Extension of Credit

Credit extends with the risk. A person that contracts for credit is scored according to the extension of the risk--your net worth.

The empirical valuation is dismally economic. Reducing human value to the probability of the risk is something expected of a self-interested application of power, and the deliberate application of a detriment does not suggest a compassion verified by the active moral strength of an elitist hypothesis.

If The People are to find security under the protection of a well-educated, well-financed elite (like being subjected to the crown), and the verifiable hypothesis in operation largely relies on one's credit score (the extent of the risk), then the application of the means is a dismal failure.

Prospects are dismal if we continue to ignore the detrimental value of consolidating the risk, interpreting it to be the inviolable application (the absolute value) of self-interest. The detriment is rationalized as always beneficial in some form, adding empirical value to the measure of risk whether those detrimented recognize the value added or not.

If the credit score measures the extent of your risk (and the value you can add), a high score means you are willing to sacrifice for the benefit of the crown (the ruling economic elite who do not have to extend you credit, and do so only in their self-interest), or maybe it means you are unwilling to take the risk of rebellion (exercising your right of self-determination) in your self-interest. "Your" self-interest is paradoxical, and nature abhors (it will resolve) a paradox.

If we are to embrace the moral value, the virtue (the strength), for example, of Ayn Rand's self-interest constant of power, victims of systemic risk should always be glad that self-interest is always being applied for the greater good--the extension of the risk in which we are to be scored.

The score of power (successful application and preservation of self-interest), according to the Rand moral constant, is verified by the distribution of reward and deprivation. The empirical, moral measure is always, unavoidably, "what should be" and "is" therefore. Self-interest "is" therefore, an inevitable moral ontology that resolves in spite of any altruistic sentiment we may score it to.

Keep in mind that if your credit score is zero, the risk does not extend to you...nor will the credit without paying a high rate coefficient with a low score representing the extent of the risk.

We live in a credit economy, even people who do not need credit use it to magnify their profits; and the profit, magnified, has to come from somewhere, magnified (reduction of the credit score which increases the extent of the risk and access to credit delimited to the ability to lend, not the need to borrow). The result is the extension of risk (extension of credit, or leveraging) to a crisis (gamma risk) proportion (securitized debt, collateralized debt obligations, and credit default swaps).

According to Ayn Rand's reduction of the argument, for example, magnifying the need for credit is the virtue of self-interest, motivating people to sacrifice for the greater good (reducing demand, increasing supply) with a high order of deliberate intent (productive self preservation). It is government sheltering and pampering the less credit worthy that is the cause of our problems. Eliminating government (without eliminating the need) liberates The People from the only active element of tyranny that rewards and deprives by fiat. Self-interest provides, government deprives according to the Ayn Rand, classically conservative hypothesis.

Rand's hypothesis does fit a post-modern, neo-classical, credit economy if we ignore the extension of the risk. Neither the king or plutocrats intend to deconsolidate the risk and finance the competition, however, and acceptance of the Rand hypothesis, with all things remaining equal, suggests a self-interest that is anything but enlightened.

Consolidating all the risk into a single entity, like the crown or the state, arguably affords the social benefit of relieving individuals of the burden of power, leaving its subjects free to live the good life (applying self-interest as Rand points out). Individuals find out what their self-interest really is with the guidance and protection of the state.

The agents of the American revolution--our rebellious founders, however, acted to establish the individual as the singular quantum of sovereign power in the pluralist form. The state exists to protect and defend the natural rights of the sovereign power (individuals) from tyranny, rejecting the argument that consolidation of risk, and its extension (tyranny), protects and defends the right of individuals to act in their self-interest.

There was no reason to believe the extension of risk and credit from the crown and its agents was in our self-interest at the time of The Revolution, any more than it is now extending from a ruling class elite.

Being a slave to one's credit score is just the latest extension of tyranny shammed with the false benefit of consolidating the risk.