The Mathematics of Misery
If you are manager of a private equity fund loaded with billions of dollars consolidated from the dot-com bubble you inflated and busted with the inequitable bid of your consolidated capital, and you hedge, or leverage, your assets for a 30 percent return, where did the profit, the capital gain, come from.
It would not come from economic growth at 2 percent. You are not investing in economic growth, but pure profit--inflation. Merely deciding to buy futures paper on commoities, for example, leverages, or magnifies, with an inequitable bid, the price of those contracts without risk, and without growth. That magnifies the leverage to a 30 percent gain that, with a favorable tax rate (a subsidy), encourages the practice and magnifies the speculative demand, and the commodity price, even more. The result is stagflation: rising prices and slow-to-no growth.
If a dollar borrowed is returned at a 30 percent added value, somebody eventually ends up having to pay it. The banks don't want to pay it. They want to keep the gain and not pay taxes on it. The game is to keep the gain without the pain, so the "plan" is to nationalize the debt into an economic rescue plan that will be managed and paid through the treasury department.
With money being leveraged, borrowed, for a 30 percent or more return until the capital is so consolidated that there is none left to finance the return--for banks to loan money to each other without the pain of paying the return without growth, the credit market locks up. The result is liquidity crisis.
Our current economic crisis is the risk devolved, trickled down, to The People with only a small gain. Most of the gain, the profit, is retained by the consolidated capital. It is over-surplused and must be borrowed to continue operation of the "real" economy, and because a large part of the economy's available credit was borrowed to entrepreneur, to investment bank--exchanging borrowed funds to profit without growth, the capital available for growth was both crowded out and consolidated so that now the capital, industry and markets are so consolidated that growth is virtually impossible without rewarding the inefficiency of allowing capital and markets to consolidate.
The hedge-fund magnifier effect is falsely argued as the multiplier effect in which consolidated economic entities and its capital multiplies (trickles down) industries and markets in support of it. Consolidation of capital and markets operates to limit economic growth in order to magnify, or multiply, the return on a limited supply provided by a limited number of suppliers with deficient investment. The result is inflation with a deflationary trend, which is what we have now.
For the vast majority of Americans, rendered dependant on the use of the consolidated capital, this is a mathematics of misery.
Leverage finance always results in deflation and rising prices. So why do we continue to allow for it? Why do we continue to reward it, like with a Wall Street bail-out plan sold as a plan to rescue us?
Are we really that stupid? No, just that oppressed by a model for tyranny of the marketplace falsely sold as the self-determination of a free market.
It's time for real freedom, a true legitimacy of self-determination that can only be truly had through ensuring the processes of pluralism in priority.
Deconsolidate the capital and reverse the regressive tax incentive that perversely supports it.
Very best wishes.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Sanction
The Heritage Foundation, for example, says the consequences for not passing the Wall Street bail-out legislation will be quick and sure.
If you own and operate a small business and experiencing the crunch on cash flow and need to borrow to continue operations, you will be sanctioned quick and sure.
Notice how the risk, the sanction, is a function of a firm's size. The bigger the firm--the more cash (solvency) you have to leverage in a credit economy--the more this Hamiltonian sanction is positive and not negative.
Understanding the mathematics of leverage finance is key to understanding the operation of the Hamiltonian model of political economy, identifying the problem and applying a fitting solution (see the article at griffithlighton.blogspot,com}.
The argument is being made that not passing the bail-out plan is causing negative market sentiment. That is a fraud and is indicative of what is wrong with the analytics.
Market sentiment was negative going into the legislative process with low confidence that the proposed plan could reverse the deflationary trend. The continued negative sentiment is just a confirmed lack of confidence of a legislative measure that is not characteristically Hamiltonian and the model of what does not work!
If you own and operate a small business and experiencing the crunch on cash flow and need to borrow to continue operations, you will be sanctioned quick and sure.
Notice how the risk, the sanction, is a function of a firm's size. The bigger the firm--the more cash (solvency) you have to leverage in a credit economy--the more this Hamiltonian sanction is positive and not negative.
Understanding the mathematics of leverage finance is key to understanding the operation of the Hamiltonian model of political economy, identifying the problem and applying a fitting solution (see the article at griffithlighton.blogspot,com}.
The argument is being made that not passing the bail-out plan is causing negative market sentiment. That is a fraud and is indicative of what is wrong with the analytics.
Market sentiment was negative going into the legislative process with low confidence that the proposed plan could reverse the deflationary trend. The continued negative sentiment is just a confirmed lack of confidence of a legislative measure that is not characteristically Hamiltonian and the model of what does not work!
Re-Capitalizing the Benefit
The no-confidence market sentiment for a top-down (disconfirmed trickle-down theory) bail out plan will quickly go strong positive with its antithesis: a bottom-up bail out that would be a re-capitalization of the benefit.
Recapitalizing the benefit will restore the liquidity not lost, but being withheld from the market waiting to be rewarded for its inefficiencies, and the narrow benefit it incurs to be trickled down if the right incentive is provided.
Lowering the capital-gains tax to lure liquidity back in just exacerbates the problem because, it is the problem. Rewarding the perverse incentive with the means to be perverse, I dare say, is more perverse!
Our economy--the credit economy (needing to borrow to make ends meet)--is being held hostage to a practical solution that causes the problem.
Regressive tax policy and deregulation of the financial markets without ensuring a self-correcting, free-market mechanism has produced an enormous benefit and detriment. The way to quickly and surely reduce the cost, and the risk, of re-capitalizing is to redistribute the benefit to the cost side of the equation. That is, by recapitalizing the benefit.
There is the very clear risk, given the failure of trickle-down economic measures, that top-down measures to fix it will not work, throwing away good money after bad. The sentiments of Republicans for instilling the bail-out bill with free-market "principles" by, for example, reducing the capital gains tax on the consolidated capital is one of those disconfirmed principles they love to validate with legislative authority that does more to cause the problem than effect a solution.
Interesting how bi-partisanship cannot produce an empirical solution to this problem. The only solution available is Hamiltonian, which is the problem.
While Obama and Biden will likely apply a more empirically verifiable, and Jeffersonian, approach to this problem, and McCain/Palin, so full of their conservative "principles" (for change?), most assuredly will not, the choice, both politically and economically, is all too clear if a genuine solution is what you want.
The Hamiltonian tenet that it is a representative's responsibility to give the governed what they need, rather than what they want, in better judgement is not well supported here, if not generally just a whole lot of Hamiltonian hooey designed to redefine and misapply The People's self-interest and the General Welfare.
Confine the principles of conservative economics to the dustbin of miserable failures, empirically verified.
Choose the way of an effectively pro-growth, low risk, investment strategy now!
Recapitalize the benefit from the bottom up.
Vote for Obama/Biden to sustain it.
Recapitalizing the benefit will restore the liquidity not lost, but being withheld from the market waiting to be rewarded for its inefficiencies, and the narrow benefit it incurs to be trickled down if the right incentive is provided.
Lowering the capital-gains tax to lure liquidity back in just exacerbates the problem because, it is the problem. Rewarding the perverse incentive with the means to be perverse, I dare say, is more perverse!
Our economy--the credit economy (needing to borrow to make ends meet)--is being held hostage to a practical solution that causes the problem.
Regressive tax policy and deregulation of the financial markets without ensuring a self-correcting, free-market mechanism has produced an enormous benefit and detriment. The way to quickly and surely reduce the cost, and the risk, of re-capitalizing is to redistribute the benefit to the cost side of the equation. That is, by recapitalizing the benefit.
There is the very clear risk, given the failure of trickle-down economic measures, that top-down measures to fix it will not work, throwing away good money after bad. The sentiments of Republicans for instilling the bail-out bill with free-market "principles" by, for example, reducing the capital gains tax on the consolidated capital is one of those disconfirmed principles they love to validate with legislative authority that does more to cause the problem than effect a solution.
Interesting how bi-partisanship cannot produce an empirical solution to this problem. The only solution available is Hamiltonian, which is the problem.
While Obama and Biden will likely apply a more empirically verifiable, and Jeffersonian, approach to this problem, and McCain/Palin, so full of their conservative "principles" (for change?), most assuredly will not, the choice, both politically and economically, is all too clear if a genuine solution is what you want.
The Hamiltonian tenet that it is a representative's responsibility to give the governed what they need, rather than what they want, in better judgement is not well supported here, if not generally just a whole lot of Hamiltonian hooey designed to redefine and misapply The People's self-interest and the General Welfare.
Confine the principles of conservative economics to the dustbin of miserable failures, empirically verified.
Choose the way of an effectively pro-growth, low risk, investment strategy now!
Recapitalize the benefit from the bottom up.
Vote for Obama/Biden to sustain it.
Defeated Bail-Out Bill
The defeated bail-out bill indicates a bi-partisan lack of confidence to take the liquidity missing from the financial markets off the sidelines.
Remember that the lack of liquidity--the illiquidity that is our current liquidity crisis--is not money that has just evaporated, or lost, it is capital that has been comsolidated, accumulated, and that causes deflation (a recessionary trend). The crisis is technically indicated, and predicted, by data presented in the IRS bulletins on income distribution, which shows an accumulation in the upper income braket not seen since just before the Great Depression.
The most effective way to reverse the liquidity crisis is to deconsolidate the capital, what the bail out will not effectively do without being from the bottom up. That would be the quickest and most effective way to reverse the deflationary trend. The lack of confidence in a top-down (Hamiltonian-style) bailout was very clearly indicated by worldwide negative equity markets.
Bailing out Wall Street by buying the bad debt (the "over-accumulated" wealth) will do little to unfreeze the liquidity sitting in private equity and under the control of hedge fund managers waiting for a reduction in the capital gains tax that causes the perverse incentives that results in the "over-leveraging" of capital to produce profit without growth (without expanding the pie), which is the problem.
What we are experiencing is a return to classicism, moyenage, and worldwide markets are much more progressive, much more sophisticated, than that.
Remember that the lack of liquidity--the illiquidity that is our current liquidity crisis--is not money that has just evaporated, or lost, it is capital that has been comsolidated, accumulated, and that causes deflation (a recessionary trend). The crisis is technically indicated, and predicted, by data presented in the IRS bulletins on income distribution, which shows an accumulation in the upper income braket not seen since just before the Great Depression.
The most effective way to reverse the liquidity crisis is to deconsolidate the capital, what the bail out will not effectively do without being from the bottom up. That would be the quickest and most effective way to reverse the deflationary trend. The lack of confidence in a top-down (Hamiltonian-style) bailout was very clearly indicated by worldwide negative equity markets.
Bailing out Wall Street by buying the bad debt (the "over-accumulated" wealth) will do little to unfreeze the liquidity sitting in private equity and under the control of hedge fund managers waiting for a reduction in the capital gains tax that causes the perverse incentives that results in the "over-leveraging" of capital to produce profit without growth (without expanding the pie), which is the problem.
What we are experiencing is a return to classicism, moyenage, and worldwide markets are much more progressive, much more sophisticated, than that.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Money Moyenage
Consolidating the Wealth
If a mature capitalist economy entrepreneurs profit without growth, then where does the profit come from?
Before the emergence of capitalism, in the age of feudalism, profit (economic gain) was a non-inflationary, zero-sum, no-growth endeavor of despoiling your competition--the wealth of the other overlords and their subjects. The accumulated wealth became capital to be invested to expand the pie and cause, create, a "capital" gain that, still, was not inflationary because it increased the supply, or caused economic growth.
Capitalism emerged as a peacefully prosperous means of using the wealth consolidated by royal monarchists to organize an expansion of the pie, or to produce economic growth with the result being the profit (the measure of economic growth).
As capitalism matured, wealth and power has again become a moyenage, no-growth endeavor in which the competition for profit is not to innovate productivity as much to innovate the means of despoiling consolidated fiefdoms of economic power--of acquiring profit before growth which effectively minimizes growth and effectively minimizes the competitive free-market mechanism of price competition that controls inflation.
It is a game of monopoly in which winning the game is to bankrupt the competition and subjugate all the other players to your power; not expanding the pie, but consolidating it.
The result is profit without growth and liquidity crisis--consolidation of the capital that we are now experiencing and that congressman Franks has misattributed to a lack of government regulation on a consolidated capital.
No! The cause of this crisis is a fundamental lack of the self-regulating mechanism of a free market economics due to consolidation of wealth largely caused by a regressive tax code and a lack of government regulatory authority to properly act to ensure it in priority as Adam Smith prescribed.
The problem is that capital has been allowed to consolidate and revert to a passe' state of feudalism--of profit without growth. It is an illgetimate operation and organization of capital without ensuring the free market mechanism to control it.
Socialism is an indicator that the free market mechanism (pluralism) is not ALLOWED to work, not that it does not work. Franks is wrong and this bail-out bill is wrong. It should be defeated because it is based on a fundamentally flawed analytic.
Very best wishes.
If a mature capitalist economy entrepreneurs profit without growth, then where does the profit come from?
Before the emergence of capitalism, in the age of feudalism, profit (economic gain) was a non-inflationary, zero-sum, no-growth endeavor of despoiling your competition--the wealth of the other overlords and their subjects. The accumulated wealth became capital to be invested to expand the pie and cause, create, a "capital" gain that, still, was not inflationary because it increased the supply, or caused economic growth.
Capitalism emerged as a peacefully prosperous means of using the wealth consolidated by royal monarchists to organize an expansion of the pie, or to produce economic growth with the result being the profit (the measure of economic growth).
As capitalism matured, wealth and power has again become a moyenage, no-growth endeavor in which the competition for profit is not to innovate productivity as much to innovate the means of despoiling consolidated fiefdoms of economic power--of acquiring profit before growth which effectively minimizes growth and effectively minimizes the competitive free-market mechanism of price competition that controls inflation.
It is a game of monopoly in which winning the game is to bankrupt the competition and subjugate all the other players to your power; not expanding the pie, but consolidating it.
The result is profit without growth and liquidity crisis--consolidation of the capital that we are now experiencing and that congressman Franks has misattributed to a lack of government regulation on a consolidated capital.
No! The cause of this crisis is a fundamental lack of the self-regulating mechanism of a free market economics due to consolidation of wealth largely caused by a regressive tax code and a lack of government regulatory authority to properly act to ensure it in priority as Adam Smith prescribed.
The problem is that capital has been allowed to consolidate and revert to a passe' state of feudalism--of profit without growth. It is an illgetimate operation and organization of capital without ensuring the free market mechanism to control it.
Socialism is an indicator that the free market mechanism (pluralism) is not ALLOWED to work, not that it does not work. Franks is wrong and this bail-out bill is wrong. It should be defeated because it is based on a fundamentally flawed analytic.
Very best wishes.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Avoiding the Principles of Economics
The year 2000. Neo-conservatives control the legislative and, with the questionably constitutional assistance of the judiciary, the executive branch of the federal government. It was immediately declared that the fundamental principles of classical economics would be applied: a highly regressive tax policy in which the use of capital and the gains would be minimally taxed with the result being economic growth, the General Welfare.
The year 2008. The government announces the need for a massive economic stimulus package. Congress passes the stimulus package. John McCain is campaigning for president to make the tax cuts permanent so that we may enjoy the benefits of the fundamental principles of economics and the government is preparing to legislate an economic rescue plan.
We went from the promise of robust economic growth to a massive stimulus package to the need for an economic rescue. I do believe that neo-conservative economic principles have proven to be a complete failure. Unfortunately, principles are something to be believed in despite the verifiable evidence because they are fundamental, enduring, disprovable ideals. Not believing is just un-American.
While the results of applying the classic conservative principles of economics was easily predictable, critics were deemed socialists and fearmongers, and despite the principles resulting in measures needed described by conservatives as socialism and the need to alleviate the fear of economic collapse, these critics are still deemed wrongheaded disbelievers, implying that the principles have not been disconfirmed, just temporarily out of political favor at worst.
The stimulus package, despite its massive size, was no match for the detriment built into the regressive tax policy being argued as the solution to the problem. Conservatives argue to make the tax cuts, the problem, permanent. Nobody can possibly be that stupid?
The reason the stimulus package did not work is because the lack of consumer demand is an effect of illiquidity caused by a regressive tax burden and its magnified, leveraged, effect--consolidation of the capital. The remedy was a symptomatic treatment that could not overcome a massive consolidation of wealth not seen since just before the Great Depression.
Despite the overwhelming evidence against it, the "principles" of the classic economic model are, by their very rhetorical nature, fundamentally sound. Foremost, conservatives argue, is the principle of welfare for the rich in priority because without it, the economy will collapse (a testable hypothesis).
We have entered a realm of complete absurdity where we are to believe in principles that lead to economic collapse if we do not adhere in theory, and economic collapse if we do in practice.
Are we to "believe" that the impending rescue plan will be the General Welfare because Republicans are being sure it includes the fundamental principles of classical economic theory?
We are going to have a legislative validation of a disconfirmed hypothesis; a complete methodological and practical absurdity!
Disbelief, a complete reversal of the regressive tax code, and deconsolidation of the capital is fully in order toward an economy that is not only fundamentally believable, but verifiably sound.
The year 2008. The government announces the need for a massive economic stimulus package. Congress passes the stimulus package. John McCain is campaigning for president to make the tax cuts permanent so that we may enjoy the benefits of the fundamental principles of economics and the government is preparing to legislate an economic rescue plan.
We went from the promise of robust economic growth to a massive stimulus package to the need for an economic rescue. I do believe that neo-conservative economic principles have proven to be a complete failure. Unfortunately, principles are something to be believed in despite the verifiable evidence because they are fundamental, enduring, disprovable ideals. Not believing is just un-American.
While the results of applying the classic conservative principles of economics was easily predictable, critics were deemed socialists and fearmongers, and despite the principles resulting in measures needed described by conservatives as socialism and the need to alleviate the fear of economic collapse, these critics are still deemed wrongheaded disbelievers, implying that the principles have not been disconfirmed, just temporarily out of political favor at worst.
The stimulus package, despite its massive size, was no match for the detriment built into the regressive tax policy being argued as the solution to the problem. Conservatives argue to make the tax cuts, the problem, permanent. Nobody can possibly be that stupid?
The reason the stimulus package did not work is because the lack of consumer demand is an effect of illiquidity caused by a regressive tax burden and its magnified, leveraged, effect--consolidation of the capital. The remedy was a symptomatic treatment that could not overcome a massive consolidation of wealth not seen since just before the Great Depression.
Despite the overwhelming evidence against it, the "principles" of the classic economic model are, by their very rhetorical nature, fundamentally sound. Foremost, conservatives argue, is the principle of welfare for the rich in priority because without it, the economy will collapse (a testable hypothesis).
We have entered a realm of complete absurdity where we are to believe in principles that lead to economic collapse if we do not adhere in theory, and economic collapse if we do in practice.
Are we to "believe" that the impending rescue plan will be the General Welfare because Republicans are being sure it includes the fundamental principles of classical economic theory?
We are going to have a legislative validation of a disconfirmed hypothesis; a complete methodological and practical absurdity!
Disbelief, a complete reversal of the regressive tax code, and deconsolidation of the capital is fully in order toward an economy that is not only fundamentally believable, but verifiably sound.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Your Self-Interest and the General Welfare
Pluralistic processes produce a social interaction of legitimate outcomes that is the application of an individual's choice, preference, that is the General Welfare.
If power is allowed to consolidate, to become non-pluralistic, but the legitimacy of the outcome is maintained to be pluralistic, there must be a mechanism in place to achieve this fraud.
The latest application is the current economic rescue plan being deliberated and soon to be legislated as the General Welfare.
Remember that the regressive tax policy of the Bush administration--the tax cuts for the wealthy that McCain says we NEED to make permanent--was argued to be everyone's self-interest, or the General Welfare.
The policy was decidedly not the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans, and management of this inequitable outcome--the rescue plan--is being sold as the General Welfare. Bush has, again with very certain terms, stated that not passing the rescue plan will mean a fate even worse than rewarding the corrupt and incompetent for an inequitable outcome that his administration argued with absolute confidence would not occur.
Yes, a crisis worse than we have now, that we were told would not occur to begin with, is definitely not in the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans. Notice how the self-interest of the vast majority has been sacrificed to preserve the self-interest of the rich all the way and is being called your self-interest.
This is how the Hamiltonian model of political-economy operates: exploitation of your self-interest is in your best interest. Slick, huh?
You should be ever-lov'n, hopp'n mad!
Let's try pluralism for a change!
If power is allowed to consolidate, to become non-pluralistic, but the legitimacy of the outcome is maintained to be pluralistic, there must be a mechanism in place to achieve this fraud.
The latest application is the current economic rescue plan being deliberated and soon to be legislated as the General Welfare.
Remember that the regressive tax policy of the Bush administration--the tax cuts for the wealthy that McCain says we NEED to make permanent--was argued to be everyone's self-interest, or the General Welfare.
The policy was decidedly not the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans, and management of this inequitable outcome--the rescue plan--is being sold as the General Welfare. Bush has, again with very certain terms, stated that not passing the rescue plan will mean a fate even worse than rewarding the corrupt and incompetent for an inequitable outcome that his administration argued with absolute confidence would not occur.
Yes, a crisis worse than we have now, that we were told would not occur to begin with, is definitely not in the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans. Notice how the self-interest of the vast majority has been sacrificed to preserve the self-interest of the rich all the way and is being called your self-interest.
This is how the Hamiltonian model of political-economy operates: exploitation of your self-interest is in your best interest. Slick, huh?
You should be ever-lov'n, hopp'n mad!
Let's try pluralism for a change!
Having It All Your Way
If you can have it all your way in the marketplace, it is not a free market.
Republicans have stalled the damned-if-you-do-or-don't rescue bill. They want to include a provision for a capital gains tax reduction in order to attract the liquidity "sitting on the sidelines" needed to resolve the liquidity crisis.
Republicans effectively propose increasing the regressive tax burden that causes liquidity crisis so that providing liquidity--financial service, investment, banking--is made without any tax burden. People that are withholding liquidity and willing to cause hardship for "The People" unless they get a favorable tax burden for causing crisis, and then act like they are our saviors when we have to pay them to save us, is nothing but the very height of corrupt--a lack of practical moral intelligence.
The application of this Hamiltonian model of political economy is a model for having it all one way. It is not a free market model. Yet Republicans argue the legitimacy of the capital gains tax reduction, to validate the operation of free-market "principles" (the private ownership of the capital), to be provision for the free-market model with a competitive tax rate in a rescue bill deemed to be otherwise socialist.
Application of the Hamiltonian model reduces the "competitive" dimension of a free market to a "necessary" use of the surplus, the capital, without a tax burden which, by the overwhelming evidence we have staring us square in the face, causes socialism of the capital.
If socialism is not what you want, don't do what causes it.
What we see here is the application of rhetoric for the development of public policy. Where verification, the scientific method, is needed to produce an effective public policy, validation--the rhetoric of ideological "principles"--is instead being applied.
If you recall, at the outset of the Bush administration, Bush said he would execute "the principles" of conservative economic policy, which are the tax cuts that the McCain camp says it will make permanent. Chief among these cuts was the capital gains tax and the perverse incentive to leverage profit before growth which produced this extra-extensive liquidity crisis that, in the end, cannot, predictably will not, produce the growth to pay the debt (the leverage).
Lowering the capital gains tax is the proverbial putting the fire out with gasoline!
Obama says he will not increase the capital gains tax to increase the incentive for consolidated capital to distribute its consolidated, frozen, liquidity. It is a measure that conserves the consolidation of capital where deconsolidation is needed. It is a pragmatic measure to provide short-term relief, not a confirmation of the necessity for making regressive tax policy, and what causes the crisis, permanent.
The pressure for a tax free use of the consolidated capital is extortionate. Extortion is characterisitic of a criminal element and indicates a lack of choice, a tyranny, where choice must obtain for a legitimately free market economics. It is a means of illegitimately having it all your way.
Republicans have stalled the damned-if-you-do-or-don't rescue bill. They want to include a provision for a capital gains tax reduction in order to attract the liquidity "sitting on the sidelines" needed to resolve the liquidity crisis.
Republicans effectively propose increasing the regressive tax burden that causes liquidity crisis so that providing liquidity--financial service, investment, banking--is made without any tax burden. People that are withholding liquidity and willing to cause hardship for "The People" unless they get a favorable tax burden for causing crisis, and then act like they are our saviors when we have to pay them to save us, is nothing but the very height of corrupt--a lack of practical moral intelligence.
The application of this Hamiltonian model of political economy is a model for having it all one way. It is not a free market model. Yet Republicans argue the legitimacy of the capital gains tax reduction, to validate the operation of free-market "principles" (the private ownership of the capital), to be provision for the free-market model with a competitive tax rate in a rescue bill deemed to be otherwise socialist.
Application of the Hamiltonian model reduces the "competitive" dimension of a free market to a "necessary" use of the surplus, the capital, without a tax burden which, by the overwhelming evidence we have staring us square in the face, causes socialism of the capital.
If socialism is not what you want, don't do what causes it.
What we see here is the application of rhetoric for the development of public policy. Where verification, the scientific method, is needed to produce an effective public policy, validation--the rhetoric of ideological "principles"--is instead being applied.
If you recall, at the outset of the Bush administration, Bush said he would execute "the principles" of conservative economic policy, which are the tax cuts that the McCain camp says it will make permanent. Chief among these cuts was the capital gains tax and the perverse incentive to leverage profit before growth which produced this extra-extensive liquidity crisis that, in the end, cannot, predictably will not, produce the growth to pay the debt (the leverage).
Lowering the capital gains tax is the proverbial putting the fire out with gasoline!
Obama says he will not increase the capital gains tax to increase the incentive for consolidated capital to distribute its consolidated, frozen, liquidity. It is a measure that conserves the consolidation of capital where deconsolidation is needed. It is a pragmatic measure to provide short-term relief, not a confirmation of the necessity for making regressive tax policy, and what causes the crisis, permanent.
The pressure for a tax free use of the consolidated capital is extortionate. Extortion is characterisitic of a criminal element and indicates a lack of choice, a tyranny, where choice must obtain for a legitimately free market economics. It is a means of illegitimately having it all your way.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Profit Before Growth
The economic theory in operation that has led to this current fiancial crisis, just like during the Reaganomics era and the savings and loan crisis, is that ensuring profits through welfare for the rich produces economic growth. Of course, it does not. It results in stagflation and general economic crisis.
Just like the savings and loan crisis in which loans were made to develop commercial real estate before the economic growth was there to support it (the trickle-down theory of economics), the current credit crisis was caused exactly in the same way, through real estate development, and has solicited exactly the same remedial measures.
Are we so stupid that we MUST make the same mistake over and over again?
The recovery plan offered by the treasury secretary for the financial system was predictably Hamiltonian, and opposition to it goes back to the inception of our nation and the modeling of our political-economic system.
The recovery plan is unpopular with The People, favorable to those who do not consider themselves to be a part of "the mob" described as The People. Accordingly, Alexander Hamilton's model of political economy calls for the privilege of profit in priority, assured without risk and financed by taxing The People regressively to secure the welfare of the privileged few first.
The Hamiltonian model was problematic with the popular consent of The People from the start. Not long after Independence, we had the Jacksonian era in which democracy was being reasserted as the legitimacy of power. Much of that revolved around the organization, control and practical administration of the financial system by private ownership of a small elite who considered themselves beyond the legal status of The People. Exactly the same scenario we have today.
The Hamiltonian model of political economy is what is wrong with our financial system. The model needs to be abandoned for a more pluralistic model of power and political economy. The elitist model clearly does not work for The People. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and is decidedly confirmed by the empirics of a popular non-consent of The People. Ignoring the consent of the governed is fundamentally unconstitutional. It is illegal. Disallowing for the wisdom of popular consent, for the efficiency of pluralistic process and determination, is not just a political liability, it is a crime against civil society.
Deconsolidation of political and economic power, replacing the elitist model with the pluralist model, is fully in order.
We do not have to keep making the same mistake over and over again. We should allow the collective wisdom and righteousness of pluralistic processes, like democracy and a free and unconsolidated marketplace, to be assured in priority over a conceited, self-righteous socio-political-economic elit of an overwhelmingly verifiable incompetence!
We must abandon the profit-before-growth model of political economy (the elitist, Hamiltonian model).
The recovery plan offered by the treasury secretary is to provide the liquidity to the banking system (buy the bad debt that could not be paid due to insufficient income due to overconsolidation) and that will trickle-down to The People and stabilize the economy.
The trickle-down theory has been thoroughly tested and it verifiably fails The People with 100 percent reliability. Offering a trickle-down economic solution is an insult to human intelligence! It is nothing but the selfish conceit of a bunch of economic animals incapable of the intelligence required to admimister power toward the General Welfare. These elits do whatever they can to defeat the pluralistic processes of power because it renders their selfish incompetence obsolete.
The defining, and critically operational, characteristic of the Hamiltonian model is the regressive tax code. The first step to a more pluralistic model is a more progressive tax code.
The liquidity necessary to grow the economy before profit must be accessed where it has been consolidated into the wealth of upper incomes whether it be a business or an individual's income. If this measure is not taken, the probability of financial crisis is 100 percent, proven over and over again. It does not mean that a person or their business cannot grow and prosper. It means wealth and power cannot be consolidated into crisis proportion.
Ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority and a progressive tax code organizes the process of ensuring growth before profit that maximizes efficiencies and innovation, ensures an easily verifiable legitimacy and productive equity, and a peaceful prosperity that, instead of always being the means of impending crisis, is not a struggle to maintain.
Very best wishes.
Just like the savings and loan crisis in which loans were made to develop commercial real estate before the economic growth was there to support it (the trickle-down theory of economics), the current credit crisis was caused exactly in the same way, through real estate development, and has solicited exactly the same remedial measures.
Are we so stupid that we MUST make the same mistake over and over again?
The recovery plan offered by the treasury secretary for the financial system was predictably Hamiltonian, and opposition to it goes back to the inception of our nation and the modeling of our political-economic system.
The recovery plan is unpopular with The People, favorable to those who do not consider themselves to be a part of "the mob" described as The People. Accordingly, Alexander Hamilton's model of political economy calls for the privilege of profit in priority, assured without risk and financed by taxing The People regressively to secure the welfare of the privileged few first.
The Hamiltonian model was problematic with the popular consent of The People from the start. Not long after Independence, we had the Jacksonian era in which democracy was being reasserted as the legitimacy of power. Much of that revolved around the organization, control and practical administration of the financial system by private ownership of a small elite who considered themselves beyond the legal status of The People. Exactly the same scenario we have today.
The Hamiltonian model of political economy is what is wrong with our financial system. The model needs to be abandoned for a more pluralistic model of power and political economy. The elitist model clearly does not work for The People. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and is decidedly confirmed by the empirics of a popular non-consent of The People. Ignoring the consent of the governed is fundamentally unconstitutional. It is illegal. Disallowing for the wisdom of popular consent, for the efficiency of pluralistic process and determination, is not just a political liability, it is a crime against civil society.
Deconsolidation of political and economic power, replacing the elitist model with the pluralist model, is fully in order.
We do not have to keep making the same mistake over and over again. We should allow the collective wisdom and righteousness of pluralistic processes, like democracy and a free and unconsolidated marketplace, to be assured in priority over a conceited, self-righteous socio-political-economic elit of an overwhelmingly verifiable incompetence!
We must abandon the profit-before-growth model of political economy (the elitist, Hamiltonian model).
The recovery plan offered by the treasury secretary is to provide the liquidity to the banking system (buy the bad debt that could not be paid due to insufficient income due to overconsolidation) and that will trickle-down to The People and stabilize the economy.
The trickle-down theory has been thoroughly tested and it verifiably fails The People with 100 percent reliability. Offering a trickle-down economic solution is an insult to human intelligence! It is nothing but the selfish conceit of a bunch of economic animals incapable of the intelligence required to admimister power toward the General Welfare. These elits do whatever they can to defeat the pluralistic processes of power because it renders their selfish incompetence obsolete.
The defining, and critically operational, characteristic of the Hamiltonian model is the regressive tax code. The first step to a more pluralistic model is a more progressive tax code.
The liquidity necessary to grow the economy before profit must be accessed where it has been consolidated into the wealth of upper incomes whether it be a business or an individual's income. If this measure is not taken, the probability of financial crisis is 100 percent, proven over and over again. It does not mean that a person or their business cannot grow and prosper. It means wealth and power cannot be consolidated into crisis proportion.
Ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority and a progressive tax code organizes the process of ensuring growth before profit that maximizes efficiencies and innovation, ensures an easily verifiable legitimacy and productive equity, and a peaceful prosperity that, instead of always being the means of impending crisis, is not a struggle to maintain.
Very best wishes.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Taking the Risk
The $700 billion to bail out the financial system and prevent collapse of our economy not only measures the size of the risk taken, but what it costs not to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace.
If you recall, bigger was touted as better because, as large consolidated corporates argued, big economic organizations are able to take bigger risks and do not need to be regulated because the financials of these big economic entities are equally large, so they can afford the risk of loss. This was argued to be the benefit of allowing for consolidation of industries and markets by both Democrats and Republicans, and for a regressive tax policy to finance it by Republicans like Senator Bunning of Kentucky who now laments that the bail out is socialism.
Senator Bunning still maintains that bigger is better and, like McCain, maintains that making the tax cuts permanent and staying the economic course, which includes this failed organizational model of consolidation, is the solution. This is nothing but pure ideological idiocy!
The risk was taken and the size of the organizations taking the risk prevents the free market sanction of eliminating the bad risk and the bad risk takers because they are too big to allow to fail, and if they are allowed to fail, as Bunning would have it, the financial market will be even more consolidated and the dependance even deeper.
The market has been rigged so that the most corrupt is fittest to survive. It is entirely antithetical to a free market economics. It is the model of what a free market is not. It is what is wrong with it.
Change better be coming because with or without the $700 billion bail out, economic crisis is assured because it has been organized for it.
The knowledge, the technical understanding and expertise exists to entirely prevent this crisis. We need to stop ignoring it and stop rewarding the perpetrators of crisis politics and economics.
Organizing for a peaceful and prosperous pluralism is entirely possible by ensuring it in priority.
Rewarding the perversions of consolidated capital and markets, and its corrupt practitioners, should not be the priority, not now, not in the future. If we do, crisis is assured. The choice is ours to make. Ultimately it is a free market--we are self-determined.
What is it going to be? The collective wisdom of our Natural Rights in operation of pluralistic process, or the dictates of tyrannical conceits in operation of consolidated power?
If you recall, bigger was touted as better because, as large consolidated corporates argued, big economic organizations are able to take bigger risks and do not need to be regulated because the financials of these big economic entities are equally large, so they can afford the risk of loss. This was argued to be the benefit of allowing for consolidation of industries and markets by both Democrats and Republicans, and for a regressive tax policy to finance it by Republicans like Senator Bunning of Kentucky who now laments that the bail out is socialism.
Senator Bunning still maintains that bigger is better and, like McCain, maintains that making the tax cuts permanent and staying the economic course, which includes this failed organizational model of consolidation, is the solution. This is nothing but pure ideological idiocy!
The risk was taken and the size of the organizations taking the risk prevents the free market sanction of eliminating the bad risk and the bad risk takers because they are too big to allow to fail, and if they are allowed to fail, as Bunning would have it, the financial market will be even more consolidated and the dependance even deeper.
The market has been rigged so that the most corrupt is fittest to survive. It is entirely antithetical to a free market economics. It is the model of what a free market is not. It is what is wrong with it.
Change better be coming because with or without the $700 billion bail out, economic crisis is assured because it has been organized for it.
The knowledge, the technical understanding and expertise exists to entirely prevent this crisis. We need to stop ignoring it and stop rewarding the perpetrators of crisis politics and economics.
Organizing for a peaceful and prosperous pluralism is entirely possible by ensuring it in priority.
Rewarding the perversions of consolidated capital and markets, and its corrupt practitioners, should not be the priority, not now, not in the future. If we do, crisis is assured. The choice is ours to make. Ultimately it is a free market--we are self-determined.
What is it going to be? The collective wisdom of our Natural Rights in operation of pluralistic process, or the dictates of tyrannical conceits in operation of consolidated power?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Why the Big Corporate Executive Compensation?
First of all, the corporates that offer the big executive pay are big. They can afford to pay it. The size of the executive pay, and the perverse incentive for risk-prone business practices--the perverse business practices that are now threatening the world economy, are entirely a function of the perverse size, the oversize, of the organization.
The ridiculously oversized compensation is largely an organizational problem that demands an organizational solution--deconsolidation of the capital, industries and markets. The result will be a more reasonably equitable executive pay and alleviation of the perverse incentive for risk-prone practices and compensation that is otherwise nothing but conscience money for the administration of perversely abusive practices that minimizes the cognitive dissonance of the perpetrators by buying it off.
Just as significant is the historical origin of a managerial elite, the business person, being at the top of the power structure to command the administration of power with the ability to render maximum economic value from nature (economic growth), and that power being empirically measured, indicated, by the level of income, or compensation.
The power of the entrepreneur has become the ability to consolidate and limit growth where it had been to expand it. As the modern industrial state matured, the financial elite realized that power is more easily acquired, maintained and controlled if consolidated--not allowed to pluralize, or grow. This, of course, however, is antithetical to the legitimacy of the business elit's power.
Instead of the philosophy of be frugal and provide, to be "fruitful and multiply," the philosophy has become be frugal, consolidate, subjugate and deprive. The "credit economy" is but a vast majority of citizens that are indebted subjects of the creditors. The big executive compensation removes these subjects from the burden of the debt, and given that they have been receiving little or no tax burden on the compensation in many cases, hedge fund managers in particular, that includes the debtor assignment on the public debt which is to be used to compensate them with this proposed government bail out of their work. It looks like nothing but an artful scam to me!
It is a scam of bilking the public treasury that is not limited to Wall Street. Medical doctors, for example, operate with the same sort of scam, setting up the tax base, including monetizing a debt burden, to raid with oversized billing practices, pressuring both prices and tax rates up. Hardly the model of altruistic public service! They are just a bunch of no-good gangsters that cushion, position and close on the victims in the name of public service. Didn't Dante identify a special place for these people?
These people are not public servants. Thay are the enemies of a civil society! Their just reward is nothing that ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace can and will justly decide if it is allowed to organize and operate in priority of a regulatory authority.
The ridiculously oversized compensation is largely an organizational problem that demands an organizational solution--deconsolidation of the capital, industries and markets. The result will be a more reasonably equitable executive pay and alleviation of the perverse incentive for risk-prone practices and compensation that is otherwise nothing but conscience money for the administration of perversely abusive practices that minimizes the cognitive dissonance of the perpetrators by buying it off.
Just as significant is the historical origin of a managerial elite, the business person, being at the top of the power structure to command the administration of power with the ability to render maximum economic value from nature (economic growth), and that power being empirically measured, indicated, by the level of income, or compensation.
The power of the entrepreneur has become the ability to consolidate and limit growth where it had been to expand it. As the modern industrial state matured, the financial elite realized that power is more easily acquired, maintained and controlled if consolidated--not allowed to pluralize, or grow. This, of course, however, is antithetical to the legitimacy of the business elit's power.
Instead of the philosophy of be frugal and provide, to be "fruitful and multiply," the philosophy has become be frugal, consolidate, subjugate and deprive. The "credit economy" is but a vast majority of citizens that are indebted subjects of the creditors. The big executive compensation removes these subjects from the burden of the debt, and given that they have been receiving little or no tax burden on the compensation in many cases, hedge fund managers in particular, that includes the debtor assignment on the public debt which is to be used to compensate them with this proposed government bail out of their work. It looks like nothing but an artful scam to me!
It is a scam of bilking the public treasury that is not limited to Wall Street. Medical doctors, for example, operate with the same sort of scam, setting up the tax base, including monetizing a debt burden, to raid with oversized billing practices, pressuring both prices and tax rates up. Hardly the model of altruistic public service! They are just a bunch of no-good gangsters that cushion, position and close on the victims in the name of public service. Didn't Dante identify a special place for these people?
These people are not public servants. Thay are the enemies of a civil society! Their just reward is nothing that ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace can and will justly decide if it is allowed to organize and operate in priority of a regulatory authority.
The Taxpayer
"We The People." The phrase denotes a legal status. It defines who is legally sovereign, or who rules or governs. According to this legally defined status, The People are constitutionally endowed with the "power" of self-determination--freedom.
Within the general case of legally conferred sovereignty is the freedom to achieve a class status. While it is illegal to achieve a royal status, it is legal to achieve what is considered to be a ruling-class status. Members of this class, largely defined by economic, or financial, independence consider themselves to be beyond the legal status of sovereignty which is relegated to the crude ineptitudes of The People, royalty, and government (regulatory) authority generally.
Where government authority (the sovereignty of The People) must act, it should only act in support of the competent ruling class with the empirical proof of private sector success (Hamiltonianism). Treasury secretary Paulson is currently on Capitol Hill making the case for the Hamiltonian model of power and political economy because, he argues, if we do not support the ruling class, the sovereigns (The People) will be much worse off.
The argument effectively separates a class from the legal sovereign status and elevates it to a supra-sovereign status that is not "considered" a royal status but a managerial class with the impunity of a necessary natural condition of rulers and ruled, of forging order from chaos.
According to Paulson and other elitist bureaucrats, congress must act to finance the ability of the supra-sovereigns to forge order from the chaos, and without it, general crisis is assured. This is nothing but a subsidy, welfare, for the rich to maintain an oversurplus of wealth and power (the cause of the crisis), and a surplus of retributive value that "requires" central command and control to manage it and to be paid for by The People, the ruled, the subjects, the taxpayer (Hamiltonianism).
Legally, the status of the managerial class is subject to the sovereign--The People. It's time to exercise the legal power, the constitutional right, the righteousness, the collective wisdom of pluralistic processes that will ensure the general welfare and not the conceits of an illicit power elite that corrupts the Natural Rights, the peaceful prosperity, of The People.
Supra-sovereigns disclaim their exclusive status when it comes to the tax authority of The People. Why, the elit managers argue, do The People want to tax themselves? Obviously "We" do not. It is exacted by elit authority in an illicit ruler-subject relationship that can only be shammed as democracy, freedom and justice that supports an exclusive status that corrupts Constitutional authority and the virtue of the Natural Rights of Humanity (pluralism).
Interesting how the conceit of supra-sovereign status becomes The People when it comes to needing to tap the liquidity required to cultivate general peace and prosperity through the tax authority. So, we have McCain, for example, saying that tapping the needed liquidity, as Obama/Biden propose, "will increase your [The People's] taxes."
The People are looking for the liquidity, the water, that cultivates prosperity. If you want water, you have to go where the water is. That would be the upper class of incomes, the class that otherwise discalims the status of sovereignty for the ruling class, and rulers exercise the authority to tax. Indeed they do!
The sovereign, the rulers, We The People have the authority to tax. It's time to properly irrigate the fertile fields of peace and prosperity with the liquidity that is being deprived by the corrupt conceits of an exclusive, illegitimate command and control that exercises the politics of deprivation as the will of The People.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Within the general case of legally conferred sovereignty is the freedom to achieve a class status. While it is illegal to achieve a royal status, it is legal to achieve what is considered to be a ruling-class status. Members of this class, largely defined by economic, or financial, independence consider themselves to be beyond the legal status of sovereignty which is relegated to the crude ineptitudes of The People, royalty, and government (regulatory) authority generally.
Where government authority (the sovereignty of The People) must act, it should only act in support of the competent ruling class with the empirical proof of private sector success (Hamiltonianism). Treasury secretary Paulson is currently on Capitol Hill making the case for the Hamiltonian model of power and political economy because, he argues, if we do not support the ruling class, the sovereigns (The People) will be much worse off.
The argument effectively separates a class from the legal sovereign status and elevates it to a supra-sovereign status that is not "considered" a royal status but a managerial class with the impunity of a necessary natural condition of rulers and ruled, of forging order from chaos.
According to Paulson and other elitist bureaucrats, congress must act to finance the ability of the supra-sovereigns to forge order from the chaos, and without it, general crisis is assured. This is nothing but a subsidy, welfare, for the rich to maintain an oversurplus of wealth and power (the cause of the crisis), and a surplus of retributive value that "requires" central command and control to manage it and to be paid for by The People, the ruled, the subjects, the taxpayer (Hamiltonianism).
Legally, the status of the managerial class is subject to the sovereign--The People. It's time to exercise the legal power, the constitutional right, the righteousness, the collective wisdom of pluralistic processes that will ensure the general welfare and not the conceits of an illicit power elite that corrupts the Natural Rights, the peaceful prosperity, of The People.
Supra-sovereigns disclaim their exclusive status when it comes to the tax authority of The People. Why, the elit managers argue, do The People want to tax themselves? Obviously "We" do not. It is exacted by elit authority in an illicit ruler-subject relationship that can only be shammed as democracy, freedom and justice that supports an exclusive status that corrupts Constitutional authority and the virtue of the Natural Rights of Humanity (pluralism).
Interesting how the conceit of supra-sovereign status becomes The People when it comes to needing to tap the liquidity required to cultivate general peace and prosperity through the tax authority. So, we have McCain, for example, saying that tapping the needed liquidity, as Obama/Biden propose, "will increase your [The People's] taxes."
The People are looking for the liquidity, the water, that cultivates prosperity. If you want water, you have to go where the water is. That would be the upper class of incomes, the class that otherwise discalims the status of sovereignty for the ruling class, and rulers exercise the authority to tax. Indeed they do!
The sovereign, the rulers, We The People have the authority to tax. It's time to properly irrigate the fertile fields of peace and prosperity with the liquidity that is being deprived by the corrupt conceits of an exclusive, illegitimate command and control that exercises the politics of deprivation as the will of The People.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Current Indicators
As we pursue the possibilities for false reforms of consolidated industries and markets with more consolidation of industries and markets and calling it a bail out, a few indicators currently confirm the problem, and the solution.
A 30% rise in the price of oil today indicates the consolidation of capital that is the liquidity crisis. This capital, consolidated, is not being used to liquidate the debt--grow the economy--in crisis, it is being used to bid up the price of a basic input which is both inflationary and deflationary at the same time.
The result is profit without growth which is given a favorable tax rate. It is the problem not, as McCain suggests, the solution.
Since the consolidated capital is not being used to buy the bad debt, it will be monetized through the treasury and the federal reserve system. This is being explained as the cause for the sudden rise in the price of a barrel of oil (a falling dollar valuation due to no real-economy growth from the investment of the capital) when it is the effect. It is a deliberate fraud and, again, what is wrong with it.
In terms of fundamentals, no-growth investments and profits (returns) should lower the price of oil because there is no demand being added, which fundamentally describes the crisis we are in financially. The effect of the investment is inflationary nevertheless which is fraudulently claimed to be due to demand exceeding supply. The result is also to give false support to the price per barrel and an uncertain value to alternatives which discourages investment.
The cause of the sudden price spike in oil is the sudden movement of consolidated wealth (private equity and hedge funds) out of equities and into oil futures contracts that were magnified on a short squeeze. Properly timed by the hedge fund managers this produced a big profit with no growth from the investment at a favorable tax rate. If this kind of capital management is allowed to continue with the favorable tax rate, the trillion dollar bail out of the credit markets will be paid by the least able to pay already beset with high inflation and low growth. The result is a fully intended disaster that demands command and comtrol of elite authority.
Another significant indicator of the operation of an overconsolidated capital being the source of our problems is hedge fund managers complaining about having to make an accounting of short sales as per the SEC. That eliminates the all-important black box necessary to manipulate market prices. If the fund managers do not behave legally, there will be a criminal liability if the data is not falsified.
Short sales are an effective way to manipulate market prices because selling large blocks of borrowed shares "causes" fear and a downtrend independent of real market values. In other words, it is an easy way to perpetrate a fraud and dictate prices, especially if capital is consolidated.
A 30% rise in the price of oil today indicates the consolidation of capital that is the liquidity crisis. This capital, consolidated, is not being used to liquidate the debt--grow the economy--in crisis, it is being used to bid up the price of a basic input which is both inflationary and deflationary at the same time.
The result is profit without growth which is given a favorable tax rate. It is the problem not, as McCain suggests, the solution.
Since the consolidated capital is not being used to buy the bad debt, it will be monetized through the treasury and the federal reserve system. This is being explained as the cause for the sudden rise in the price of a barrel of oil (a falling dollar valuation due to no real-economy growth from the investment of the capital) when it is the effect. It is a deliberate fraud and, again, what is wrong with it.
In terms of fundamentals, no-growth investments and profits (returns) should lower the price of oil because there is no demand being added, which fundamentally describes the crisis we are in financially. The effect of the investment is inflationary nevertheless which is fraudulently claimed to be due to demand exceeding supply. The result is also to give false support to the price per barrel and an uncertain value to alternatives which discourages investment.
The cause of the sudden price spike in oil is the sudden movement of consolidated wealth (private equity and hedge funds) out of equities and into oil futures contracts that were magnified on a short squeeze. Properly timed by the hedge fund managers this produced a big profit with no growth from the investment at a favorable tax rate. If this kind of capital management is allowed to continue with the favorable tax rate, the trillion dollar bail out of the credit markets will be paid by the least able to pay already beset with high inflation and low growth. The result is a fully intended disaster that demands command and comtrol of elite authority.
Another significant indicator of the operation of an overconsolidated capital being the source of our problems is hedge fund managers complaining about having to make an accounting of short sales as per the SEC. That eliminates the all-important black box necessary to manipulate market prices. If the fund managers do not behave legally, there will be a criminal liability if the data is not falsified.
Short sales are an effective way to manipulate market prices because selling large blocks of borrowed shares "causes" fear and a downtrend independent of real market values. In other words, it is an easy way to perpetrate a fraud and dictate prices, especially if capital is consolidated.
Applying the Hamiltonian Model of Political Economy
Events as we see them unfold are confirmation of the Hamiltonian model of power and political economy in full operation.
Alexander Hamilton, our nation's first treasury secretary devised a system of finance that perpetuates the power of financial elites through a banking system and tax structure that applies a trickle-down theory of economics and a regressive tax code to publicly finance it, which is exactly what we have now in operation.
The innovations necessary to conserve the elitist model of power have been monetarism and a practical, administrative model of bureaucratic power and political economy that we now see being brought to fullest fruition to manage the current liquidity crisis (over-consolidation of markets and capital).
Confirmation of the bureaucratic model of power and political economy--of an unelected technocracy applying the power of an elitist model with a false pluralistic legitimacy--indicates a mature consolidation of power that can do nothing but deconsolidate (pluralize) to maintain its legitimate administration. The elitist model will naturally succumb to the forces of pluralism--a natural sharing of power.
There is a soft determinism in operation here. We can resist the natural tendency toward a retributional reconciliation of value and allow for the natural course of pluralistic forces to ensure our peaceful prosperity. The choice is ours to make here and now.
Beyond the bureaucratic model of power and political economy is the reality of pluralism that keeps the peace and makes us prosper through the legitimacy of our collective wisdom that is the real public authority--the true arbiter of our lives, our liberty, our pursuit of happiness. "We The People" is a pluralism with real meaning beyond a Hamiltonian fantasy to keep The People subjected in its pursuit. It is a pratical utility, a practical reality, that is foolish to resist.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Alexander Hamilton, our nation's first treasury secretary devised a system of finance that perpetuates the power of financial elites through a banking system and tax structure that applies a trickle-down theory of economics and a regressive tax code to publicly finance it, which is exactly what we have now in operation.
The innovations necessary to conserve the elitist model of power have been monetarism and a practical, administrative model of bureaucratic power and political economy that we now see being brought to fullest fruition to manage the current liquidity crisis (over-consolidation of markets and capital).
Confirmation of the bureaucratic model of power and political economy--of an unelected technocracy applying the power of an elitist model with a false pluralistic legitimacy--indicates a mature consolidation of power that can do nothing but deconsolidate (pluralize) to maintain its legitimate administration. The elitist model will naturally succumb to the forces of pluralism--a natural sharing of power.
There is a soft determinism in operation here. We can resist the natural tendency toward a retributional reconciliation of value and allow for the natural course of pluralistic forces to ensure our peaceful prosperity. The choice is ours to make here and now.
Beyond the bureaucratic model of power and political economy is the reality of pluralism that keeps the peace and makes us prosper through the legitimacy of our collective wisdom that is the real public authority--the true arbiter of our lives, our liberty, our pursuit of happiness. "We The People" is a pluralism with real meaning beyond a Hamiltonian fantasy to keep The People subjected in its pursuit. It is a pratical utility, a practical reality, that is foolish to resist.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Classical Economic Crisis, Neo-Classical Means
President Bush characterized our present economic crisis as "unprecendented" requiring unprecedented measures.
This is false.
It is an attempt to mislead the public to think that this 200 year old means of finance, welfare for the rich (the Hamiltonian model of political economy in which the government supports the financial system and its elit ownership, command and control in whatever current form), is new and, therefore, unanticipated, evolving, and not a threat to the General Welfare.
Jefferson argued that Hamilton's model is, by definition, and will always be, a threat to the General Welfare, and it is the Natural Right, The Duty, of The People to ensure the General Welfare. The Bush administration and the McCain campaign falsely argue the novelty of the crisis to sustain the means of continuing it as the General Welfare, and continue to corrupt the Natural Right, The Duty, of The People.
The crisis--the liquidity crisis--is classical. It is the result of an overaccumulation of a surplus which is what happens with a regressive tax code that John McCain wants to sustain. He in fact offers the disease as the cure.
Classic liquidity crisis is simply this: so much money is surplused into capital ownership within the top economic class that there is not enough to drive (grow) the economy. The problem is classic. It has been going on for hundreds of years and culminated in the Great Depression in which monetarism was invented to add the consolidated liquidity that is called "illiquidity." The means to accomplishing the crisis became "neo" classical. Government operation in the marketplace is being defined, by Constitutional authority, as the General Welfare with the result, of course, being the classic crisis with the legitimacy of public authority, or the Will of The People, or by the Consent of the Governed.
Does the crisis and the means of perpetuating the crisis have your consent?
Continuing a regressive tax code--what McCain offers--is the problem.
A progressive tax code--what Obama/Biden offers is the solution.
The accumulation of income into the top one percent of income classes not seen since just before the Great Depression is no coincidence, and is not new. It is a clear indication of crisis and the accumulation was allowed to occur despite ample warning that was deemed socialist, communist or generally socially psychotic.
Monetizing our way out of the crisis just reinvents the problem. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and convincing. A regressive tax code does not produce the General Welfare, it produces general crisis independent of monetizing the debt.
The Obama/Biden solution--raisng the tax rate at the top margin and lowering it for the other income classes--is very specific to the problem despite the criticism of bought-and-paid-for experts that claim otherwise hoping we will all ignore it or dismiss it as an unfitting simplicity to a complex problem.
Vote for the solution.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
This is false.
It is an attempt to mislead the public to think that this 200 year old means of finance, welfare for the rich (the Hamiltonian model of political economy in which the government supports the financial system and its elit ownership, command and control in whatever current form), is new and, therefore, unanticipated, evolving, and not a threat to the General Welfare.
Jefferson argued that Hamilton's model is, by definition, and will always be, a threat to the General Welfare, and it is the Natural Right, The Duty, of The People to ensure the General Welfare. The Bush administration and the McCain campaign falsely argue the novelty of the crisis to sustain the means of continuing it as the General Welfare, and continue to corrupt the Natural Right, The Duty, of The People.
The crisis--the liquidity crisis--is classical. It is the result of an overaccumulation of a surplus which is what happens with a regressive tax code that John McCain wants to sustain. He in fact offers the disease as the cure.
Classic liquidity crisis is simply this: so much money is surplused into capital ownership within the top economic class that there is not enough to drive (grow) the economy. The problem is classic. It has been going on for hundreds of years and culminated in the Great Depression in which monetarism was invented to add the consolidated liquidity that is called "illiquidity." The means to accomplishing the crisis became "neo" classical. Government operation in the marketplace is being defined, by Constitutional authority, as the General Welfare with the result, of course, being the classic crisis with the legitimacy of public authority, or the Will of The People, or by the Consent of the Governed.
Does the crisis and the means of perpetuating the crisis have your consent?
Continuing a regressive tax code--what McCain offers--is the problem.
A progressive tax code--what Obama/Biden offers is the solution.
The accumulation of income into the top one percent of income classes not seen since just before the Great Depression is no coincidence, and is not new. It is a clear indication of crisis and the accumulation was allowed to occur despite ample warning that was deemed socialist, communist or generally socially psychotic.
Monetizing our way out of the crisis just reinvents the problem. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and convincing. A regressive tax code does not produce the General Welfare, it produces general crisis independent of monetizing the debt.
The Obama/Biden solution--raisng the tax rate at the top margin and lowering it for the other income classes--is very specific to the problem despite the criticism of bought-and-paid-for experts that claim otherwise hoping we will all ignore it or dismiss it as an unfitting simplicity to a complex problem.
Vote for the solution.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The McCain Tax Increase
The McCain plan to make the Bush administration's tax cuts permanent will be an effective tax increase.
Although his campaign claims Obama will increase taxes, McCain's tax cuts will make the record budget deficits permanent as well which is one gigantic tax increase for incomes below the top ten percent already burdened with stagflation, a reliable effect of a regressive tax code.
McCain says he will cut spending. That, of course, is a very unlikely promise to keep. A more reliable measure is to progress the code, both stimulating the economy and reducing the budget deficit at the same time. McCain's plan will increase the budget deficit which requires a tax increase on the least able to pay which is deflationary, reducing tax revenue and the value of the dollar (stagflation).
Obama's plan is true to its purpose. McCain's plan is a complete misrepresentation--it will be neo-conservative, exactly what the McCain camp claims to reform. The "change" being offered, this "reform," is just a reformulation of the problem.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Although his campaign claims Obama will increase taxes, McCain's tax cuts will make the record budget deficits permanent as well which is one gigantic tax increase for incomes below the top ten percent already burdened with stagflation, a reliable effect of a regressive tax code.
McCain says he will cut spending. That, of course, is a very unlikely promise to keep. A more reliable measure is to progress the code, both stimulating the economy and reducing the budget deficit at the same time. McCain's plan will increase the budget deficit which requires a tax increase on the least able to pay which is deflationary, reducing tax revenue and the value of the dollar (stagflation).
Obama's plan is true to its purpose. McCain's plan is a complete misrepresentation--it will be neo-conservative, exactly what the McCain camp claims to reform. The "change" being offered, this "reform," is just a reformulation of the problem.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Trillion Dollar Tax Investment
A Senate subcommittee has disclosed that rampant tax evasion schemes marketed to foreign companies by major investment banks, like Lehman Brothers, have resulted in a loss of $100 billion in tax revenue each year for the last ten years.
The practical effect for allowing this to happen, so the theory of trickle-down economics goes, is economic growth.
The trillion dollar empirical investment and the resulting evidence--a bankrupt banking system and a gigantic budget deficit (a tax increase)--decidedly disconfirms trickle-down economic theory, wouldn't you say?
McCain and Palin support the trickle-down theory of economics as pro growth despite the evidence overwhelmingly being economic conditions not seen since the Great Depression.
If the recessionary trend has not yet affected you, vote for McCain/Palin, it will be coming for you!
The practical effect for allowing this to happen, so the theory of trickle-down economics goes, is economic growth.
The trillion dollar empirical investment and the resulting evidence--a bankrupt banking system and a gigantic budget deficit (a tax increase)--decidedly disconfirms trickle-down economic theory, wouldn't you say?
McCain and Palin support the trickle-down theory of economics as pro growth despite the evidence overwhelmingly being economic conditions not seen since the Great Depression.
If the recessionary trend has not yet affected you, vote for McCain/Palin, it will be coming for you!
Confirming Command Economy
The price compression on a barrel of oil due to overproduction with the artificially high, non-fundamental, fraudulent price not only adds value to the substitute, alternative supplies of energy, but serves as a clearly confirmed demonstration of the command mode of the global economy.
OPECs decision to cut production to support the price per barrel above $100 is a confirmation of power. It is not to get rich. The supra-sovereigns are plenty rich. No. It is a demonstration of power over what is natural; the law of supply and demand and the natural justice, the righteousness, that comes with the confirmation of pluralistic processes like a free market economics.
However, freedom cannot be expropriated or disallowed. It can only be artificially accumulated with a natural, unavoidable, retribution. The more retributive value accumulated, the worse off the elite really are. This is what Obama, a highly intelligent man, means when he says the elite seem to take pride in their own stupidity. The first thing a political scientist learns is that people do not necessarily know what their self-interest is.
Ultimately, Nature, God, dictates a free market. The supra-sovereign, super-natural, status of the elite is but a foolish conceit. Nature commands the reconciliation of truth to power. The people are sovereign by Natural Right--it is not an abstraction of human imagination, it is an observation, a realization. The retributive value will be paid one way or another. God gives us the freedom to choose the form of payment. It is a soft determinism.
The retributive value is a variable unnecessarily suffered.
Let's choose freedom in priority.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
OPECs decision to cut production to support the price per barrel above $100 is a confirmation of power. It is not to get rich. The supra-sovereigns are plenty rich. No. It is a demonstration of power over what is natural; the law of supply and demand and the natural justice, the righteousness, that comes with the confirmation of pluralistic processes like a free market economics.
However, freedom cannot be expropriated or disallowed. It can only be artificially accumulated with a natural, unavoidable, retribution. The more retributive value accumulated, the worse off the elite really are. This is what Obama, a highly intelligent man, means when he says the elite seem to take pride in their own stupidity. The first thing a political scientist learns is that people do not necessarily know what their self-interest is.
Ultimately, Nature, God, dictates a free market. The supra-sovereign, super-natural, status of the elite is but a foolish conceit. Nature commands the reconciliation of truth to power. The people are sovereign by Natural Right--it is not an abstraction of human imagination, it is an observation, a realization. The retributive value will be paid one way or another. God gives us the freedom to choose the form of payment. It is a soft determinism.
The retributive value is a variable unnecessarily suffered.
Let's choose freedom in priority.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Alternative Value Destruction
The command and control of our economy, domestically and internationally, is largely being executed through the manipulation of energy prices.
Following the deflation of demand (demand-side economics that is the primary tool of a command capitalist economy) causing a global recessionary trend, the next phase is to destroy the value of the alternative supplies that have been directly supported by the price of oil.
The retrace in energy prices, and commodities generally, is a cyclical phenomenon that is the invention, the deliberate construct, of a command economy that has nothing to do with free-market fundamentals. It is not the legitimate product of a free-market pluralism that can be legitimately defined as the "natural" occurence of fundamental market dynamics that can be called the general will or welfare. Arguing this cycle as the product of market fundamentals is patent perpetration of a fraud.
Today, for example, with the probability of predicting the path of a cylone in the Gulf of Mexico being nearly zero, and OPEC declaring that our fundamental scarcity of oil is adequately supplied, the command price of energy markets is clearly indicated and decidedly confirmed as the price of oil falls under conditions for price support.
OPEC's "declaration" that supply levels will be maintained should be a reason for price support, not resistance, under scarce conditions. Destruction of the rate of substitution with a price being compressed to below $100 per barrel is in progress to give the demand side of the market less elasticity (demand-side command and control of markets).
The price of energy inputs is not the product of a fundamental market scarcity. It is the product of a fundamental fraud that is the sure product of a consolidated, non-pluralistic, organizational model. It both defines the problem and the solution that demands the political will required to change it.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Following the deflation of demand (demand-side economics that is the primary tool of a command capitalist economy) causing a global recessionary trend, the next phase is to destroy the value of the alternative supplies that have been directly supported by the price of oil.
The retrace in energy prices, and commodities generally, is a cyclical phenomenon that is the invention, the deliberate construct, of a command economy that has nothing to do with free-market fundamentals. It is not the legitimate product of a free-market pluralism that can be legitimately defined as the "natural" occurence of fundamental market dynamics that can be called the general will or welfare. Arguing this cycle as the product of market fundamentals is patent perpetration of a fraud.
Today, for example, with the probability of predicting the path of a cylone in the Gulf of Mexico being nearly zero, and OPEC declaring that our fundamental scarcity of oil is adequately supplied, the command price of energy markets is clearly indicated and decidedly confirmed as the price of oil falls under conditions for price support.
OPEC's "declaration" that supply levels will be maintained should be a reason for price support, not resistance, under scarce conditions. Destruction of the rate of substitution with a price being compressed to below $100 per barrel is in progress to give the demand side of the market less elasticity (demand-side command and control of markets).
The price of energy inputs is not the product of a fundamental market scarcity. It is the product of a fundamental fraud that is the sure product of a consolidated, non-pluralistic, organizational model. It both defines the problem and the solution that demands the political will required to change it.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Creating Crisis
Bailing Out Freddie and Fannie
This is a regulatory function of the modern bureacratic political economy.
Despite the conventional wisdom, it is not a function of substituting, or correcting, for market failure. The market did not fail. It was not allowed to operate by regulatory authority in priority. Rather, regulatory authority was designed and acted to allow for consolidation of capital and markets that defeats the collective wisdom and practical utility of pluralistic processes, like a free and unconsolidated marketplace, toward an easily manageable, predictable, and legitimately self-correcting fundament of economic theory and practice.
If regulatory authority does not ensure pluralistic processes in priority, the result is a complex of economic techniques that further alienate the fundamentals from the problem. The result is an economy that is operating with a false self-correcting operational mechanism and legitimacy that creates a reliance on technocratic management of the crisis it creates, which is what is wrong with it.
This kind of economic modeling (elitist modeling) requires central management and control--a command economy.
The very people that denounce socialism and communism as command control of economy have created it for you and argue that it is the result of free market economics. It is a fraud. It is the model of corporate fascism in operation in which a few plutocrats fancy themselves the supra sovereigns of society. They are the criminal element, a few of whom are in the process of being prosecuted, like Broadcom executives, but that is not sufficient. These are just well-paid lieutenants of the fascist form of power.
It is the model that needs to be changed: from corporate elitism to corporate pluralism in which the free market mechanism is truly and legitimately operating to produce the public good, which will be a genuine supply-side economics that renders the demand-side economics (an economics of deprivation) we have now a crude conceit of consolidated corporate power and corruption.
The McCain camp is not the agent for this change.
We need change that genuinely fulfills the requirement for legitimate pluralistic processes that make for a world in which the collective wisdom is allowed to operate with the predictable patterns of peace and prosperity, and not the tyranical machinations of a conceited, consolidated corporate always innovating new ways of creating classic economic crisis and ways to manage it. McCain is just an element, presented as an unwilling tool, of this innovation.
The McCain camp is a continuation of the fraud.
Real, much-needed change is found with Obama and Biden.
If you vote Republican, you vote for the means of your deprivation.
This is a regulatory function of the modern bureacratic political economy.
Despite the conventional wisdom, it is not a function of substituting, or correcting, for market failure. The market did not fail. It was not allowed to operate by regulatory authority in priority. Rather, regulatory authority was designed and acted to allow for consolidation of capital and markets that defeats the collective wisdom and practical utility of pluralistic processes, like a free and unconsolidated marketplace, toward an easily manageable, predictable, and legitimately self-correcting fundament of economic theory and practice.
If regulatory authority does not ensure pluralistic processes in priority, the result is a complex of economic techniques that further alienate the fundamentals from the problem. The result is an economy that is operating with a false self-correcting operational mechanism and legitimacy that creates a reliance on technocratic management of the crisis it creates, which is what is wrong with it.
This kind of economic modeling (elitist modeling) requires central management and control--a command economy.
The very people that denounce socialism and communism as command control of economy have created it for you and argue that it is the result of free market economics. It is a fraud. It is the model of corporate fascism in operation in which a few plutocrats fancy themselves the supra sovereigns of society. They are the criminal element, a few of whom are in the process of being prosecuted, like Broadcom executives, but that is not sufficient. These are just well-paid lieutenants of the fascist form of power.
It is the model that needs to be changed: from corporate elitism to corporate pluralism in which the free market mechanism is truly and legitimately operating to produce the public good, which will be a genuine supply-side economics that renders the demand-side economics (an economics of deprivation) we have now a crude conceit of consolidated corporate power and corruption.
The McCain camp is not the agent for this change.
We need change that genuinely fulfills the requirement for legitimate pluralistic processes that make for a world in which the collective wisdom is allowed to operate with the predictable patterns of peace and prosperity, and not the tyranical machinations of a conceited, consolidated corporate always innovating new ways of creating classic economic crisis and ways to manage it. McCain is just an element, presented as an unwilling tool, of this innovation.
The McCain camp is a continuation of the fraud.
Real, much-needed change is found with Obama and Biden.
If you vote Republican, you vote for the means of your deprivation.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Expecting the Unexpected
Mainstream economists--those that get access to major media outlets--seem to always be on the unexpected side of the analytics.
Inventories are unexpected.
Unemployment is unexpected.
Liquidity crisis is unexpected.
The list is long for the unexpected.
The credibility is effectively zero! Even NOAA does better than that predicting cylonic activity. They at least have a "cone of uncertainty." The bought-and-paid for economists we apparently have to rely on for readily accessible information operate with 100 percent reliability--complete uncertainty!
This means that if you are not a highly skilled technical analyst of the highest order, the reliable information you need to make political and economic decisions is effectively unavailable. It is antithetical to a free market legitimacy in which information may never be perfect, but should not be completely imperfect either and, therefore, exclusive to anyone that does not have the over-consolidated capital to dictate the movement of prices and markets. This means that decisions can only be reliably made with inside information which, if you work financials, is illegal.
Alan Greenspan says, in his most recent critique on the management of the economy, that no technical analyst "expects" something like a liquidity crisis involving over-sized financial institutions to be regulated by a free market mechanism. (That's like a mechanic telling you that your car overheats because it doesn't have a cooling system.)
Problem: inadequate free market mechanism.
Solution: add the free market mechanism.
This is not Greenspan's solution. No. He proffers a super-ego regulatory authority that allows for the consolidation of capital that causes the problem (the car without the cooling sustem). Brilliant!
Its time to deny political access to power plutocrats and their technocratic cronies that deny a practical free-market mechanism that allows for the full effect of a legitimate collective wisdom without the expense, restraints, and arbitrations of government authority.
Contrary to what technocrats like Greenspan say, a free and unconsolidated marketplace ensured by the operation of government authority in priority, ensuring minimal tax liability and regulation while maximizing freedom of choice, as Adam Smith prescribed it, is entirely possible with the benefit to the public good fully expected.
It's time for a pragmatic pluralism that ensures our peace and prosperity; something we KNOW works (a free market mechanism) replacing what we KNOW does not (consolidation of capital, industry, and markets).
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Inventories are unexpected.
Unemployment is unexpected.
Liquidity crisis is unexpected.
The list is long for the unexpected.
The credibility is effectively zero! Even NOAA does better than that predicting cylonic activity. They at least have a "cone of uncertainty." The bought-and-paid for economists we apparently have to rely on for readily accessible information operate with 100 percent reliability--complete uncertainty!
This means that if you are not a highly skilled technical analyst of the highest order, the reliable information you need to make political and economic decisions is effectively unavailable. It is antithetical to a free market legitimacy in which information may never be perfect, but should not be completely imperfect either and, therefore, exclusive to anyone that does not have the over-consolidated capital to dictate the movement of prices and markets. This means that decisions can only be reliably made with inside information which, if you work financials, is illegal.
Alan Greenspan says, in his most recent critique on the management of the economy, that no technical analyst "expects" something like a liquidity crisis involving over-sized financial institutions to be regulated by a free market mechanism. (That's like a mechanic telling you that your car overheats because it doesn't have a cooling system.)
Problem: inadequate free market mechanism.
Solution: add the free market mechanism.
This is not Greenspan's solution. No. He proffers a super-ego regulatory authority that allows for the consolidation of capital that causes the problem (the car without the cooling sustem). Brilliant!
Its time to deny political access to power plutocrats and their technocratic cronies that deny a practical free-market mechanism that allows for the full effect of a legitimate collective wisdom without the expense, restraints, and arbitrations of government authority.
Contrary to what technocrats like Greenspan say, a free and unconsolidated marketplace ensured by the operation of government authority in priority, ensuring minimal tax liability and regulation while maximizing freedom of choice, as Adam Smith prescribed it, is entirely possible with the benefit to the public good fully expected.
It's time for a pragmatic pluralism that ensures our peace and prosperity; something we KNOW works (a free market mechanism) replacing what we KNOW does not (consolidation of capital, industry, and markets).
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
The McCain Fallacy
McCain, the Republican Party, and favorable analysts are trying to comvince voters that McCain is not Bush.
McCain is being argued "independent" while advocating the Republican platform--continuing the Republican policies and programs that have been extremely harmful to the vast majority.
It is a trick, a ruse, a fraud. It is the product of deliberate rhetorical fallacy in which the man, McCain, clearly not Bush, is falsely argued as meaning he does not accept Bush's policies. Following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion: voting for McCain is "good change" that is not change at all.
Accepting this argument is pure idiocy. It insults the voter's intelligence, the vast majority of whom, according to the elitist mentality of Republicans, are stupid enough to fall for it. The argument is more confirmation that the Republican Party's rhetoric is a reliable fraud, and committing the fraud and getting away with it is the pride, the acceptable privilege, to be expected of the party's elite and its incorporates.
Mr. Abermoff is a party incorporate stupid enough with self interest to take a fall for the party's general practices. Convicted of fraud and corrupt practices, he is now asking for leniency by cooperating to prosecute other Republican partisans whose rhetoric for accessing power was, as the McCain campaign advocates, to put public service before self while, at the same time, ridiculing Obama's community organizing as not indicative of leadership quality.
If McCain is elected, the Republican policies that have caused great harm to the vast majotity of Americans will continue, and get worse!
Change is clearly needed and, logically, and in every case evidently, that is not a vote for John Mcain and the Republican Party.
Very best wishes.
McCain is being argued "independent" while advocating the Republican platform--continuing the Republican policies and programs that have been extremely harmful to the vast majority.
It is a trick, a ruse, a fraud. It is the product of deliberate rhetorical fallacy in which the man, McCain, clearly not Bush, is falsely argued as meaning he does not accept Bush's policies. Following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion: voting for McCain is "good change" that is not change at all.
Accepting this argument is pure idiocy. It insults the voter's intelligence, the vast majority of whom, according to the elitist mentality of Republicans, are stupid enough to fall for it. The argument is more confirmation that the Republican Party's rhetoric is a reliable fraud, and committing the fraud and getting away with it is the pride, the acceptable privilege, to be expected of the party's elite and its incorporates.
Mr. Abermoff is a party incorporate stupid enough with self interest to take a fall for the party's general practices. Convicted of fraud and corrupt practices, he is now asking for leniency by cooperating to prosecute other Republican partisans whose rhetoric for accessing power was, as the McCain campaign advocates, to put public service before self while, at the same time, ridiculing Obama's community organizing as not indicative of leadership quality.
If McCain is elected, the Republican policies that have caused great harm to the vast majotity of Americans will continue, and get worse!
Change is clearly needed and, logically, and in every case evidently, that is not a vote for John Mcain and the Republican Party.
Very best wishes.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Republican National Convention
Interesting how the apparent strategy of the Republican party is to look like it is not Republican.
Full of political falderol and deceitful rhetoric, the convention was especially unconvincing beyond the true believer. The evidence for the failure of Republican programs and policies since the realignment of '94 is so completely overwhelming, the Republican brand has no choice but to disassociate with itself.
Partisan alignment of our nation has been a tragedy punctuated with this political farce.
I much prefer the patriotism of pragmatic solutions over partisan processes of reinventing the problem with the rhetoric of reform.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Full of political falderol and deceitful rhetoric, the convention was especially unconvincing beyond the true believer. The evidence for the failure of Republican programs and policies since the realignment of '94 is so completely overwhelming, the Republican brand has no choice but to disassociate with itself.
Partisan alignment of our nation has been a tragedy punctuated with this political farce.
I much prefer the patriotism of pragmatic solutions over partisan processes of reinventing the problem with the rhetoric of reform.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Fed Report on Business Conditions
The Fed confirmed the economy is in a persistent state of stagflation as independent observers readily predicted from the outset of the Bush tax cuts and the Fed always supported as sound economic policy.
Identifying the determinants and recognizing the indicators for a stagflationary trend is to admit that the Bush tax cuts (trickle-down economics, or more recently known as Reaganomics) does not work even with a multi-billion dollar stimulus package. The evidence is overwhelmingly negative, yet the speeches at the Republican National Convention were strong positive on continuing the Bush tax cuts.
The convention speeches did not mention how the highly regressive tax code resulted in a huge budget deficit and stagflation, just like when it was called Reaganomics.
For conservatives, this is not a case of making the same mistake over and over again, but a successful means of cycling the political economy from contraction (accumulation) to expansion (distribution) of wealth.
An Obama executive will hasten the distribution phase of the cycle, producing wealth to be later consolidated in the accumulation phase of the cycle.
The Hamiltonian model of political economy (Reaganomics--the Bush/McCain tax scheme) does not allow the vast majority of Americans to keep the wealth they create, but consolidates it through a regressive tax code and consolidation of industry and markets.
The allowed consolidation of indistry and markets creates a demnad for government which is financed with a regressive tax burden, keeping the rich rich and the poor poor in an endless cycle of boom and bust, or the business cycle. The Fed's report today confirms the highly predictable, but preventable, phase of the cycle that is completely dependant on the tax code and the amount of allowable pluralism in the marketplace.
Progress the tax code, deconsolidate the capital and markets and the phenomenon of the Republican National Convention will be limited to a sociological farce without the possibility of political practicality.
If you want economic stability and a prosperity that is a personal financial security beyond the top one-to-ten percent class of incomes...let the majority rule!
Join the coalition for Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Identifying the determinants and recognizing the indicators for a stagflationary trend is to admit that the Bush tax cuts (trickle-down economics, or more recently known as Reaganomics) does not work even with a multi-billion dollar stimulus package. The evidence is overwhelmingly negative, yet the speeches at the Republican National Convention were strong positive on continuing the Bush tax cuts.
The convention speeches did not mention how the highly regressive tax code resulted in a huge budget deficit and stagflation, just like when it was called Reaganomics.
For conservatives, this is not a case of making the same mistake over and over again, but a successful means of cycling the political economy from contraction (accumulation) to expansion (distribution) of wealth.
An Obama executive will hasten the distribution phase of the cycle, producing wealth to be later consolidated in the accumulation phase of the cycle.
The Hamiltonian model of political economy (Reaganomics--the Bush/McCain tax scheme) does not allow the vast majority of Americans to keep the wealth they create, but consolidates it through a regressive tax code and consolidation of industry and markets.
The allowed consolidation of indistry and markets creates a demnad for government which is financed with a regressive tax burden, keeping the rich rich and the poor poor in an endless cycle of boom and bust, or the business cycle. The Fed's report today confirms the highly predictable, but preventable, phase of the cycle that is completely dependant on the tax code and the amount of allowable pluralism in the marketplace.
Progress the tax code, deconsolidate the capital and markets and the phenomenon of the Republican National Convention will be limited to a sociological farce without the possibility of political practicality.
If you want economic stability and a prosperity that is a personal financial security beyond the top one-to-ten percent class of incomes...let the majority rule!
Join the coalition for Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Free Trade and the Weak Dollar
Free trade agreements, touted as a way to create jobs and economic growth for Americans by both Democrats and Republicans, has failed its legitimacy, its promise, of providing for the common good.
The top one percent of incomes have been the larger beneficiaries of the free trade agreements, just as political party and corporate elites designed it. The result, combined with the peak demand for energy and materials (commodities prices), has been a consolidation of wealth in the US not seen since before the Great Depression. The sub-optimal, mal-distribution, of income is THE indicator of economic health that the advocats of free trade will not correlate with the practical effect of the agreements.
For example, the Fed recently warned of the classic bugbear of consolidation of capital and markets--the impending deflation of emerging markets that the free trade agreements are supposed to prevent. Instead, the agreements have caused a global deflationary trend marked by, as the Fed descibes it, a tendency to overextend credit (a deficiency of income distribution that is over-consolidation of capital) that will result in the classic liquidity crisis.
Communist China is fixing to find out what being capitalist really means as the corporate elite of the global economy (the top one percent of incomes) utilizes the classic means of consolidating the wealth and power. China will be learning, as Adam Smith prescribed, what it means to ensure pluralism in priority--to not allow for consolidation and the liquidity crisis that results.
The free trade agreements are a pluralistic fraud. The evidence, confirmed by the recent Fed warning about the financial disposition of global credit markets, is clear and convincing.
Equally clear and convincing is the need to deconsolidate the capital. Do not be fooled, once again defrauded, by the machinations of party politics where we now see Republicans touting McCain as a "Progressive," like Theodore Roosevelt.
Roosevelt was a trust-buster and progressed the tax code--just the opposite of the McCain agenda. The McCain campaign is all about regressive taxation and the consolidation of wealth and power that results.
Advocating that staying the course on our free trade agreements and a regressive tax code is the way to prosperous pluralism is an outright fraud that demands a strict and decisive prosecution.
Ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, beginning with a more progressive tax code and the fullest application of anti-trust laws, and free trade naturally emerges as the ornament of a global economy built on sound fundamentals.
Let's have a global economy in which a peaceful and prosperous pluralism naturally emerges, not negotiated with always the prospect of it by elite plutocrats whose best interest is to prevent it.
As the dollar strengthens with a retrace on commodities prices, the prospect for the promise of a peacefully prosperous global economy is tragically diminished. The weak dollar recovery economists have argued to be the efficiency of allowing a consolidation of industries and markets is proving to be, as any free-market economist predicts, in reversal.
The bad prediction on the value of the dollar and the deflationary affect on global economic trade, now being disclosed by our chief economists, is not the product of ignorance or stupidity. No. It is a deliberate fraud! It is emblematic of the consolidated corporate power structure that obtains.
Characterizing McCain as a Progressive continues that fraud.
Don't fall for it!
If you want a peaceful and prosperous pluralism to "emerge" with what is described as "emerging markets" (the global economy)... if you really want to enhance the prospect of YOUR economic growth as these markets emerge...
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
The top one percent of incomes have been the larger beneficiaries of the free trade agreements, just as political party and corporate elites designed it. The result, combined with the peak demand for energy and materials (commodities prices), has been a consolidation of wealth in the US not seen since before the Great Depression. The sub-optimal, mal-distribution, of income is THE indicator of economic health that the advocats of free trade will not correlate with the practical effect of the agreements.
For example, the Fed recently warned of the classic bugbear of consolidation of capital and markets--the impending deflation of emerging markets that the free trade agreements are supposed to prevent. Instead, the agreements have caused a global deflationary trend marked by, as the Fed descibes it, a tendency to overextend credit (a deficiency of income distribution that is over-consolidation of capital) that will result in the classic liquidity crisis.
Communist China is fixing to find out what being capitalist really means as the corporate elite of the global economy (the top one percent of incomes) utilizes the classic means of consolidating the wealth and power. China will be learning, as Adam Smith prescribed, what it means to ensure pluralism in priority--to not allow for consolidation and the liquidity crisis that results.
The free trade agreements are a pluralistic fraud. The evidence, confirmed by the recent Fed warning about the financial disposition of global credit markets, is clear and convincing.
Equally clear and convincing is the need to deconsolidate the capital. Do not be fooled, once again defrauded, by the machinations of party politics where we now see Republicans touting McCain as a "Progressive," like Theodore Roosevelt.
Roosevelt was a trust-buster and progressed the tax code--just the opposite of the McCain agenda. The McCain campaign is all about regressive taxation and the consolidation of wealth and power that results.
Advocating that staying the course on our free trade agreements and a regressive tax code is the way to prosperous pluralism is an outright fraud that demands a strict and decisive prosecution.
Ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, beginning with a more progressive tax code and the fullest application of anti-trust laws, and free trade naturally emerges as the ornament of a global economy built on sound fundamentals.
Let's have a global economy in which a peaceful and prosperous pluralism naturally emerges, not negotiated with always the prospect of it by elite plutocrats whose best interest is to prevent it.
As the dollar strengthens with a retrace on commodities prices, the prospect for the promise of a peacefully prosperous global economy is tragically diminished. The weak dollar recovery economists have argued to be the efficiency of allowing a consolidation of industries and markets is proving to be, as any free-market economist predicts, in reversal.
The bad prediction on the value of the dollar and the deflationary affect on global economic trade, now being disclosed by our chief economists, is not the product of ignorance or stupidity. No. It is a deliberate fraud! It is emblematic of the consolidated corporate power structure that obtains.
Characterizing McCain as a Progressive continues that fraud.
Don't fall for it!
If you want a peaceful and prosperous pluralism to "emerge" with what is described as "emerging markets" (the global economy)... if you really want to enhance the prospect of YOUR economic growth as these markets emerge...
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Confirming the Peak-Oil Hypothesis
Indicators to date continue to confirm the peak-oil hypothesis is a fraud.
An over-consolidaton of capital and markets has driven the speculative demand to a peak level. The result is a non-fundamental peak price that deflates the economy and weakens the dollar.
Now that the deflationary trend is well under way with the inflation baked in, the dollar strengthens because oil has been in adequate supply with a reduction, if not destruction, of demand.
The exploration and recovery industry is showing signs of having been way overvalued with the global economy being adequately supplied with energy inputs, especially with demand reduction. As the price of oil becomes oversold, demand and investment for E&R will increase, not because the supply of oil is peaked out, but because the market has been organized to limit the supply with sub-optimal E&R investment (the money that is the over-consolidated capital that commands the peak speculative-demand price).
The result will be a recovering demand at the lower price, a stronger dollar and a distribution on the over-accumulation of wealth that comes with a political realignment. E&R investment has, however, been inadequate to meet this demand. This will be argued as confirmation of the peak-oil hypothesis and, again, will be an organized fraud in the marketplace.
The consolidation of industries and markets that allows for the over-consolidation of capital and command pricing is antithetical to a free-market mechanism, is patently illegal, and the orgainized fraud in the marketplace that results is a crime.
The capital needs to be deconsolidated and the criminals that operate to illegally tyranize the marketplace, to deny freedom, prosecuted.
Contrary to what conservatives are saying, this course of action will not be a socialist-communist measure that destroys the productive capacity of capital and markets.
If destruction of productive capacity is what we are afraid of, we must be in absolute, confirmable fear of what we have now and the prospect of perpetuating it with the McCain agenda and platform.
If you want positive, pragmatic change that maximizes the opportunity, the freedom, to create wealth for a peaceful and prosperous world to live in...
Obama 2008!
An over-consolidaton of capital and markets has driven the speculative demand to a peak level. The result is a non-fundamental peak price that deflates the economy and weakens the dollar.
Now that the deflationary trend is well under way with the inflation baked in, the dollar strengthens because oil has been in adequate supply with a reduction, if not destruction, of demand.
The exploration and recovery industry is showing signs of having been way overvalued with the global economy being adequately supplied with energy inputs, especially with demand reduction. As the price of oil becomes oversold, demand and investment for E&R will increase, not because the supply of oil is peaked out, but because the market has been organized to limit the supply with sub-optimal E&R investment (the money that is the over-consolidated capital that commands the peak speculative-demand price).
The result will be a recovering demand at the lower price, a stronger dollar and a distribution on the over-accumulation of wealth that comes with a political realignment. E&R investment has, however, been inadequate to meet this demand. This will be argued as confirmation of the peak-oil hypothesis and, again, will be an organized fraud in the marketplace.
The consolidation of industries and markets that allows for the over-consolidation of capital and command pricing is antithetical to a free-market mechanism, is patently illegal, and the orgainized fraud in the marketplace that results is a crime.
The capital needs to be deconsolidated and the criminals that operate to illegally tyranize the marketplace, to deny freedom, prosecuted.
Contrary to what conservatives are saying, this course of action will not be a socialist-communist measure that destroys the productive capacity of capital and markets.
If destruction of productive capacity is what we are afraid of, we must be in absolute, confirmable fear of what we have now and the prospect of perpetuating it with the McCain agenda and platform.
If you want positive, pragmatic change that maximizes the opportunity, the freedom, to create wealth for a peaceful and prosperous world to live in...
Obama 2008!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)