Ontology of the Moral Argument and Technical Analysis

There is no difference between the moral question and the practical question when analyzing economic trends.

When, for example, the analyst observes that the accumulation phase of the business cycle is followed by a distribution, it is critical to also observe that the latter phase tends to structure into a political process that confirms the distribution of power, dominated by argumentation of "the right thing to do." If the majority of The People do not have the economic power (the income) to exercise choice in the marketplace because it is in an accumulation phase, they will look to political means for a distribution.

To say that a distribution MUST occur is an ontological argument.

What happens if the distribution does not occur because the practical philosophy of ensuring a constant state of accumulation ensures the the greatest good for the greatest number? The outcome is always a demand for a distribution.

The deprived, who are a necessary condition of accumulation, are not the sole source of the demand. The beneficiaries, who realize the necessary condition for accumulation, must also demand a distribution to pay the accumulated debt of deprivation. Thus we have cyclical trends--boom and bust--both short and long.

While the empirics of the process ontologically presents in the natural world, it is inextricably linked to teleological influence and provides a predictable sentiment for the analyst.

For the greatest number of The People who must be deprived to provide the utility of the accumulation, the failure of expectation is at its highest level, and is an empirical measure. The measure will be empirically acted on with the effect of a distribution to satisfy the demand. The empirical measure has the moral import of providing the greatest good for the greatest number: an equilibriating, stabilizing, distribution of power that minimizes the retributive value.

The retributive value is approximately the value that must be monetized into a public debt if it is not distributed directly to The People (the greatest number) to either pay the debt or cause the economic growth (the distribution) to render the debt unnecessary by satisfaction of the demand (an increased savings rate that pays the debt and supports the dollar rather than causing deflation).

While arguing that accumulation is, and should be, sustainable is empirical nonsense, it is persistently argued in error nevertheless. Its practical application is not a function of reason but the sheer force of accumulated wealth and power.

The distribution must, and will, occur in the short and long term. The depth and breadth of the deflationary trend is dependant on the length and strength of the accumulation phase and the organized ability to price the consumer out of the market, causing a declining rate of profit.

The declining rate of profit is mitigated by continuous consolidation into "too big to fail." Without the consolidation, equity value is not gained, and sustained, in the form of accumulated capital (and we now see the Dow back up to 10,000 with financials scoring record profits).

The organized accumulation of power, both politically and economically, runs a high risk, however. The demand for distribution is prepared for a facile switch to a socialist legitimacy (the legal authority) to retribute the accumulated value on command.

While the utilitarian moral obligation may eventually present as socialism by historical ontology utilizing the practical means of an organized consolidation of power, the failure of expectations has no recourse beyond the force and legitimacy of public authority. The "greatest good for the greatest number" is whatever the technocrats declare to be a verifiable hypothesis, much like what we have now with a very high degree of failed expectation.

Not expecting the Ivy-League "talent" to be bonused in record amount for wrecking the economy, for example, is not in any way unreasonable. Proponents argue, however, anyone that does not see the moral utility of bonusing the best and the brightest from record profits is not fit to be one of them because they are not initiated to see this deeper, secret knowledge: productive capacity is ensured by profiting from the deprivation of others. (Could that be because it does not make any sense!) The reward (the moral utility) is supposed to be from expansion of the pie, not the deprivation of it. The deprivation and the profit are verifiable, the deeper truth of the moral utility is not...it is the realm of true-believing, and over-compensated, automatons of consolidated power.

Keep in mind as well that compensation is decided by the boards of directors, not the stockholders. The elite, of course, have that secret knowledge to rule in the best interest of the plurality--a moral argument that indicates the probable trend of executive compensation as well as the source of executive recruitment from Ivy-League schools.

High-leverage finance, and the high compensation for executing it, will continue to trend despite being described by opponents as providing a "perverse" incentive which, again, indicates recognition of a moral hazard. Eventually, given the depth and breadth of the recession, the hazard is likely to sublate into a pay incentive that executes growth, rather than consolidation, in order to be profitable. The fundamentals will then be likely to drive the trend both short and long, turning this trading market into an investment market.

The longer the accumulation phase, the longer the recession. Resistance to the distribution, accumulating in the form of the public debt, determines the probable outcome: a double-dip recession with a weak-dollar recovery.

Resistance accumulates by moral argument: avoiding the risk of not ensuring continued accumulation. Socialism (unproductive and inefficient command economy) is the risk to be avoided.

The result of resistance is an accumulating debt that sublimates (and simulates toward a socialist sublation) a distribution, but it has the utilitarian moral capacity, so the unsublated capitalist argument goes, of productive incentive that allows capital to be gained for investment in economic growth.

Avoiding the moral hazard of a government-forced distribution (the gamma risk), the moral argument then becomes: providing the greatest good for the greatest number is by deprivation, identifying just exactly what is irrational about the marketplace we have now.

It is not The People who are too irrational to act in their best interest, it is the elite of power. The ontology of the moral argument is clearly indicated.