Bivariate Analysis

Americans expect pluralistic process to ontologize a legitimate outcome. The result is intended to be government and business (political-economy) by consent in which conflict is resolved by peacefully cooperative effort.

Psychologically there is a multifarious order of intention that creates a highly complex environment that tends to reduce to a manageable, directable, controllable, number of variables which also reduces to an ontology of legitimacy (the notion that things are just naturally the way they are despite the best or worst intentions). A binomial organizational technology is intended to accomplish that reduction.

The reduction, however, does not reduce the complexity. It shifts it to another part of the equation outside an area isolated for manipulation. A gamma risk then accumulates outside the isolated area.

Although bivariate reduction is a good way to conserve the stakes in the guise of change and legitimate pluralistic process (two-party politics for example), the gamma risk will emerge to affect the isolated variables because the actual, practical, span of control is not sufficient to maintain the isolation. Thus there is the tendency for an authoritarian regime to become progressively more autocratic and dystopic despite the best original order of intention, and thus the need to always ensure an ontological legitimacy in priority (in the prior order of intention), preferably a pluralistic one.

The third-party element that has emerged into our binary party system with the intention of plurality (a beta-risk volatility) is a complexity that the new administration and congressional leadership is not sophisticated enough to plan for or manage.

The planned effect of a bivariate system is to conserve the stakes through the appearance of pluralistic process and soften the thrid party element by captive co-optation. Instead, the effect has been to harden and strengthen the resolve of a genuine opposition.

Deviation from the planned bivariate effect may be beyond the clever capabilities of both parties to manage without having to actually share power. The probable result is a progressively more autocratic aspect to public process in order to control the progressive march of genuine pluralism.

Despite the obvious limitation of a bivariate system to be genuinely representative by design, the new congressional leadership nevertheless made it quite clear that their agendae is mandated, imperative, by the consent of the governed, with a clearly, categorically binomial, winner and loser. Apparently not, however, and they will continue to struggle without the simplicity of what they consider consent for the autocracy of there better, progressive judgement and authority.

Since the bivariate party system is recurrent by design, the latest imperative is reminiscent of Newt Gingrich's social contract theory. The "contract with America" following the realignment of 1994 is the archetype of an authoritarian resistance to a genuine consent and what a bivariate system is designed to do. It is necessary to construct a contract-like legitimacy in addition to the guaranteed Constitutional legitimacy of government by consent. The implication, of course, is that whatever the new congress mandated was binding with the public's trust of its better judgement. These modifications to inherent rights are nothing but the product of deceit and immediately indicates a bad intent that earns the public's distrust.

On the economic side of the macro equation is, as well, a categorical imperative that is reduced to a simplified span of control. Firms that are categorically too big to fail are the clear and uncontrovertible winners whose government support for command and control is clearly imperative despite the consent of the governed. This is where intentions render with the highest order of complexity. Strange inversions appear as unintended ontologies and the variables reduce to the gamma risk. The risk is managed with all manner of rhetorical device to explain the contradiction between theory (like tax breaks for big business always leads to general prosperity) and practice (The Great Recession).

For the analyst, recognizing the organized ontology beyond the teleology of any ideological bias provides high predictive utility.

For example, going forward, the investor should expect the gamma risk to present as both high political and economic volatility. The risk was always there (and if you follow these articles, I have been tracking the risk), but it is constantly being methodically (algebraically) isolated. While it appears, then, to be minimized, it is not. It is being maximized and accumulated until it reaches a crisis proportion.

The motive toward crisis and resolution is an ontology: the struggle for dominance mitigated by the necessity for cooperation to solve common problems. If the problem is the distribution of rewards and deprivations (the political-economic equation), resolution reduces to the assessment of the gamma risk. The amount of value gained, or rewarded, on that risk can be safely repressed or expressed (the degree of allowable, observable presence) without relinquishing the goal of dominance. The binomial calculus of winning or losing is still reflected in the reduction to binary management of systemic risk (a bivariate analysis), like being too big to fail in which both business and government cooperate to conserve, or stabilize, the cost to benefit and the distribution of rewards and deprivations.

Being able to dictate market preferences by operation of government without consent of the governed is what bivariate party leadership is intended, and likely, to accomplish.

Independents are providing the pluralism necessary to correct for value in the marketplace that is accumulatively retributive (what causes the need for government empirically expressed with an accumulating burden of debt, like a budget deficit). The gamma risk on that accumulated value does not have to present as more autocratic command and control of free markets (monetizing the debt and consolidating industry and markets with middle class, discretionary income, reducing the ability to choose). Instead, it can be to ensure a free-market mechanism in priority by government authority (by consent of the governed).

Rather than selected by systematic default of legislative mandate and administrative authority, be it public or private, winners and losers are elected by popular consent (by the force and empirically ontological legitimacy of democratic process).

If the political marketplace remains bivariate (and teleological), industry and markets that consolidate to support an inelasticity will benefit at the expense of everyone else (the accumulated value at risk). Interjection of a third element reduces the probability of sustaining that benefit. The value is retributive and presents in the form of an increased gamma risk.

Managing the gamma risk and conserving the accumulation of retributive value is, therefore, a function of keeping the system bivariate.

The retributive value continued to accumulate after the so-called realignment of 2008-09. The increasing gamma risk presents as uncertainty. Events like the Massachusettes realignment of the open senate seat was a predictable indication of an impending reduction of the gamma risk and a distribution on the value that supports it--a secular recovery.

The tendency to bi-variate fulfills the natural tendency to both dominate in conflict and cooperate toward the practical application and legitimacy of that end. There is also a psychological dimension to the practical legitimacy that presents analytically. If that dimension is not included, events present with unexpected inversions.

Predictive accuracy is easily diminished within the psychology of an analytical technique. The added complexity of that dimension to analyses can be reduced to an assessment of the gamma risk. That risk is most likely bivariately reduced with a third element containing all the value of that risk predictably present at any particular time.

Extrapolating, then, from the psychology of analytical technique, the probability the leadership of the two parties will be responsive to the third, independent element is nearly zero.

There is significant security in the bivariate structure of power to conserve the stakes and "avoid" the risk of an additional distribution of power. The expectation for change we really need will fail. The gamma risk will then default (isolate) to its intended place in the bivariate equation. The values on that distribution will be conserved disproportionately and will re-present in the next election cycle as a strangely inverted populist conservatism. The gamma will then be accumulated to a point of inflexion. The risk is more likely to then be taken than avoided causing the necessary distribution on the consolidated value.