Productivity Gains

Recessionary trends reduce both purchasing power and net worth of consumers.

Readily apparent is that reduction of buying power makes for a worsening crisis begging for a technical correction. What is not so apparent is what happens to the net worth.

Reduction of purchasing power has a very near-term, deflationary effect, reducing inflationary pressure by reducing demand. As prices fall, monetary assets appreciate in a zero-sum relationship. Losing monetary assets--losing a job or a house that was leveraged into cash--by liquidation under deflationary pressure prevents participation in the benefit.

Reduction of net worth has a longer term effect that disconnects, and disassociates, the cost with the benefit. Net worth just seems to evaporate, and that is the way it is described by the vast majority of economists and analysts that have access to popular media outlets, reinforcing the apparent and popular understanding of it. However, the understanding is an affirmation and not a confirmation of the phenomenon.

Now that the Dow has retraced to 10k, the big question is, "What needs to happen to get the retail investor back in the market?"

When retail investors had a job, savings went into the house and the stock market. Where did all that value go?

Throughout the period of conservative resurgence small investors were told that trickle-down economics would trickle (retail) into an individual's retirement account and appreciate the value of homes. Small investors subsequently fell to the macro-economic reality of the business cycle. Rather than sharing in the wealth, they were providing it to be consolidated.

Sharing in the accumulation phase of the cycle, the retail investor was marked to market as the wealth to be accumulated, not to accumulate wealth. What would have happened if Social Security funds would have been put into the market, as conservatives strongly advocated, prior to the Great Recession as well?

The promise of sharing in the wealth by investing in it before it trickles down is not only seductive but also provides the productive incentive to generate the income to invest. It is the perfect retail marketing scheme evolving from a distrust of trickle-down economics touted to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Wages and salaries can be leveraged into wealth rather than providing mere subsistence. That would give credibility to the beneficence of accumualting capital. Capital formation is then not simply an expropriation of value produced by labor.

Rather than being alienated from the wage and salary earner, productivity is value gained by labor in the form of capital. The value is being verifably appropriated, instead of expropriated, as the value of labor's investments tick up. The value is being reinvested for continuous accumulation (not economic growth) rather than retributed by a gamma-risk distribution, stabilizing the cyclical macro trend and avoiding crises. Socialism? No need for that. Free-market economics? No need for that. Consolidation of capital, industry and markets benefits everyone...it is the model of maximum efficiency!

The new and improved model of capitalism is a touted utopia with labor sharing in the capital gained.
Neo-conservative reconstruction is to demonstrate that the classical model of capitalism can be modified to be veridically utilitarian. That it is not verifiably utilitarian, but systematically yielding a highly exclusive benefit, is the perennial problem of capitalism and the systemic risk to be managed. Managing that risk is in full mode at this time with an estimated retributive value of approximately $10 billion by the year 2010.

The retributive value has been accumulating since the dawn of capitalism. Perennial (cyclical) liquidity crises keeps the capital consolidated and functions to mitigate the declining rate of profit, preventing deconsolidation and resisting the natural tendency to free-market pluralism.

If capitalism does not consolidate (accumulate) into "too big to fail," the capital will reorganize (resolve) into small, pluralistic entities that are both capable of succeeding and not too big to fail the system into a crisis mode if some do. The systemic risk is managed by process of a pluralistic, continuous improvement.

Since the improvement (the correction) is not allowed to happen, the declining rate of profit technically presents as productivity gains. The declining rate of profit is borne by wages and salaries--income that is not technically considered capital gained, but its primary cost. Distribution of the cost determines the accumulation--to whom the benefit accures.

In a consolidated marketplace, the cost accrues as a debt, and the benefit accrues as a profit. The result is the jobless recovery we have now with the declining rate of profit being absorbed by the vast majority of consumers in the form of reduced wages and salaries and working more for less--productivity gains.

The expropriation is described as "capital formation." The loss of net worth is gained in the form of productivity gains. Each member of the family having to work two or more jobs to pay the profit margin, like it has been for twenty years or more, will be considered an improvement over massive unemployment.

Expropriation of the value--the zero-sum distribution of net worth from the bottom to the top income class (the constant, non-pluralistic accumulation of wealth and power)--appears as an unconnected cost and benefit. The cause and effect appears disconnected so it cannot be rendered a function of a problem/solution resolve.

Rising wages and salaries and full employment is considered to be the problem, therefore it is not the solution, which is what we have now. It is no accident.

The only reason the stock market is a leading indicator of recovery, and employment is a lagging indicator is because the capital gained (the consolidation of net worth--the formation of capital) has deliberate priority over employment (purchasing power and equitable distribution of net worth). It is what capitalism is intended to do and is supported in every way right down to the classification of wage and salaried employees.

Why is it that the controversial compensation of too-big-to-fail institutions are considered "bonuses" and not a typical laborer's wage or salary? Why is a medical doctor's pay considered in a different class than a typical laborer's fee for service? It is because it has an elite status with all the rights and "privileges" of achieving that status. Chief among the privileges is the exercise of power that is emblematic of status, like tyrannizing liberties, or expecting to be paid whatever fee is commanded for service in the name of public health.

The reason health care reform is so difficult is not because health needs to be determined a right or a privilege, which reduces to a matter of opinion, but whether it will be provided at an accumulative, and fully verifiable, cost. It is a struggle for economic power and political dominance.

The stakes for preserving the empirical measure of status are very high, as well as the costs for the vast majority of The People in which the choice is health care or bankruptcy and no reason to believe reform will change a system that supports accumulation over a distribution of power.

Relinquishing economic status is to relinquish and share power. The medical profession does not want to be subjected to the rigors of free-market economics because it "crudely" relinquishes status by disinflating the price (the profit) and the probable accumulation of wealth that confers status and power (health as well as wealth).

Health insurance companies want a special monopoly status and be allowed to consolidate to prevent free-market competition because a free market model means the firm MUST be pluralistically accountable in every possible aspect of public propriety. The firm is accountable on demand, which is a function of pluralism, rather than dictate the market on command, which is a function of elitist authority.

As long as the healthcare sector can function without being subjected to the rigors of free-market economics, it is more able to command the bid. The bid is whatever the provider asks and accountability becomes a function of litigation with high monetary awards from the deep pockets of the market's commanders.

The need to sue to get what the free market is likely to otherwise affordably provide indicates command economics and an elitist model in operation, not the failure of free-market economics.

Free-market pluralism provides accountability in the fullest and most immediately direct measure. It is inimical to market tyranny, holding would-be tyrants directly and immediately accountable by consumer bid in the marketplace.

Ensuring free-market economics provides tort reform beyond the consumer being left with no recourse, which only benefits the market providers--the economic elite--and will do nothing to control costs for consumers, only adding to the profit margin, and power, to command the bid on the bottom line.

In a free-and-open unconsolidated marketplace with no barriers to entry, a business enterprise, or a doctor, that has achieved a high status of profitability in the marketplace is an entity that consumers both want to do business with and invest in. Both can happen at the same time with the most direct, immediate, and easily verifiable accountability--exactly what litigious elitists, busily defining what is a right and a privilege, do not want.

One model is democratic, the other authoritarian. Which one do We choose to ensure freedom and liberty for all beyond the ephemeral determination of what is a right and what is a privilege?

A person does not have the right to, or the privilege of, anything if it is unaffordable. This is what a free-market economist refers to when describing and explaining the ontology of the distribution of power. Nature is completely ignorant of the right thing to do. There is nothing profane. All it knows is the truth. All We have to do is find it. There will be found the peaceful prosperity We are All looking for; and for the people that are more concerned with engineering the truth to a self-satisfaction than finding it, it will find you, much to your dissatisfaction. It is self-correcting, oblivious to propitiatory gestures and retributive rituals either ancient (like making sacrifice to the gods of providence) or modern (like retributing accumulated value in the form of a public debt).

The right to health and wealth is only verifiable by doing it, and the means to ensure it is the maximum pluralism, the maximum possibility beyond structured probabilities, free-market economics provides.