An Organizational Hypothesis

Articles published to griffithlighton.blogspot.com argue that the probability for an increasing depth and frequency of economic instability worldwide is an organizational problem that is naturally dependant on an organizational solution.

If the hypothesis is that a more equitable distribution of the benefit produced by organizing to be "too big to fail" through public-private consolidation will result in pluralizing the marketplace and achieving economic recovery and sustainable growth, the evidence extant suggests a low probability of success.

Efficiencies are dependant on organizational size. Maintaining that "bigger is better" is to validate, not verify, a nulled hypothesis.

Again, here we are, needlessly making the same mistakes over and over again, clinging to political-economic models designed to maximize monetary valuations into difficult to verify, abstract, evaluative absurdities at the expense of other measures of practical efficiency that minimize costs and maximize benefits.

If we think that consolidating into the public sector is going to deoperationalize class consciousness into a more equitable collective consciousness, that is not going to happen with a "bigger is better" organizational model.

Organized to be "too big to fail" with a collective, public-private legitimacy and authority does not ensure individuals will not act selfishly within the public trust. We will very probably learn to encourage small enterprises that operationalizes self-interest, and class consciousness, from the bottom up with a highly verifiable and close accountability, or a free-market economics in priority.

Where the market is allowed to act with full measure, without barrier and consolidaton, the distribution of costs and benefits achieves an efficiency that can be measured with a diminishing value of class consciousness which is otherwise a significant measure of a consolidated wealth and power, or what is the verifiable inefficiency of "too big to fail."