for MBA's to do something besides racketeer in loyalty to a consolidated capital. We might want to try financing economic growth with that capital through a more progressive tax code and reinvestment that is NOT subsidizing consolidation of the capital!
The savings rate is still negative, even more so as more than half of households have no disposable income after paying the bills (deflation--the "mental" depression we are all "whining" about).
Adding to the strength of the negative macro indicators, and our mental depression, is the negative interest rate as well. Please allow me to officially whine about that! The policies of Phil Gramm and cohort are directly responsible for this strong negative condition...wah!!
I'm through whining!
Dump the Hamiltonians!
That will fix the problem!
Join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Political-Economic Phenomenologies
Consolidated power structures struggle for legitimacy. Partisans, like Phil Gramm, make the process more difficult and tend to be marginalized. Gramm's contribution to the consolidation process must be legitimized with more than his description of an inherent weakness of the masses that need him and neo-conservatives to lead them out of their dystopic delusions.
Since the benefit of consolidated power is highly exclusive, the general utility of it has to be phenomenologized. There must be a way to assure "The People" that power consolidated is not illegitimately unchecked. Thus, we have the function of the bureaucratic model of power.
It is necessary to create the appearance of pluralism in spite of elitist processes, policies and programs. While granting bureaucratic authority seems like sharing of power, it can be just the elitist administration of it, and one trick is to correlate events to give the appearance of legitimate public authority through pluralistic process of power.
We have, for example, the Bush administration lauding immunity of prosecution for telecoms in the war on terror, and the FCC announcing a precedent-setting ruling against Comcast's private regulation of internet content by not passing certain kinds of data tramsmissions.
Both cases fit an elitist model of power, and the solution also fits the model while falsely implying a legitimate pluralistic authority at the same time. This is just a psychological trick--a phenomenology.
Since the telecoms have been "allowed" to consolidate, and will continue to be allowed, private regulation of content has no legitimate authority of public process afforded by a free market mechanism if the content has no other route to take, or no free market alternative.
The argument is that centralizing telecom makes it easier to monitor for terroist signals intelligence. Really, for the most part, it's just a neo-con way to exercise command and control of communications for any purpose and gives authority to a supra-sovereign status.
The advocates of limiting the processes for freedom have no credibility of public service. They do not have the verifiable legitimacy of the public trust, never did, never will. Rather, that they cannot be trusted is thoroughly verified! That's why neo-conservatives advocate limiting, if not eliminating, the processes for ensuring freedom.
Free markets work. We just need to "allow" it to happen.
Finance free markets instead of consolidation of markets, freedom reigns!
Simple, effective, affordable regulation of markets is entirely possible with an easily verifiable legitimacy of the public good. We just have to decide to do it.
Very best wishes.
Since the benefit of consolidated power is highly exclusive, the general utility of it has to be phenomenologized. There must be a way to assure "The People" that power consolidated is not illegitimately unchecked. Thus, we have the function of the bureaucratic model of power.
It is necessary to create the appearance of pluralism in spite of elitist processes, policies and programs. While granting bureaucratic authority seems like sharing of power, it can be just the elitist administration of it, and one trick is to correlate events to give the appearance of legitimate public authority through pluralistic process of power.
We have, for example, the Bush administration lauding immunity of prosecution for telecoms in the war on terror, and the FCC announcing a precedent-setting ruling against Comcast's private regulation of internet content by not passing certain kinds of data tramsmissions.
Both cases fit an elitist model of power, and the solution also fits the model while falsely implying a legitimate pluralistic authority at the same time. This is just a psychological trick--a phenomenology.
Since the telecoms have been "allowed" to consolidate, and will continue to be allowed, private regulation of content has no legitimate authority of public process afforded by a free market mechanism if the content has no other route to take, or no free market alternative.
The argument is that centralizing telecom makes it easier to monitor for terroist signals intelligence. Really, for the most part, it's just a neo-con way to exercise command and control of communications for any purpose and gives authority to a supra-sovereign status.
The advocates of limiting the processes for freedom have no credibility of public service. They do not have the verifiable legitimacy of the public trust, never did, never will. Rather, that they cannot be trusted is thoroughly verified! That's why neo-conservatives advocate limiting, if not eliminating, the processes for ensuring freedom.
Free markets work. We just need to "allow" it to happen.
Finance free markets instead of consolidation of markets, freedom reigns!
Simple, effective, affordable regulation of markets is entirely possible with an easily verifiable legitimacy of the public good. We just have to decide to do it.
Very best wishes.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Noticing the Innocuous
Dow Chemical is to buy Rohm and Haas in a multibillion dollar deal financed by investment banks with a proven track record of inimical operation in the marketplace of current memory a la former senator, Phil Gramm.
The deal will also be financed by the Kuwaiti Finance Authority and Berkshire Hathaway.
The chemical industry's equity prices are floundering under deflationary pressure of energy price inputs--oil--creating the environment for a continuous consolidation of power by deliberately organized (political) means, specifically, by cartel.
All seems innocuous enough, free market enough, buying and selling assets in the marketplace.
No! This is a free-market fraud! Consolidation to improve profit margin is not to be financed, it is to be prevented in priority by allowing financing to occur only for promoting pluralism that avoids the crisis of consolidated capital and markets we are currently in; the crisis that the Fed says it needs "the tools" to centrally manage to "allow" it to happen instead of preventing it. Allowing for crisis is the source of the problem, not the solution.
When the fundamentals, the obvious, is being ignored for complex regulatory schemes to manage the natural retributive value, you know you are in big trouble!
The predictable result of this kind of free-market fraud is the false rejection of free market economics to produce the general welfare. The crisis of evermore consolidated capital will result in state ownership and an arbitrary and capricious exercise of an elitist model of power that will make the free-market fraud look like a babe in diapers.
The tools for crafting our perpetual peace and prosperity are there, we just need to start using them, and the craftsmen are not Phil Gramm, Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, or John McCain.
Pragmatic pluralism is what we need, not the proven inefficiencies and preventable risks of plutocrats.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
The deal will also be financed by the Kuwaiti Finance Authority and Berkshire Hathaway.
The chemical industry's equity prices are floundering under deflationary pressure of energy price inputs--oil--creating the environment for a continuous consolidation of power by deliberately organized (political) means, specifically, by cartel.
All seems innocuous enough, free market enough, buying and selling assets in the marketplace.
No! This is a free-market fraud! Consolidation to improve profit margin is not to be financed, it is to be prevented in priority by allowing financing to occur only for promoting pluralism that avoids the crisis of consolidated capital and markets we are currently in; the crisis that the Fed says it needs "the tools" to centrally manage to "allow" it to happen instead of preventing it. Allowing for crisis is the source of the problem, not the solution.
When the fundamentals, the obvious, is being ignored for complex regulatory schemes to manage the natural retributive value, you know you are in big trouble!
The predictable result of this kind of free-market fraud is the false rejection of free market economics to produce the general welfare. The crisis of evermore consolidated capital will result in state ownership and an arbitrary and capricious exercise of an elitist model of power that will make the free-market fraud look like a babe in diapers.
The tools for crafting our perpetual peace and prosperity are there, we just need to start using them, and the craftsmen are not Phil Gramm, Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, or John McCain.
Pragmatic pluralism is what we need, not the proven inefficiencies and preventable risks of plutocrats.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Immunity of Power
The Bush administration, neo-conservatives generally, equate power with immunity from wrongdoing, and prosecution of it. The argument is: our power is dervived from the constitutional consent of the governed, it is therefore immune from prosecution except where it is "originally" intended by the Constitution. This is the political contract of representative (republican) government that Jefferson referred to as ideal--it operationalizes the leadership talent and the ambition for power with the general welfare, or the public good.
It fails because the ideal is operationalized into a Hamiltonian model of government in which an elite rules, and they rule with immunity and impunity. According to this practical model and working hypothesis of power, the best leaders will not be available for public service under threat of prosecution for exercising power, which fallaciously implies that power is necessarily corrupt and must be immune from prosecution. It is a tautology, a circular argument, a fraud in which Hamiltonians masquerade as Jeffersonians, and it is not exclusive to Republicans by any means.
We need a pragmatist of power for the public good whose immunity from prosecution is the popular consent of election and reelection to "good" office by being in service to "The People" (Jeffersonianism) not the people in service to the ruling class (Hamiltonianism).
Fannie May and Freddie Mac, for example, are a Hamiltonian model of central banking that Jefferson warned would lead to political instability and propogates the need for central command and control (the Fed and the new rules) inimical to The Constitution of the United States and the fundaments for freedom that cannot be allowed to fail. It is exactly what Declaring Independence and the Constitutional endowment of Natural Sovereignty is intended to avoid.
Obama is the pragmatist we are looking for to obtain a more Jeffersonian model of government in which the risk of our financial system, for example, is spread naturally among many pluralist elements in a peaceful and prosperous manner of both a distributive and non-distributive benefit (Mancur Olson); a systematic risk that does not conflict individual freedom with the utility of a collective action, or free market economics.
Very best wishes.
It fails because the ideal is operationalized into a Hamiltonian model of government in which an elite rules, and they rule with immunity and impunity. According to this practical model and working hypothesis of power, the best leaders will not be available for public service under threat of prosecution for exercising power, which fallaciously implies that power is necessarily corrupt and must be immune from prosecution. It is a tautology, a circular argument, a fraud in which Hamiltonians masquerade as Jeffersonians, and it is not exclusive to Republicans by any means.
We need a pragmatist of power for the public good whose immunity from prosecution is the popular consent of election and reelection to "good" office by being in service to "The People" (Jeffersonianism) not the people in service to the ruling class (Hamiltonianism).
Fannie May and Freddie Mac, for example, are a Hamiltonian model of central banking that Jefferson warned would lead to political instability and propogates the need for central command and control (the Fed and the new rules) inimical to The Constitution of the United States and the fundaments for freedom that cannot be allowed to fail. It is exactly what Declaring Independence and the Constitutional endowment of Natural Sovereignty is intended to avoid.
Obama is the pragmatist we are looking for to obtain a more Jeffersonian model of government in which the risk of our financial system, for example, is spread naturally among many pluralist elements in a peaceful and prosperous manner of both a distributive and non-distributive benefit (Mancur Olson); a systematic risk that does not conflict individual freedom with the utility of a collective action, or free market economics.
Very best wishes.
Reinventing the Problem
The Fed and Treasury chiefs recommended to the House Financial Services Committee today a reinvention of the financial regulatory system.
While no insurance company will insure a house that is on fire, that's more or less what's going on here, and does absolutely nothing to address the cause of the problem.
Rather than suggesting there be assurance that we do not have a consolidated and collusive financial marketplace that results in firms too big to allow to fail, Bernanke says, rather, "new tools are needed for ensuring an orderly liquidation of a systemically important securities firm that is on the verge of bankruptcy, together with a more formal process for deciding when to use those tools." (AP)
So instead of ensuring a failed financial institution cannot be "critical" in a non-collusive, pluralisitic, free market environment of relative safety, we are going to ensure the means for a critical failure with "an orderly liquidation" and "a more formal process" that gives it the legitimacy of public authority--or ensuring a Hamiltonian model, which is the problem reinvented, not the solution.
No. These people are not stupid. They are corrupt!
This is not public service. It is self-service using good offices with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
Get the neo-conservatives out!
Vote Obama, 2008!
Very best wishes.
While no insurance company will insure a house that is on fire, that's more or less what's going on here, and does absolutely nothing to address the cause of the problem.
Rather than suggesting there be assurance that we do not have a consolidated and collusive financial marketplace that results in firms too big to allow to fail, Bernanke says, rather, "new tools are needed for ensuring an orderly liquidation of a systemically important securities firm that is on the verge of bankruptcy, together with a more formal process for deciding when to use those tools." (AP)
So instead of ensuring a failed financial institution cannot be "critical" in a non-collusive, pluralisitic, free market environment of relative safety, we are going to ensure the means for a critical failure with "an orderly liquidation" and "a more formal process" that gives it the legitimacy of public authority--or ensuring a Hamiltonian model, which is the problem reinvented, not the solution.
No. These people are not stupid. They are corrupt!
This is not public service. It is self-service using good offices with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
Get the neo-conservatives out!
Vote Obama, 2008!
Very best wishes.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Profit Taking
Analysts attribute the quick drop in oil prices to "profit taking."
A two-day, six-dollar drop is not a volatility characteristic of user-hedge contract activity. It is a purely speculative demand that is entirely detrimental to our economy. This breadth of volatility indicates at least 70% of the contracts in futures being a speculative demand, yet the CFTC claims it has no way to know the source of the contracts. Neutrality of the CFTC, it's credibility, is seriously called into question. It needs a new executive administration.
A McCain administration will not be an improvement, but an exacerbation of the problem.
If McCain wants to garner the popular vote, he may want to dump Phil Gramm's passe' Reaganomics and engage a pragmatic approach like Obama. An ideological politics yields ideological results. A $300 billion tax cut mainly for the rich is the ideological problem, not the pragmatic solution.
Technical analysts agree that a drop in oil prices strengthens the dollar by reducing the microeconomic (deflation of demand) destruction of our economy. Yet, the same analysts attribute the falling price of oil to a stronger dollar.
The dollar's strength is an effect, not a cause.
This fundamental misattribution is a rhetorical fallacy--it is a trick!
In the arena of politics and economics, what kind of people perform "tricks?"
Right! Frauds!
Get the frauds out of the marketplace!
Vote for Obama and get the real thing!
Very best wishes.
A two-day, six-dollar drop is not a volatility characteristic of user-hedge contract activity. It is a purely speculative demand that is entirely detrimental to our economy. This breadth of volatility indicates at least 70% of the contracts in futures being a speculative demand, yet the CFTC claims it has no way to know the source of the contracts. Neutrality of the CFTC, it's credibility, is seriously called into question. It needs a new executive administration.
A McCain administration will not be an improvement, but an exacerbation of the problem.
If McCain wants to garner the popular vote, he may want to dump Phil Gramm's passe' Reaganomics and engage a pragmatic approach like Obama. An ideological politics yields ideological results. A $300 billion tax cut mainly for the rich is the ideological problem, not the pragmatic solution.
Technical analysts agree that a drop in oil prices strengthens the dollar by reducing the microeconomic (deflation of demand) destruction of our economy. Yet, the same analysts attribute the falling price of oil to a stronger dollar.
The dollar's strength is an effect, not a cause.
This fundamental misattribution is a rhetorical fallacy--it is a trick!
In the arena of politics and economics, what kind of people perform "tricks?"
Right! Frauds!
Get the frauds out of the marketplace!
Vote for Obama and get the real thing!
Very best wishes.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Stock in Trade
To be arbitrary and capricious. To be unpredictable is the stock in trade of a consolidated capital. It is a hallmark of power: something is, or is not, just because you command it. Economically, that would be a command economy.
So we have a current macro-technical in which the relationship of a giant budget deficit and the interest rate has been improperly reversed into an ad hoc deflation of our economy in which nothing seems to make sense, cause-effect is a matter of an ideological opinion, and the uncertainty causes a high risk factor, and trepidation, of acting contrary to convention. Will raising the interest rate reverse the deflationary trend or deepen it?
Rather than rely on what we don't know, let's rely on what we do!
Consolidated capital distorts markets. The technicals just reflect an arbitrary and capricious market behavior. Things that should have value do not, things that don't do, things that have value are irrationally overvalued...valuations are entirely at the mercy of a consolidated command of capital. It is the antithesis of a free market economics.
Thus, both the problem of our economic woes has been properly identified and the solution properly induced in priority.
All we need to do now is act on it in priority.
Build the coalition for Barack Obama, 2008!
Very best wishes.
So we have a current macro-technical in which the relationship of a giant budget deficit and the interest rate has been improperly reversed into an ad hoc deflation of our economy in which nothing seems to make sense, cause-effect is a matter of an ideological opinion, and the uncertainty causes a high risk factor, and trepidation, of acting contrary to convention. Will raising the interest rate reverse the deflationary trend or deepen it?
Rather than rely on what we don't know, let's rely on what we do!
Consolidated capital distorts markets. The technicals just reflect an arbitrary and capricious market behavior. Things that should have value do not, things that don't do, things that have value are irrationally overvalued...valuations are entirely at the mercy of a consolidated command of capital. It is the antithesis of a free market economics.
Thus, both the problem of our economic woes has been properly identified and the solution properly induced in priority.
All we need to do now is act on it in priority.
Build the coalition for Barack Obama, 2008!
Very best wishes.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Simulation of a Bear Market
Let's say you own a small trucking business. You add value to the economy with a competitive price, and a competitive quality of fast delivery on time--something businesses of any size want and highly value.
The cost of fuel forces you into bankruptcy. The value to the economy is lost having both an inflationary effect on prices, and a deflationary effect on economic activity. Businesses now have less pluralism in the marketplace and now have a higher price and lower quality. It is the model of lowest efficiency; it is the model of a conslidated capital. It is a model for consolidating the wealth and reducing pluralism of the marketplace that is real economic growth.
Eventually the trend reverses as capital cannot be further consolidated without a retribution of the value consolidated. The distribution causes a decompression--a recovery trend (a retrace), not a deconsolidation. It is not economic growth, but a range-bound support and resistance of a predictable model of consolidated capital.
As the recovery proceeds, the economy will support the value you add to the economy. The added value of your business was always in demand, it now has the command of a consolidated capital (the ruling class elite). You will now need to borrow back your assets consolidated. You will run your business without ownership of it. The profits will have to be shared with the source of consolidated capital. By the time you have equity enough in your business to claim ownership, the cycle will again trend into compression by any number of ad hoc means of a consolidated capital.
The process is repeated.
This is not doing business. It is a farce!
Having real economic growth with a sustainable stablity is entirely possible. We're just not doing it. It's time to start! It's time to substitute decompression with deconsolidation at the very highest rate.
Join the coalition for pragmatic change.
Join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
The cost of fuel forces you into bankruptcy. The value to the economy is lost having both an inflationary effect on prices, and a deflationary effect on economic activity. Businesses now have less pluralism in the marketplace and now have a higher price and lower quality. It is the model of lowest efficiency; it is the model of a conslidated capital. It is a model for consolidating the wealth and reducing pluralism of the marketplace that is real economic growth.
Eventually the trend reverses as capital cannot be further consolidated without a retribution of the value consolidated. The distribution causes a decompression--a recovery trend (a retrace), not a deconsolidation. It is not economic growth, but a range-bound support and resistance of a predictable model of consolidated capital.
As the recovery proceeds, the economy will support the value you add to the economy. The added value of your business was always in demand, it now has the command of a consolidated capital (the ruling class elite). You will now need to borrow back your assets consolidated. You will run your business without ownership of it. The profits will have to be shared with the source of consolidated capital. By the time you have equity enough in your business to claim ownership, the cycle will again trend into compression by any number of ad hoc means of a consolidated capital.
The process is repeated.
This is not doing business. It is a farce!
Having real economic growth with a sustainable stablity is entirely possible. We're just not doing it. It's time to start! It's time to substitute decompression with deconsolidation at the very highest rate.
Join the coalition for pragmatic change.
Join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
What to Do Now!
If the compression underway due to trickle-down economic policy is not at this point stopped and reversed with simple, direct and decisive measures, the trend will be a hardship of highly unacceptable depth and breadth.
Capital becoming evermore consolidated and churned through commodities exchanges has to stop now!
Taxing the benefit, instead of giving it favorable treatment, will stop the speculative churn and consolidation of disposable income. The reduction in the price of oil will begin the reversal of the deflationary trend. Retributing the value back to the consumer will magnify the reversal and strengthen the dollar.
Everybody, even the speculators, will benefit. Speculators will be in a stop-and-reversal investment mode that generates a capital gain, it just won't be at the expense of economic growth, but to promote it.
This is what we need to do NOW!
If we don't, the consequences will be exceptionally bad, and if that detriment has not trickled-down to you, it's headed your way, soon to be very close up and verifiably personal.
The solution is simple, pragmatic, easily executable, and Strong Pareto Optimal. There is no excuse for not doing it unless we are to be impractical slaves to ideology. Pro-growth is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of pragmatically doing the right thing...just like Obama has to say about his approach to politics and policy, and that's worth voting for!
Very best wishes.
Capital becoming evermore consolidated and churned through commodities exchanges has to stop now!
Taxing the benefit, instead of giving it favorable treatment, will stop the speculative churn and consolidation of disposable income. The reduction in the price of oil will begin the reversal of the deflationary trend. Retributing the value back to the consumer will magnify the reversal and strengthen the dollar.
Everybody, even the speculators, will benefit. Speculators will be in a stop-and-reversal investment mode that generates a capital gain, it just won't be at the expense of economic growth, but to promote it.
This is what we need to do NOW!
If we don't, the consequences will be exceptionally bad, and if that detriment has not trickled-down to you, it's headed your way, soon to be very close up and verifiably personal.
The solution is simple, pragmatic, easily executable, and Strong Pareto Optimal. There is no excuse for not doing it unless we are to be impractical slaves to ideology. Pro-growth is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of pragmatically doing the right thing...just like Obama has to say about his approach to politics and policy, and that's worth voting for!
Very best wishes.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
What's the Plan?
Our economic planners, after the unprecedented economic growth produced by a more progressive tax code in the 1990's, planned the economy to deflate.
The rejection of trickle-down economics in the 90's for a more Jeffersonian model of political economy produced an environment in which new businesses flourished and labor was more in control than it had ever been by market forces. Economic growth was exceptionally strong, disconfirming the trickle-down hypothesis, and confirming the progressive tax hypothesis.
The pluralistic environment of a progressive tax code is inimical to big business which relies on regressive taxation, accumulating debt, slow growth (minimal competition), high prices (maximal inflation and profits), demand reduction (declining purchasing power), overproduction (rising inventories) and rising unemployment--stagflation and deflation, or what we have now. That's the plan. Mission accomplished.
The Hamiltonian plan entails shipping our raw materials to Asia, where it is a labor-buyer's market, and shipping cheap finished goods back. The only advantage of the free trade agreements is the labor cost advantage. Otherwise, the trade agreements are a model of inefficiency, or extremely bad planning. The result, the plan, is inflation AND unemployment for our nation, which is why it is beyond the technology of monetarism to bank our way out of it.
For a small elite of the super rich, the supra-sovereign elite in command of the global economy, the plan is a complete success. For the vast majority of Americans, it is proving to be a dismal failure, just as planned.
Now that Americans are increasingly desperate for jobs, the comparative labor-cost advantage shifts back, especially if we have state-provided healthcare. The energy cost also adds a comparative, natural, advantage for manufacturing to be closer to both its raw material inputs and its consumer market. Again, this advantage should have never been commanded away. It was a huge misfeasance, if not a deliberate malfeasance, doing tremendous harm for a very narrow benefit.
A more pluralistic model of power and political economy is clearly in order to wrest this command economy away from its commanders.
Ensuring a genuine, unconsolidated, free market mechanism in priority, beginning with a simple progressive tax code on all income without exception, is clearly in order.
John McCain is not the candidate to do that.
If you want a plan that works for the vast majority of America, its businesses, its government, with a thoroughly verifiable legitimacy that is the constitutional legitimacy of providing for the general welfare, and not a small group of would-be monarchs, vote for the conscience and competence we need to move our nation forward, Barack Obama!
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton
The rejection of trickle-down economics in the 90's for a more Jeffersonian model of political economy produced an environment in which new businesses flourished and labor was more in control than it had ever been by market forces. Economic growth was exceptionally strong, disconfirming the trickle-down hypothesis, and confirming the progressive tax hypothesis.
The pluralistic environment of a progressive tax code is inimical to big business which relies on regressive taxation, accumulating debt, slow growth (minimal competition), high prices (maximal inflation and profits), demand reduction (declining purchasing power), overproduction (rising inventories) and rising unemployment--stagflation and deflation, or what we have now. That's the plan. Mission accomplished.
The Hamiltonian plan entails shipping our raw materials to Asia, where it is a labor-buyer's market, and shipping cheap finished goods back. The only advantage of the free trade agreements is the labor cost advantage. Otherwise, the trade agreements are a model of inefficiency, or extremely bad planning. The result, the plan, is inflation AND unemployment for our nation, which is why it is beyond the technology of monetarism to bank our way out of it.
For a small elite of the super rich, the supra-sovereign elite in command of the global economy, the plan is a complete success. For the vast majority of Americans, it is proving to be a dismal failure, just as planned.
Now that Americans are increasingly desperate for jobs, the comparative labor-cost advantage shifts back, especially if we have state-provided healthcare. The energy cost also adds a comparative, natural, advantage for manufacturing to be closer to both its raw material inputs and its consumer market. Again, this advantage should have never been commanded away. It was a huge misfeasance, if not a deliberate malfeasance, doing tremendous harm for a very narrow benefit.
A more pluralistic model of power and political economy is clearly in order to wrest this command economy away from its commanders.
Ensuring a genuine, unconsolidated, free market mechanism in priority, beginning with a simple progressive tax code on all income without exception, is clearly in order.
John McCain is not the candidate to do that.
If you want a plan that works for the vast majority of America, its businesses, its government, with a thoroughly verifiable legitimacy that is the constitutional legitimacy of providing for the general welfare, and not a small group of would-be monarchs, vote for the conscience and competence we need to move our nation forward, Barack Obama!
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)