Rent to Own (Positive Law and Adverse Possession)

Working with a confirmed hypothesis, businesses have learned to manage inventory to maximize the marginal profit with what technically appears to be on-demand economics, but without adding a marginal product. The objective is not to deprive, but to provide what the market demands, and the price paid (the rent, or marginal profit) depends on the strength of demand.

Not adding a product to expand the margin is not demand-side economics. It is supply-side economics. Instead of adding to the profit margin by selling more of a popular good or service, the margin expands by managing the available supply so it appears demand exceeds supply, which is inflationary. Since buying power is reduced by raising the price to be paid, the technical effect is a persistent deflationary trend that creates the demand for adding to the money supply to pay it.

Objectively, business managers know that adding a marginal product is deflationary. The reason it is not disinflationary is a function of technical objective. Deflation positions most of the population (99.9 %) to take the risk. It is a function of adverse selection that confirms status position and demonstrates positive power.

Hypothetically, status is a function of natural law. As Ayn Rand describes it, "A is A." Our leaders, naturally selected, like Loyd Blankfein or Ken Lay, who demonstrate power by possession, empirically confirm their status by means of adversity while, at the same time, appearing to possess the power to command natural resources and surplus value (hording labor and consumer income) for the public good.

The value surplused is not detrimental if it is measurably beneficial. So when Goldman Sachs surpluses labor, and Enron surpluses power off the grid, the value it has is confirmed by the margin of profit consumed and is effectively surplused to prevent shortage.

Surplusing value to prevent shortage is only natural and non-retributive. If you want to use the value surplused to create more value, it is necessary to rent it from the owner, which naturally conserves the value in a legal and properly positive (economic), non-retributive (non-political) proportion. To deprive property by political retribution is to adversely possess it--it is categorically immoral (detrimental) because it defies natural law.

Natural law is confirmed by becoming positive law. The Uniform Commercial Code, for example, is all about property rights and retributive value. Civil liability (the amount to be retributed) is a measurable monetary sum. It is positive, empirically verifiable value, and where value is derived from detriment, the value is retributed to conserve it, restoring the plaintiff to his or her original position.

In the marketplace, however, where the natural laws of supply and demand rule, title to property can be taken by adverse possession.

In the marketplace, both the benefit and the detriment can be adversely possessed. When, for example, you pay twice as much for gas as you did a year ago, due to supply-demand (natural law), your income has been adversely possessed. The benefit derived from the adversity is only natural, and so retributing the value is unnatural. The value would be adversely dispossessed (a moral hazard) because the beneficiaries are naturally selected (capable of positioning themselves) to manage it to everyone's benefit (which means you have been adversely positioned to possess the detriment). Since you are not the beneficiary, and thus you lack the income to command a favorable position to otherwise demand it in the marketplace, the accumulation of the benefit is naturally endowed and legally positive--the value is non-retributive.

Non-retributive value is a characteristic of consolidated capitalism posing as free-market economics, and free-market economics, remember, is charged with retributive (political) value. It is the adversity (immediate accountability) that big corporates avoid by means of consolidation, occupying space in the alpha (economic) dimension where the power of self-determination obtains.

The concept of non-retributive value falsely operates with the legitimacy of natural law to render the outcome logically positive. The adversity (the rent, or the price to be paid as a measurable consequence of the choices we make and the action taken) has the appearance of objective, ontological reality--specifically, supply-demand characteristics that naturally determine the distribution of income to demand it, which determines an unavoidable (non-retributive) risk ontology.

Increasing supply without the income to demand it (wages and salaries paid to produce it) results in a declining rate of profit (overproduction). The reason this results in crises (creates destruction) is because the objective (the rent, or the actual price to be paid) is really to deprive (which in actuality is retributively valued and emotionally charged with the natural right to self-determine). The actuarial risk of deprivation is logically negative, not positive, and it is the plight of plunderers to convince the plundered of the providence naturally endowed by the creator.

The creator, naturally, is the "job creator" who rents to own the "self" to which only you have legal title but that the capital, by natural condition, will adversely possess "on demand" in the marketplace to add supply and expand the margin by raising the rent.

Idle labor (on-demand value that determines the power of your self in the marketplace) is the product being marginally added, and as we know, unemployment is sure to make money (increase the money supply to keep inventory low on demand, which by natural law commands the highest possible price). As long as inventory is kept low and demand high at low rent (at a zero rate of interest in your self--the value of labor), the predictable result is rising income for the upper class. We technically achieve "The Path to Prosperity" (and remember, you are personally responsible for your "self," and if you don't share in the prosperity, operantly conditioned, you don't have anyone to blame but yourself).

The path to prosperity is pathologically paved with the "self" properly conditioned.

The Romney-Ryan plan resists employment without supporting a declining rate of profit, but as we know, the value accumulated is highly retributive (it attributes too much value, and yet not enough, to the self, and the contradiction is quite literally pathological--it is "self" destructive). The technical tricks just trap us into a crisis proportion. All the value created increases the probability of its destruction, which according to Romney and Ryan is what makes us the land of opportunity. When we default, it is the opportunity to make money, consolidating the inventory overproduced to be resold at a profit on demand.

(We see, then, that labor is managed as inventory on demand. It is a product managed to be overproduced, deconsolidated and pluralistically added as a marginal product to disinflate the price and reduce the economic rent of the job creators. If the only opportunity available, on demand, is at the Triangle Waist Company, for example, because jobs are hard to come by, the land of opportunity is nothing but dystopia. What is confirmed is destruction created on demand, and the loss--bolting the exits, with no way out, but personally responsible because no one forced you to work there--is fully assumed and ontologically determined.

The inventory being managed was not just the shirts but the employees. The job creators considered the laborers to be their private property--inventory to be managed as they saw fit, and as long as the inventory was managed to be in oversupply, which is the result of overproduction, the value created was the status conferred and confirmed by the value destroyed.)

Today's business managers are more apt to keep inventories low and on demand than ever before to resist deflation. Oil refineries, for example, are shuttered to support the price of gasoline against falling income and declining demand. With less demand, the risk is managed and distributes to technically achieve a classic effect (unemployment) without destroying the benefit (the marginal rate of profit in which the risk of loss is fully assumed--naturally adverse--if the demand is not there to drive it). Risk is effectively positioned to gain and gross value (the marginal profit) by adding to the supply of its accumulated proportion (capital gained).

Since gaining capital (the adverse risk) is the measure of success, a central bank interprets it as risk reduction because it is adding GDP (income distributed to the top one percent) in the form of value added. At the same time, the bank knows that the income distribution is deflationary, and so adding to the money supply supports the capacity to make money against falling demand (a price support), which would otherwise be an adversion of the risk.

(The trick, you see, is to add support without gaining resistance. The trap, however, is that, in reality, support cannot be added without resistance. The more value added, the more retributive it becomes, not less; and as the risk becomes more and more adverse, the liquidity is trapped into detriment--what financiers call "a liquidity trap."

While the effects are materially manifest, the tricks and traps are psychologically affective. Risk is a phenomenology of the mind. The risk to capital has a classical effect, but is operantly conditioned.)

This so-called risk reduction by adding risk-value, however, ("risk off" that is really "risk on") is a quantum derived from the income of the lower classes, effectively conserving its valence. Although the capacity for the lower classes to self-determine and prudently regulate is effectively reduced, psychologically, participants are conditioned to believe the reduction is an open-market activity and a function of personal responsibility despite being applied through highly exclusive operations.

The more determined you are the more likely your self becomes objective reality, and as long as the marketplace is free and open, self-determination is less a function of pathological preclusion than a sign of personal freedom and responsibility.

Technically achieving a free-and-open market in priority ensures the value of the risk is retributively stable. In a free market, we all rent to own, not just a chosen few operantly conditioned by a committee of their peers.

A free-and-open market, keep in mind, is a highly complex entanglement of quantum value. It tends to consolidate and manage the probable outcomes (the infinite possibility of the self) by technical objective.

The technical complexity of the free market is demonstrated by trying, for example, to write laws that regulate it. Health care and financial reform legislation is over 4,000 pages because the decision to buy and sell is so complex--so conditional--that it is an infinite set of "if-then" statements. Frankly, it is foolish to even try...it is downright pathological! Nevertheless, more and more laws are piled up into an inchoate mass of body politic to form a reality that is virtually unknown to all but the highest bidder on demand.

Comprised of an army of lawyers and technical analysts, objective reality is less and less free and open and more and more determined by committee to regulate the retributive value. Really, there is even less control over risk-value since, despite all the effort, risk is, nevertheless, ontologically determined and not rent free.

The Open Market by Committee

While the value of the risk is managed through the Fed's Open Market Committee, much of what determines the direction of the risk occurs in the dark. What the law does not prohibit it positively allows and the investment vehicles derived from creating accounts are considered, unregulated, the positive product of natural law.

Derivatives are complicated because they are designed to spread the risk. They become entangled with the broader economy and create efficiencies (a predictive utility) in ways that only the experts are likely to understand. These markets look "dark" (and unpredictable) to most people because they do not understand how they work.

Dark-market investment devices are too complicated to regulate, efficient-market theorists explain, and if they are, the efficiency is lost. Regulating markets results in an inchoate body of law that cannot approximate all the contingencies. The result is beta volatility--a high level of uncertainty that causes crises (but we wouldn't know it if it is in the dark). So "let it be." Let the market (nature) decide what is right and wrong, good or bad, and doing so is logically positive--it prudently regulates the marketplace with the efficiency and moral legitimacy of natural law.

Defying nature is a moral hazard, it's a sin, and the consequences (crises and the higher rent that results) is the price that must inevitably be paid. Probable adversity is best managed in unregulated markets where liquidity is added to prudently minimize the risk, maximize profit, and gain the capital to pay the rent (which, with the help of the Fed, is being paid with a high rate of unemployment). When the rent is properly paid, the wealth distributes (it trickles down) and the result is economic stability. That is, when the rent is paid to the job creators to create jobs (low taxes and high subsidies like we have now), title is taken to the wealth created in the form of income, which consumers then prudently regulate as private property, positively supported by the law in a free and open market.

When, for example, gasoline prices rise and demand becomes more efficient, the price can rise even more. The price to be paid, however, is not determined by consumers at the gas pump, but in dark markets where participation is determined by how much rent is paid--by income class: whether you are a lord or a tenant.

Lords collect the rent, and tenants naturally pay it until government taxes the benefit (reducing subsidies, for example) to pay the rent. That, conservatives say, is unnatural. It increases the consumer's cost, distorts the capacity to prudently regulate, and thus creates the need for an inchoate mass of positive law that is fundamentally illogical and adversely selective, which explains why supply-demand fundamentals don't work to control prices.

The capacity to prudently regulate is taken from consumers and buried within the bowels of big government. Rather than having freedom in priority, it is something that "We" rent from government, like we did with the king before the Revolution. The result is a bureaucratic form of governance that diminishes the democratic dimension to render a government less representative, and more autocratic, in the republican form.

The risk goes gamma (more political than economic) when government occupies the alpha dimension of the prudent regulator. When we see government being sold to the highest bidder (the economic dimension that government usurps and adversely possesses by overextension), which determines who pays the rent, it is business trying to reoccupy the space that allows for self-determination. Big business is not trying to usurp power, conservatives contend, but trying to restore our "selves" to our natural condition in which "We the People" prudently and positively regulate our destinies freely and openly in the marketplace by the rule of law.

Government is best that governs least because a free market is self-regulating. When this natural condition is violated by positive law (a 2000 page law to regulate a market, for example), the probability of being favorably positioned to avoid the risk is even more entangled.

Severability of the health care act demonstrates how market participants can be adversely selected to possess the risk. If by judicial review the act is severed, insurers adversely possess the risk by decree. The same thing happens when risk is processed in dark markets. If you can't see the risk coming because you are not a classified participant, you are adversely selected to possess it.

It is impossible to prudently regulate (or self-determine in a free and "open" market) what you can't see until it is too late (what economists refer to as late-order effects and physicists refer to as quantum entanglement). The prudent regulator is then consumed with immediate, economic survival (the point at which the risk is "taken" and its value consumed in a quantumly entangled zero-sum). Self-determination begins to quantumly appear at that point (the point at which the risk of loss was fully assumed) and occupy the space that determines the direction of the risk.

It is critical to understand that the kind of quantum entanglement that occurs by consolidating risk into large-scale exchanges, like Wall Street, falsely operates without the risk of loss fully assumed in priority within that occupied space. The risk cannot be avoided--it is entangled and will converge with "objective" reality despite reactionary efforts (beyond good and evil) to apply the utilitarian, philosophical claptrap that always seemed to work in the past.

The risk proportion, which conservatives falsely claim is an overextension of government authority, cannot be forever extended, and once the analysis admits that government is the effect and not the cause, the fully assumed risk of loss changes dimension. Beta risk transforms into gamma risk, and this shift in the paradigm has an adverse affect on reactionary philosophy. The conceptual model that forms practical hypotheses, and directs the risk ontology into a self-fulfilled, risk tautology, gains empirical value. What had tested as natural philosophy and positive law (beyond good and evil) is repeatedly verified as negative, illogical, and immoral.

Trying to extend the debt indefinitely (the quantum verification of the fully assumed risk by constantly inflating the risk into the future) always results in highly uncivil behavior (the knowledge of good and evil) inherited from the past. By technically verifiable means we come to know the utilitarian philosophy of self-interest is not really the philosophy of selfishness at the base of our natural existence. We come to realize that self-satisfaction is less about depriving others than providing, and debt is less about collecting the rent owed you, adversely possessed, than forgiving the debt you owe to others.

(Remember that deprivation by adverse selection is extended, and possessed, in the form of debt. Extending the economic rent with the philosophy that it provides a generally beneficial utility causes deprivation and creates value that is highly retributive. Instead of expanding the pie, it contracts with adverse effects--causing inflation, unemployment, and demand for government--to provide the benefit of gaining capital.

It is important to undestand what this practical model of beneficial deprivation is intended to technically accomplish. It is intended to create retributive value--our objective reality by means of default, or its adverse possession.

By depriving capital, more capital and wealth can be gained by depriving it, or not. Providing, or not, understand, demonstrates power, or the discretion to determine the self.

While as much power can be derived from providing as depriving, there is a psychological component--the retributive value. The trespass that occurs is the moral value that capitalist theory tends to give an ontological description--the evil is really good, adversely selected and positively possessed by natural right. Depriving that which derives from one's constitutional nature is to deprive what a person is naturally entitled to, and as Adam Smith said, keeping all that a person is entitled to is morally imperative, and thus non-retributive.

That selfishness is non-retributive is the secret knowledge that we often hear conservatives refer to. There is a reality independent of our perception, and those who gain the material measure of success in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness come to realize that truth. They are self-actualized...they know the actuarial component of the risk--the image of self in the position of status--and are naturally selected to manage it and conserve its value in the form of debt, paradoxically pressed to protect its non-retributive value from its adverse possession.)

The way things are now, conservatives tell us, is what makes America strong and free. The risk applied (swapped and adversely possessed) in dark markets is a free-market innovation, and innovation drives growth. Yes, profit margins have grown and the capital accumulated has been converted into private property, keeping the top one percent strong through the organized deprivation (consolidation and economic contraction) of wealth (discretionary spending) and power (income).

The deprivation (the capital), however, presumes a free market in which the risk of loss is fully assumed. Capitalists, then, reasonably organize to protect themselves from the market's risk by consolidating it in a rent-to-own proportion. The power to prudently regulate is rented back to market participants on condition of complete submission to the job creators. The marketplace is so consolidated that this rent-to-own proportion extends to even the unemployed who may be required to pass a lifestyle test to secure the income needed to, ironically, self-determine.

Employers look at credit scores to determine the quality of prospective employees not only because it indicates reliability, but compliability. Willingness to pay the debt (the rent) is rewarded to operantly condition the labor force with the values of the job creators. The more consolidated the marketplace the more labor is put in a rent-to-own (gamma-risk) dimension that appears to be willing submission. The willing dimension is, of course, a non-retributive attribute in theory (in the first order) but empirically increases the probability of actuarial risk (in late order) that requires political management and government intervention in practice.

The more consolidated the marketplace becomes, the more accumulated the risk, and because the free market is fully presumed, the deprivation that occurs is considered to be self-deprivation (with the risk of loss fully assumed). Equilibrium becomes the quality of equal opportunity, and income (the quantity in which to measure self-determination and prudentially regulate the marketplace) becomes the virtue of inequality.

With a free market fully presumed, the risk of loss is, also, fully assumed. That is, despite organized means to avoid the risk, it cannot, in reality, be avoided.

With the risk of loss fully assumed, the quantity in which to measure self-determination and prudentially regulate the marketplace naturally tends to the virtue of equality and the sovereignty of its prudential regulator--the self. There is always a tendency toward a quantum singularity (low entropy) that delimits the quality of a meaningful existence (the good life).

If the incentive is to prevent distribution of value in order to accumulate it (i.e., to accumulate value with its organized deprivation), then the risk can be fully expected to gain a value of disequilibrium. That is, the risk of loss (the probability of not maintaining the disequilibrium) is fully assumed with a high degree of certainty unless, of course, it is organized to prevent its deconsolidation.

With the incentive to accumulate value unregulated (which accumulates the fully assumed risk of loss into a catastrophic proportion), consumer demand (the capacity to accumulate income and apply a disproportionate amount of risk), not how hard you work, for example, determines value.

Conservatives claim that unregulated accumulation of risk is prudent because the equilibrium provides a productive incentive (class mobility--rising income or the ability to self-determine). The outcome being experienced, however, is angst (the measurable, accumulated risk of the existential self).

Declining opportunity and income is directly measured by the level of angst on a quantum scale (down to the individual). The lack of self-determination (the angst) comes with a system organized for inflation and unemployment (accumulation of power from the value of labor--declining consumer demand--which is the accumulated risk-value of unemployment and rising prices). If people are not self-determined, then what is preventing it.

The system we have has been organized to reward causing detriment, and the value it yields, instead of being non-retributive, is inherently retributive. Its economic value is politically charged, and the more political it is the more consolidated and adversely detrimental the capital becomes.

The rent (the inevitable price to be paid) is raised to higher and higher levels to conserve the value against accumulative supply. The inevitable result, in historical perspective, is the fully assumed risk of loss--adverse possession.

With value always being consolidated to conserve it in historical perspective, capitalism is a rent-to-own system of finance.

The path to plunder is the path to prosperity, and the price to be paid is the sacrifice made.