Making Money On Demand

According to Romney and Ryan, a lower, more regressive tax burden pays the rent. The budget passed by the House will raise middle-class taxes (what Ryan calls "broadening the base") so that the top income class can have a lower rate and make money.

Hypothetically, policies and programs that support income at the top, like a regressive tax burden, frees capital for investment and increases supply, paving the path to prosperity.

Added supply controls inflation and unemployment. By creating supply, income rises against falling prices (disinflation), which controls the price on demand (governance when you need it) and reduces unemployment by adding the income needed to demand it. Adding the supply of income on demand without having to tax it or print it avoids the crisis of overproduction (deflation). By reducing gamma risk to the alpha dimension, price control is technically achieved with limited government intervention. Government will reduce if there is less demand for it.

(According to Rep. Ryan and the Republican Party delegation, cutting government adds supply. Since the demand for government derives from slow, economic demand, however, which is the result of no added supply--classically referred to as overproduction and a term Ryan and company ideologically ignore--arguing that the effect yields the cause lacks good intellectual value. Specifically, it lacks empirical value that, ironically, is at the very foundation of Enlightenment philosophy that the Tea Party delegation is supposed to represent.

Occupying policy space with ideological rhetoric adds to the problem to be solved. Practical solutions ideologically derived from both parties are exacerbating, which is why Congress is so unpopular.

The binomial solution we have now suggests that we can have big government and rising public debt or small government and rising private debt. In both cases, ideologically derived, the risk-value is conserved, not avoided. Money is "made" by creating debt in a Hamiltonian fashion, which destroys demand and the means for each and every one of us to self-determine.

As long as money is made to ensure "We" can not control our destiny on demand in a too-big-to-fail proportion, we cannot be held personally responsible for it. Instead, we then rely on government to be responsible for our destiny, technically achieving a gamma-risk dimension that renders the "self" in the image of the "job creators" who, both public and private, as we see over and over again, treat us like inventory managed in pursuit of an objective reality that is verifiably not our own.

With the means to self-determine, we verify, rather than ideologically validate, whether the rent paid is good and adequate consideration by controlling the price we are willing to pay on demand, not mandated to pay by means either public or private in an economy-of-scale proportion.)

Price control without destroying the means to demand it (inflation and unemployment) requires adding supply--it requires a distribution from the accumulation of capital to demand it, preventing the need to inflate the money supply (which reduces demand) to make money. Overproduction is then a function of disinflation--rising consumer income against falling prices, providing sufficient income to pay the rent and form the capital necessary to reduce beta-risk volatility and the need to politically manage it in a gamma-risk proportion.

Without an on-demand distribution, a redistribution occurs (taxing and spending) to resist deflation (a declining rate of profit). As income falls against rising prices (and taxes), instead of being distributive on demand, value (the rent to be paid) becomes retributive on command. Prices are not controlled by supply but by destroying the capacity to demand it (the capacity to buy something at a particular price OR NOT).

(Remember, not demanding something controls the price. So, when we don't demand health care and the price keeps rising it means the free market has been defeated. If the price is being supported so that it will not lower to meet demand, the "market" is broken, and if we fix it by mandating we buy health insurance--adding demand without adding supply--we break it even more!

Consumers need to understand what consolidated capitalists want us to ignore: consolidation of industry and markets, health care or anything else, commands the price, creating value by destroying demand. The destruction is what consolidated capitalists refer to as "efficient markets." Unparadoxically, by defeating the means to technically achieve market efficiency, consolidation supports the price and destroys the power of consumers to self-determine on demand.

While we tend to perceive demand destruction as a dead-weight loss in which everybody loses, the destruction creates value. A marginal profit is added without actually adding a marginal product, as in a free market, because consumers do not have the income to demand it. Instead, the power to self-determine and its market value--its power to modify behavior by popular consent--is consolidated on command.

Economy-of-scale does not make markets more efficient. Demand efficiency is swapped for command proficiency. Popular demand, or rule, is reduced--in many ways seduced--to technically achieve a command dimension that poses as popular consent.

Popular rule is a value Hamiltonians famously favored over slavery, for example. By paying labor a wage or salary, big business, which at the time of the Revolution was considered by Republicans to be abusive like the king, reduces retributive value and turns the swap--a subsistence wage--into the personal responsibility of the wage earner. The detriment is transformed into value derived--the creative destruction that haunts us today--without fear of retribution because we are all Constitutionally endowed with self-determination.)

Destroying demand creates the supply, and the value--the prosperity--added. Since creating value by destroying it is a zero-sum game, the accumulated value expected to "trickle down" (which is a concept Alexander Hamilton used to describe the utility of big bankers and big business that Jeffersonians objected to) gains retributive value and is then managed as political, rather than economic risk. Gaining political value, the risk goes gamma to manage a continuous failure of expectations (the hypotheses tested) that with a republican form of government is empirically confirmed, or not, by popular vote.

The popular vote, whether economically with dollar votes in the marketplace or politically by casting votes in an election, is an empirical measure that is supposed to objectively measure reality. Voters are frustrated that reality is being objectively determined to make money in zero-sum more by means of validation than verification.

On the economic side, we are determined by an economy-of-scale efficiency that makes money by commanding the price. On the political side, we have a government that commands we engage in economic activity, or not, to support the price and command the margin of profit without adding a marginal product. Both validate a too-big-to-fail, economy-of-scale proportion, validating the problem as the solution on command rather than verifying the means to self-determine and responsibly solve our problems, and make money, on demand.