Organizing to Control Costs: Healthcare and Energy Markets

The tendency to organize into horizontally and vertically integrated, monopolistic entities to distort valuations into the realm of the irrational was strongly argued against and identified as inimical to free markets by Adam Smith, founder of classical economic theory.

Smith argues that organizing into ever larger entities consolidates power in the marketplace and creates false indicators (the irrationality). Smith's solution is to be sure capital, industry and markets are deconsolidated. The profit margin is then a more accurate measure of future expectation (the trend) that is less likely to become a failed expectation and a sudden shock (the crisis) that further consolidates the wealth and power (systemic risk management).

According to Adam Smith, it is the job of government in priority to ensure the marketplace is free and unconsolidated. That, according to his theory, will effectively manage the systemic risk we are now grappling with. The government, then, according to classical theory, is in the business of creating jobs and wealth by ensuring it in priority despite the rhetoric of neo-conservative propagandists.

Notice that there is little to no evidence of government operating to apply Smith's prescription of deconsolidation.

Healthcare relies on the "public option." Energy relies on the regulation of derivative markets, like futures, which will innovate to avoid the gamma risk. Both elicit the need for progressive taxation to keep capital from the overaccumaltion that causes a deflationary trend with inflationary, monetarist counter-measures (stagflation).

The "need" for the progressive tax is obviated by organizing for a free-market system in priority. The need for a more progressive tax code is an accurate measure of extant free-market (democratic-economic) modality: the more the economy is organized for free-market mechanics, the less need for progressive taxation to technically correct for over-accumulation (liquidity crisis, or the systemic risk).

Government has operated largely to encourage and protect the organization of consolidated entities to the point of absurdity, irrationality, we have now: economic entities that are too big to fail and paying outrageous bonuses to business elits that have clearly managed the system into what is considered an illegitimate failure by the vast majority of Americans.

(The ultimate ignominy is to pay the devil a bonus for making you miserable! Is that the ultimate con game or what? The con is systematically organized to convert and consolidate value without legal liability. The liability is purely political. It is the gamma risk with a retributive, economic value.)

Current econmic policy clearly indicates a strong tendency to support state capitalism--a command economy with private consolidation of the wealth bureaucratically managed to protect the interests of the wealthy elite in "the public interest." Just enough pluralism is allowed, like a "public option," to give the consolidation of power a popular legitimacy.

The pluralistic legitimacy is really false. It is a Hamiltonian trick that keeps being reapplied in the name of democracy and self-determination.

Despite the freedom to pursue success and fully enjoy its reward without taxation, according to the conservative argument, the accumulation of wealth and power is nevertheless endowed. It is a legitimately necessary condition endowed by the god in which We all trust. The outcome is ontological--it just "naturally" happens. Thus we have the conservative concept of the Rights of Man: the utilitarian free pursuit of happiness with a naturally endowed outcome that if technically corrected for is contrary to the natural order of things.

Any attempt to correct for the accumulation of power and wealth that causes crises is considered to be an unnatural tyranny imposed on the natural order of things. That, according to the conservative argument, is the cause of perennial, systemic crises, like the deflationary trend we are experiencing now.

Not allowing for the naturally endowed tyranny of those with the secret, elite knowledge (the noble character to rule which, as far as I can tell, is merely the capacity to be corrupt and self-seeking in the name of the public interest) is an unnatural tyranny that causes crises. It is a self-fulfilled, teleological argument masqueraded as an ontology. It is a lie, a polemic, a lawyers trick, a sanctimonious, self-serving profanity that keeps the wealth, and power, legally consolidated as an act of God. Deconsolidation, then, is considered not only illegal, but a constitutional deprivation of the Rights of Man that is fundamentally evil.

Yes, deprivation of the Rights of Man is fundamentally bad. It results in crises and all manner of humanity's inhumanity to itself. It is an illogical, irrational, condition. It is an irrationality that mirrors the Hamiltonian ontological argument.

The Hamiltonian ontology is nothing but sophistry, later in history embraced as a moral ontology (an objective, untranscendable truth to be scientifically acknowledged) "beyond good and evil," as Nietzche described it.

The power elite is fallaciuosly argued to be a breed beyond the masses with a secret knowledge that is the public good...the general welfare. Why does Goldman Sachs give exclusive information, "tips," to its most privileged clients? (Recognize that the word "privilege" is a combination of the words private and legal).

The masses can never know, then, what the public good is because...it's a secret! It is entirely antithetical to a popular (pluralistic) legitimacy. The contradiction is not reconcilable, but historically it is ontologically played out in the natural order of things in which the truth naturally prevails over the lies.

The need for a progressive tax code to correct for an over-accumulation is considered by conservatives to be inimical to the public's best interest. It is therefore necessary to hide the wealth with innovative investment vehicles that are only accessible by the wealthiest clients (the consolidated capital).

The consolidated capital cannot be progressively taxed to correct for the over-accumulation if it is hidden. It's a secret. Can't tax what you can't see. All in the public interest.

It is then up to the Ben Bernankes of the world to save us all from the ontology of ourselves; from the mindless consolidation of power beyond good and evil, armed with the philosophy that conserving, rather than preventing, what is too big to fail will "reliably" effect the crises. If the effect is predictable, the risk can be "effectively" managed and predictably trended, which is what Keynesian economics does.

If the element of uncertainty is eliminated, the systemic risk can be effectively managed to keep the patient alive while we ontologically play out the proper diagnoses.

Rather than deconsolidation, government operates to regulate and technically correct for the lack of free-market mechanics (collective, direct democratic legitimacy).

The technical corrections (the gamma risk) plagues small investor analysts with a complexity that suckers them into following trends rather than predicting them. It is a furtive, systemic racketeering (yielding a privileged--a legally secret or private--benefit) that, as small investors found out, will result in reduction (consolidation) of net worth that supports a long deflationary trend, like we have now.

Until the means of deconsolidation is applied--a progressive tax code and reinvestment to pluralize consolidated markets and entities--small investors must always be on the defensive. They must protect themselves from trends commanded and controlled by entities too large to fail by applying an effective counter-tyranny in the marketplace.

Always being opposite the big money momentum (predicting the trend) is essential for capital preservation (to keep assets from being consolidated). It is a lesson to well be learned by the Obama administration and the current congressional delegation as we watch the stimulus money being consolidated into paying state debt and overpriced medicare bills, but that its leadership is unwilling to learn, much less apply. Changing that would be change we really need.

It is important to understand that, for example, what the Obama administration is recognizing as a necessary command and control of the futures markets by regulating the purpose of its participation is to control the ability to command the deflationary trend. Understand that both the problem and the solution are the same thing--command and control, not free-market economics.

At the same time, understand that the objection to the proposed action by the CFTC to remove the buyers (the speculators) dark marketeers say is needed to make futures markets operate with optimal efficiency to hedge the risk is not in any way supported by the evidence.

Physical users of the futures markets are penalized by the mass movement of private equity and hedge funds into futures contracts, driving up their costs and deflating the economy--the consequence (the trend) in command, and "the risk" to be controlled in "the public interest" (We, the ignorant mass of The People, can't be sure what that is, of course, because it's secret, privileged, knowledge).

We cannot legitimately measure the success of managing the risk by the depreciation or appreciation of income because it all happens by the secret knowledge of elite authority. All we supposedly know is challenging that elite authority, like allegorically realizing what causes the shadows on the cave wall, is inimical to our self, the public, interest.

Medical professionals, for example, have the esoteric knowledge of what drives the unlimited cost of healthcare. Talking about what a particular medical procedure costs is an uncivil questioning of authority (questioning the legitimacy of commanding the price).

Demanding the price is considered by the elite to be an ignorant act of defying civil authority. The equilibriating effect of a democratic, free-market economics on income will destroy the natural ability of the best and the brightest to protect the public's interest. Of course, it will not. The protection will be best afforded by not impoverishing the protected.

Controlling costs will be a function of ensuring economic democracy--free-market economics--in priority. As long as the price is commanded, either by public or private means, fair value is not empirically, legitimately, verifiable for either producers or consumers.
Incomes as well are not measurably fair and equitable without ensuring a free-market economics in priority.

We often hear conservatives say it is no one's business what their income is, and conspicuous consumption distributes the wealth fairly and equitably. The crisis that ensues from overaccumulation is falsely attributed to government intervention (the gamma risk) that distorts the free market. The cure, according to conservatives, is laissez-faire.

The reason income is a desireable "secret" is because it is an empirical measure of inequity. That inequity is retributive in value that must be protected. It is a risk that must be managed to be conserved (...sshhh... that's supposed to be an analytical secret well hidden within the dirty bowels of academe where obsequious conformists fear to tread). If the value was not retributive, no one would care what your income is, and you wouldn't care if it was a secret.

Empiricism is by definition to know, not to not know. It is antithetical to the privilege of the elite and why they resist free-market, demand economics for command economy. It is why income should be secretive and should not be considered the object of public policy to distribute it by free market means or any other means, but to conserve it.

Focusing on controlling costs is to focus on incomes and the legitimacy of those incomes. Costs have less to do with the esoteric knowledge of doctors, lawyers, business professionals... than with having the organized, systematic ability to command prices, and economic trends.

Controlling costs is a function of controlling the ability to command the price (ensuring a free-market mechanism in priority).

Controlling the ability to command the price is not accomplished with the ability to command the cost, like the public option does, or like the big box-store model does in which the provider commands the price and the consumer picks the quantity, but by The People having the power, the income, to democratically demand the price and thereby legitimately control the cost unless, of course, there is some secret knowledge I am unaware of.

Ensuring in priority a free and unconsolidated marketplace is to organize to control costs, and policy focused on income, rather than reorganizing the effects like a public option, is essential to ensuring it.