Determining Who Is In Command and Control

A recent forty-percent rate increase for health insurance due to lower demand of the recessionary trend, for example, technically indicates that the market is too consolidated. Is there not anyone else in the world wanting to share in the multi-billion dollar profits at a competitive price?

The incentive to compete for Anthem's huge margin is not likely in a recessionary trend. Financing is not likely available and, even without the recessionary environment, there is enough collusion in the sector to prevent either a competitive intravention or intervention in a geographic market.

Collusion rigs the market, and banks prefer to finance the low-risk/high-reward ratio of consolidated market share, magnifying the risk into a systemic, crisis proportion. Financial support for consolidation supports the problem--the deflationary trend that reduces demand and raises prices to maintain the profit margin.

Both liberals and conservatives agree that consolidation solves the problem because it controls (commands) the risk. Instead of being an ontology beyond our control, it is rendered a manageable, cyclical algorythm which, of course, plausibly defines the problem as the solution. The problem is, then, continuously innovated to replicate the distribution of costs and benefits that cause the problem; and as the economy becomes more consolidated, effects emerge that seem to defy the "natural laws" (the ontologies) that give legitimacy to outcomes.

While raising prices in the face of falling demand seems to defy gravity, a long-term slow-to-no growth supply relative to demand reduction, along with transfer payments, in a cyclical, deflationary trend supports prices and profit margins. This stagflationary tendency of a consolidating economy, instead of the disinflationary tendency of a free-market economy, prevents a "deflationary" declining rate of profit. The "law" of supply and demand is not being defied.

Consolidation purposefully reduces supply to support prices and profits while the corporate reduces demand by creating unemployment. Stagflation indicates an economy that is too consolidated and easily predicts a deflationary trend followed by an inflationary, government infusion of capital invested to support the weak demand which, in turn, supports the profit margin. As the infused capital consolidates, the economy stagflates because the capital infused does not increase supply, but increases demand.

Just as stagflation indicates an economy that is too consolidated, and the problems that are sure to accumulate, it also indicates the solution--deconsolidate!
We should wonder why the countless hours of discussion and analyses rarely, if ever, mention deconsolidation. The discussion on "too big to fail," for example, is always about not being allowed to fail, not being too big. Is it not obvious that being "too big" is for the purpose of not failing--of avoiding the deflationary declining rate of profit in which the oversized corporate body collapses in cardiac arrest without a cyclical government infusion of new, life-giving capital by Dr. Keynes' prescription?

The oversized corporate body, instead of reducing size, is encouraged to get bigger, gormandizing on the technical largesse of preventing systemic crisis in the interest of the general welfare.

Gorging itself on the general welfare into a morbidly obese body of bureaucratic blob, the body corporate has stroked out and been recussitated so many times it presents with severe dimentia.

An oversized corporate is irrational and delusional. The People paying the captains of finance massive bonuses for massive unemployment, record foreclosures, budget deficits and, sooner than later, tax increases, is completely absurd.

The corporate expects the body of The People to be grateful for all the misery and mayhem. What appears to be irrational and delusional, according to the corporate, is the secert, elite knowlege in the "black box" that produces the inscrutible benefit of the "invisible hand."

Experiencing the price of goods and services increasing as demand declines, for example, among a host of other irrational technical inversions and unreasonable if not delusional expectations, organizing an oversized corporate renders a body politic in the throws of full-blown psychosis.

Our schizophrenic liberal vs. conservative approach to defining the problem just results in more bemusement with technical characteristics that, rather then being illogical, are upon closer inspection symptomatic verification of what exactly the problem is.

The purposeful (organized) manipulation of supply and demand essentially defines "the problem" we now face. It is offered as the solution with the concept of "organic growth" meaning: continued consolidation of the risk to be easily managed in an aggregated (crisis) proportion. The result is "organized crisis." It has a purpose (telos) with the ontological legitimacy of natural law (supply and demand, and the rights of humanity which includes the corporate "body").

A spiraling, deflationary, declining rate of profit is a classical, cyclical ontology of capitalism our executive, legislative, judicial, and administrative processes are entrusted to resist in priority, not support.

While government does operate to resist the declining rate of profit,
government, however, acting in posteriority (because, supposedly, no"body" really wants a crisis, it just naturally happens)--acting to palliate rather than prevent--tends to support a spiraling, deflationary trend that resists demand (unemployment) and supports the formation of capital (the profit margin).

Despite the populist rhetoric to resist the current trend, for example, policy has largely supported the deflationary trend, prices, and profits. Stimulus measures have overwhelmingly supported deflation of middle and lower-class assets and incomes while resisting a deflationary, declining rate of profit. It is not difficult to see how the one finances the other. The partisan wrangle over health care reform, for example, will produce the same neo-classical effect in the ostensible theatre of legitimate public process.

Anthem's insurance rates increased because it was less able to spread the risk to support the margin, what a free market essentially prevents by spreading the risk in "disinflationary" priority.

The free market avoids the declining rate of profit being a failed expectation. The impetus to rig the market to support the profit margin is supplanted with support of a robust demand structure and the impetus for economic growth, not stagflation. Anthem would be expected to reduce rates to retain or win marketshare and maintain or increase margin in an expanding marketplace, not a consolidating one.

Collusion to rig markets is illegal. Where is the prosecution in defense of free markets (to increase the supply so that the consumer has a choice to demand--bid for--equitable behavior rather than government being trusted to command it)? Instead, as in the case of health insurance, what is being offered is a big government alternative that will do little-to-nothing to control costs in the entire health care sector.

It is no secret that buying insurance will not ensure health care, but it will support the profit margin; and when care is delivered, the cost gets support.

Collusion of the public and private sectors is not illegal, and the distribution of costs and benefits cannot be considered illegitimate. Although the distributive result may be considered undesireable, the organized means is too big to fail.

The financial reform legislation in progress is vowed to eliminate the too-big-to-fail doctrine and the organized incentive (the exculpatory ontology of purpose) to use its accumulative power to a detriment.

The best way to redirect the risk of an organized consolidation of power to detrimentally decide the fate of others in zero sum is to deconsolidate--what health care and finance reform is not likely to do. The diffusion of power and risk will not be easily relinquished into a genuine model of self-determination.

The word "determination" includes the word "deter." Self-determination is where the ability to command and control has reached its allowable limit. It is possible to deter the pursuit of power beyond the allowable limit.