Stagflation and Risk Reduction

In order to conserve accumulated value it is necessary to reduce risk. Much of the risk reduction that occurs is to describe and explain the legitimacy of the value accumulated, which forms a philosophy of risk.

In the case of capitalism, the philosophy of risk is shaped to conform to the self-interest of the capitalist by technical objective.

As capitalists try to figure out what there self-interest is and reduce the risk, markets are efficiently managed with an exclusive expertise that defies the democratic principle of free markets--self-determination.

Confidence in the fundamental legitimacy of the outcome by technically defeating it in one's self-interest requires considerable philosophical funambulism. The normative narrative is twisted and turned every which way to keep the outcome believably legitimate, and since fundamental, conservative values must be consistently maintained to be credible despite the detriment (the austerity required, for example, and the stagflation to exact it with minimal risk), legitimacy of the risk-value is maintained with complex, technical analyses and financial programming.

Finance is so complex that it is managed by committee, not the marketplace. The complexity, understand, is by design, which is then reasoned to be the product of pluralism.

Complexity is attributed to an undirected, risk ontology (like the indomitable complexity of a free market) despite it being the result of consolidating into a too-big-to-fail proportion. Instead of being pluralistically determined, the market is "made" less pluralistic to both force the detriment (stagflationary austerity) and protect too-big-to-fail firms from the risk (a declining rate of profit by exacting austerity from financial crises) at the same time.

The philosophy of risk is turned into an organized tautology (a false inducement, or misattribution, of the evidence to support the hypothesis). To protect yourself from the risk of an economy-of-scale efficiency, it is necessary to be too-big-to-fail. It is necessary to cause the risk to protect yourself from it. Self-interest, instead of being the object of reasonable authority, is insanity by technical objective.

Conforming to what capitalists figure to be their self-interest (and thus yours and mine by attribution), markets are consolidated to avoid risk, and to avoid the contradiction of a free-market legitimacy it is referred to as "making markets more efficient." Risk, instead of quantum, retributive value that keeps everybody honest with unconsolidated liquidity, is swapped in dark markets to achieve a stagflated, late-order, detrimental effect that, as we have recently observed, once again, is the result of illiquidity.

Capitalism consolidates industry and markets to make them more efficient, and being more efficient, of course, is in everyone's self-interest. It is a value, a strength, a measure, by which we all reasonably organize our lives to achieve our objectives, ensuring the measure of success by reducing the risk of failure.

Out of self-interest, capital is organized to reduce self-retributive risk (to make the marketplace less risk-prone, which sounds like a good thing), but the affect is objectively antithetical. When the marketplace becomes illiquid, participants are overwhelmingly affected with detriment that is an accumulation of value not in the self-interest of the capitalist, which means the efficiency is technically more, not less, self-retributive.

While what's good for Bank of America and Goldman Sachs is supposedly good for America, the detriment (the austerity on demand) is, technically, not my self-interest, your self-interest, or theirs. Conversely, despite what "they" may think, and what shareholders are told, what's bad for most of "us" (whether in America, France, Germany, Russia...) is also bad for "them" (firms that are too big to fail, whether communist, socialist, or capitalist). Without ensuring a free market in priority, the economy stagflates (the rent increases with all manner of technical expertise) to feed the greed.

Where the technicals fundamentally fail, philosophy takes over (risk reduction by changing purpose or objective, and keep in mind that the objective can change at any time on command if the marketplace is not sure to demand it). The detriment is good...it makes us stronger..."more efficient." Avoiding the probability of the detriment (illiquidity) is a moral hazard, and in keeping with this normative narrative, the economy stagflates to diffuse and defuse the risk proportion by accumulating it even more. The natural result (the risk ontology) is the classic crisis of overproduction, which is a moral strength, remember, because it makes us more austere.

The strength of capitalism is that it subordinates us to debt. It makes us more austere. It confirms middle-class values--virtue in the face of adversity--that makes America great and, according to Romney and Ryan, ensures the path to prosperity.

The path to prosperity is all about avoiding moral hazards--reducing risk, and while exacting austerity to ensure the welfare of the rich may seem immoral, it really isn't. Objective reality, as Ayn Rand explains it, is the only morality. The way it should be is the way it is--it is objective reality, Rand explains, no matter how hard we try to technically change the objective.

Rand, Romney, and Ryan agree, there is no utopia, there is only self-interest. Since it is the only value we can all objectively agree on, its pursuit is the only moral occupation. We are all objectively self-determined, and when the value (the measure of one's strength and determination) becomes self-retributive, it is then necessary to be virtuous (demonstrate strength). For most of us this means accepting subordination (the virtue of austerity), relying on the job creators to determine the value of the self (without retribution) on demand in the marketplace with the highest efficiency and, thus, moral obligation.