It's No Mistake

As we progress into the distribution phase of the lomg-term cycle on an accumulation of income in the top 10 percent not attained since 1938, or The Great Depression, the rhetoric will now be that the crisis it causes is just a bureaucratic mismanagement of our economy, like blaming Greenspan, or Paulson, or Cox....

It's no mistake. The long-term cycle is confirmed, and it has been skillfully managed to where we are now to successfully consolidate the wealth and allow the disribution phase to occur under the banner of the Democratic Party.

If the Party does not take the opportunity to operate with a new economic model to replace the disconfirmed model, the cycle, both politically and economically, repeats itself.

The change we need will be described and explained by mainstream economic theory as a moral hazard. The rhetoric will be presented as declarative knowledge, despite being disconfirmed.

The attribute of the moral hazard is why economics is known as "the dismal science." While we know that the general utility of depriving The People of necessities so that a high income class can enjoy the fruits of labor and. therby, trickle it down to be enjoyed by everyone else is a disconfirmed hypothesis, and categorically immoral, mainstream economics maintains that abandoning the theory that supports the hypothesis is a moral hazard.

The hazard, described as moral because of its dimension of behavioral modification, is dismally described as a non-productive incentive that historically brings societies to collapse.

As Jefferson carefully noted, profligate accumulation of wealth and power is historically a sure indicator of impending collapse, avoided by constitutional provision for a plurality of power and not its consolidation. That way, the prosperity of The People is peaceful, sustainable, and ensured through an empirical process of historical improvement in which making the same mistake over and over again is not supposed to happen. If the society is not allowed to learn from its mistakes, modify its behavior, then the processes of pluralism are not being allowed to fully operate.

So, we have a distribution phase of the cycle that ensures we make the same mistake over and over again. The mistake is a "normative" cycle that if modified is a moral hazard.

What is dismal about the dismal science is that it tends to be dismally unscientific. Instead of describing and explaining the brutal truth of economic existence, it serves to validate the brutal reality of it with self-fufilled mechanics and detrimental effects explained away as misfeasance that if thrown out would be morally hazardous. That hazard is, of course, validated with the name of "science," suggesting it is not a property of belief, or bias, but knowledge.

The scientific method requires confirmation or nullification--verification, not logical proof or disproof--validation.

Something is either verified or not. Having to prove or disprove something through argument and rhetorical manipulation indicates an unwillingness to accept the empirical method and the knowledge it produces.

Much of what is presented for analytical public consumption is a validation process, not a verification process for continuous improvement. That is why we recycle the same "mistake" over and over again.

The change we need is to preserve the value of The People's assets, and doing that will also be the means for economic growth, and stability, that We The People can describe and explain as the moral imperative that verifiably avoids the moral hazard.

Obam/Biden 2008!