Organizing for Success Instead of Failure

It should be clear at this point that organizing for success is not an organization that is too big to fail.

Rather than implying success, being too big to fail implies failure.

Is health care reform, for example, proposing an organization too big to fail? In other words, no matter what, the organized means, despite the ends, cannot be considered a failure and, no matter what, will be empowered.

In a free-market system, firms that profit by means that are inimical to consumer interests fail (thus the need to be "too big to fail"). Failure comes in the form of a comparative profitability or bankruptcy. Firms that are more likely to please consumers are more profitable than firms that are less pleasing. One is more empowered with pricing power than another by popular demand (a collective, democratic, empirical ontology).

Profitability is determined by demand in a free-market system, not by command of organizations too big to fail no matter what. Consumers do business with, and empower, firms because they want to, not because they have to. If, for example, demand is in reduction due to inflation and/or unemployment, consolidation provides an economy of scale to equilibriate a price to the lower demand in order to stay empowered (not fail).

Being too big to fail not only provides empowerment (profitability) without increasing demand but, instead, operates to raise prices when demand is declining. The result is general economic crises (a spiraling deflationary trend that consolidates markets even more) with the only organizations likely to be left empowered being those that are too big to fail, and that includes government.

Deflationary crises elicits a growing demand for government authority equivalent to the amount of consolidation and loss of real demand in the marketplace. Complaining that government is too big is to complain that the marketplace is too consolidated--it is organized for failure (crises) and the need for government authority (an organization equally too big and powerful to fail) to manage it, like we have now.

The public and private sectors become organizationally integrated through crises management. Eventually, according to Marxist theory, the organization evolves into state socialism from state capitalism depending on whether we choose to allow democratic processes, like free-market economics, to operate in priority, or allow for a continuous consolidation of power that eventually erupts into a catastrophic, ontological correction.

As long as the marketplace is pluralized in priority instead of being allowed to consolidate into so-called efficient economies of scale, an easily direct and verifiable accountability, as well as cost control, is most reliably and efficiently ensured with the least need for government authority.

Instead of government authority, in a free-market system the consumer relies on the empirical ontology of the alpha risk to reward and deprive in the marketplace. Consumers do not rely on a gamma-risk ontology (the dictates of an ultimate and unavoidable legal sovereign authority) that is largely out of their direct control and in the expert hands of a co-optable authoritarian regime.

Does the currently proposed health care reform organize to empower the alpha or gamma-risk ontology? If we are all too unsohpisticated to function in the marketplace like Hamiltonians and the "behavioral economists" that the current administration and congress employs say we are, then the gamma risk is in order with the free-market system (the freedom of consumers) subordinate to elite authority.

According to the Hamiltonian hypothesis that we largely operate with now, and the health care model is patterned, providing for the general welfare reduces to proper command and control, or representative government (gamma-risk management) from the top down. It is different from the Jeffersonian model of representative government in which sovereignty is empowered and exercised by natural right from the bottom up, like a free-market system operates.

The health care reform plan barely appears to achieve the Jeffersonian model because it is not patterned to fit that model. If Republicans are relied on to craft a plan, on the other hand, but having two right hands, it will likely be what we have now with modifications touted in theory to make things better, but in practice will make things worse.

Both parties subscribe to the Hamiltonian model because it requires some intellectual sophistication to realize that the Jeffersonian model is not a part of the bivariate option. Only choosing between the two Hamiltonian, Federalist-type parties is allowed by organizational design, which is no choice at all.

If we are both politically and economically organized for command and control from the top down, our form of governance is neither democratic or representative.

The Hamiltonian organizational model, like Jefferson argued at the inception of our nation, only provides a command and control means of sovereign power. It leaves the natural right of self-determination (sovereignty) the exclusive domain of a power elite, or by authoritarian means whether public or private, effectively consolidating power into a too-big-to-fail organizational ontology.

According to Jefferson, the Hamiltonian model organizes for sure failure just like the failure of monarchy. It empowers exactly what The Revolution was supposed to prevent--consolidation of power, which is essentially what being organized to be "too big to fail" is and does.

Has the Hamiltonian, top-down organizational model been a failure? Is not the bailout scheme a monument to the absurdity of rewarding failure; that the best practice for success is to organize for failure?

(The absurdity indicator has busted through the virtual meter of good reason. That must be what behavioral economists are referring to when making their stupidity-and-ignorance argument...it proceeds from the top down!)

The irrationality that surely accompanies the arrogance of an accumulated consolidation of power is sure to "trickle down" to the masses. The detriment (the failure) is sure to be fundamentally misattributed to the incomeptence of the masses. Bailing out the masses, instead of the elite, would be rewarding failure (ignorance and stupidity) which is a moral hazard.

The misattribution of failure is accepted as an empirical truth of enduring moral value because cyclical, ontological crises would not always be successfully managed into recovery without elite control. Misattribution of incompetence to the masses perpetually serves to falsely indicate the need, the demand, for elite command and control, keeping the cycle of tragedy-to-farce in perpetual, operational motion.

Breaking the cycle is at the fundament of power--the organizational modeling.

If we persist with the elitist model, we persist in empirical error.

A more fundamental pluralistic model in priority will allow us to rationally organize for success instead of failure.