Ninety-Nine Percent

Now that there is ample evidence the risk proportion is fully gamma (Occupy Wall Street, for example), a distribution will occur on the accumulation.

Political pressure to occupy the critical policy space of financial investment will be relieved enough to set up for the next crisis of liquidity. The risk, rather than deconsolidated, will be temporized--extended over time to secure occupation of the critical space that deliberately consolidates capital and converts it into accumulated wealth (massive debt) and political power (the massive, too-big-to-fail risk associated with the debt). Rather than reduction of accumulated risk, the probability of class warfare is kept at ninety-nine percent.

At ninety-nine percent, the risk of loss is fully assumed. Wall Street perp-walks (mostly insider trading) will give the appearance of risk reduction, but it occurs to support, not resist, maintaining the accumulated risk proportion (40 percent of all profits to the financial sector on a 4-1 debt-to-equity). The debt will continue to liquidate equity, but at a slower rate, giving the appearance of an improving economy.

Equity shares will rise to reflect the accumulation of value which, ironically, diminishes the capacity to sustain it. We continue to see, for example, productivity rising with increasing momentum against declining income (which accumulates value in the top one percent), setting the macros up for another big short--a double dip that will be attributed to market mechanics and not a deliberate detriment.

It is a deliberate detriment, however, and the proportion of the risk assumed is determined by income class. Ninety-nine percent is fully expected to sacrifice for the benefit of the top one percent who, according to conservative philosophy of the risk, are demonstrably best able to determine the general welfare by application of their self-interest. This application of "interest" (economic rent) is the measure of self-determination, and how much interest you pay is confirmed (but actually determined) by accumulation of wealth and power (the accumulation of risk). The accumulated benefit is used to produce income exacted from the productivity of the lower classes through application of the accumulated risk (either you pay the rent--sacrifice for the benefit of those who master society's resources--or suffer deprivation of social resources to which, by natural right, no one is entitled to except by having earned it in the free market).

Keep in mind that the detriment is exacted by means of market mechanics directed by a consolidated, risk proportion (the accumulated benefit in a class proportion). Achieving an economy-of-scale (organizationally defeating free-market mechanics) is touted as a functionally beneficial means of controlling the risks (the direct, democratic accountability) of the free market.

Consolidating capital, industry and markets is supposed to make us more productive, and it does that, but with high inflation and unemployment. (Understand here that the productivity is generated from the demand-side while conservatives argue it is "supply-side." It is a deliberate deceit constructed to exculpate the risk of liability because, remember, the legitimacy of the profit is that it adds supply, which creates jobs and controls inflation.) These risk attributes (inflation and unemployment symptomatic of demand-side management of the risk) accumulate because the means to control them (the free market) is diminished to maximize the profit margin (the empirical measure of success that conservatives say is legitimately earned without any additional liability because the risk of loss is fully assumed by free-market mechanics in priority).

Keep in mind that, according to conservatives, the zero-sum distribution of risk and reward (the class proportion) is not warfare because it adjusts the macros for capital investment which, they say, is generally beneficial. At the same time, they argue, large (supra-sovereign) corporates are hording cash and running up huge sovereign debt (which they are beyond the liability to pay) because the business environment is too uncertain. This uncertainty, however, is an extortion scheme using the accumulated value.

If the accumulation is not free of tax liability (being supra-sovereign) then the certain choice is larger sovereign debt or massive austerity (a liability to be collectively paid by "The People" who are sovereign and, thus, self-determined). In either case, the result is diminished demand--higher demand against a lower dollar, or a higher dollar against lower demand. This extortion scheme is possible only because the value (the risk) is too consolidated. That is, in order to properly adjust for this problem, providing the stability (the liability) of a popular consent, it is neccessary to deconsolidate the risk value.

A philosophy of supra-sovereignty (corporate bodies so big that they are beyond the accountability of sovereign power to achieve the general benefit of economy-of-scale efficiency) has, however, developed to explain the discrepancy between conservative values and the apparent lack of popular consent.

Now we have "neo-conservative" values that know no sovereign boundary (because as Ayn Rand explains, for example, they represent universally "objective" truth, which is difficult for the sovereign, non-elite to ascertain). These newly evolved values are supposed to provide a general, global benefit, but a highly divisible (class-warfare) distribution of the risk actually occurs. So we see, for example, the emergence of the "super committee" to reconcile, and organizationally validate by bureaucratic default, the divergence of conservative, economic philosophy and the political "demand" that has accumulated into an empirically verifiable, ninety-nine percent risk proportion.