Technical failure since '08 has been a technical success. Forcing trillions of dollars into default and consolidating the value on demand is the American dream. Even the king couldn't exact massive detriment like that. Not on demand. He could never get away with that. He had to command it.
Indeed, as Reagan described it, "America is a place where a person can still get rich."
A place where you can get rich at the expense of others and get away with it--indeed, a place where causing massive misery is regarded as the virtue of high intelligence, morally imperative, and the success we all dream of (on demand)--is truly exceptional. It is, as Romney and Ryan explain it, the land of opportunity, which is curiously, at this point, being attributed to Obama's failure, as economist Paul Krugman points out, so that Republican policies and programs continue to be a technical success.
Stagflation is the natural result of consolidation "on demand" (i.e., considered to be the most efficient, risk-averse way to manage markets toward optimal productivity) whether it is the Romney-Ryan plan or the Obama plan. Either way, debt is monetized to consume the supply and resist unemployment with the result being, however, rising prices, which supports unemployment and is a technical failure depending on the objective. New money is added that is mistaken for added risk because it is being used to support profits (on demand) against overproduction in dark, speculative markets--swapping debt instruments that eventually commands default and demands the bailout Dodd-Frank is supposed to prevent.
Mistaking added money for added risk is not fundamental error, like falsely arguing high oil prices are supported by demand when demand is falling. That is just fraud and racketeering perpetrated by a bunch of gangsters who control our economy to profit by causing massive detriment (deflation) in the name of free-market economics (on demand). While expansion is the expected value of inflation, the actual value has been deflation. That does not mean risk has been added, but misdirected (timed and transferred) to redefine the probable value of the detriment. It is not a technical failure, but successful application of the risk assessment.
Failure of the risk assessment is a technical failure that derives from fundamental attribution error. While it is correct to say that the technicals are independent of timing, and so they never lie in the aggregate, the proportion of the risk and the relative space it occupies at any particular time (in the alpha, beta, or gamma-risk dimensions) can be, and is, often misconstrued, resulting in technical failure.
It is important to understand that risk cannot be created or destroyed. Its value is fully assumed in priority and consumed on demand. Whether we like it or not, risk cannot be reduced, but it can be accumulated and distributed--timed to transfer with what appears to be an unavoidable aggregate that must be managed on command to demand the supply.
The value to be demanded (retributed) presents as empirical value--the rate of taxation. As the value demanded accumulates (surplus value) the tax rate increases, and if the burden is regressive, the more value there is to be demanded (overproduction).
Reversal of a stagflationary trend--with stagflation regarded as a phase transition by most economists--is technically indicated by a rising rate of taxation. The period of stagflation following the oil shock in the 70's, for example, increased pressure to raise the marginal rate. Although resisted by the Reagan administration, the marginal rate rose, nevertheless, to reduce budget deficits, and later, during the Bush and Clinton administrations, the marginal rate rose even more to end the stagflationary phase, which transitioned into a boom phase of the business cycle, yielding budget surpluses that resisted a declining rate of profit.
In the current environment, as the rate of taxation rises--with more than ten years of an effectively regressive tax burden and even more to come if Romney and Ryan have their way--the rate of profit will decline, and resisting the declining rate of profit is job one. When there is no one left to pay the debt but the top quintile of income classification, the economic trend will reverse to pay the rent--what a Romney campaign slogan describes as "Putting Jobs First."
Failure to support the profit margin with a declining, marginal rate of taxation is, by natural condition, a technical success because it empowers more consumers with more discretion to spend. Stagflation ends, keeping in mind that a declining, non-marginal rate will support profits just fine, but without all the detriment like the "fiscal cliff" we now face. Resisting a declining, marginal rate prevents us from burying ourselves in detriment in the name of self-interest, which according to Romney and Ryan is a technical failure.
Technical failure and success is a function of working/analytical modeling. Constructing a model to legitimize the outcome, post hoc, as a technical success is not intended to have predictive utility.
Analyses used to predict economic trending is probably wrong not because it is in the aggregate random and unpredictable, but because it is intended to misdirect market participants into affirming adverse possession of the risk. This can be easily accomplished by moving markets contrary to technically indicated trends, which is a manipulation that can only be accomplished with a highly consolidated capital that operates with the effect of concentrated power--exactly what a free market is not!
Models not intended to be confirmational, but affirmational, are prone to technical failure. Not only are they not intended to be predictive, but because they are intended to confirm class identity with empirical value, the aggregate value consumed is ingeniously modeled to appear as value ontologically derived. This false ontology is the gamma-risk proportion--it is highly unstable and predictably catastrophic.
A predictive model is likely to operate as an independent, objective reality. The Romney-Ryan plan, for example, is supposed to be the path to prosperity, and predictably it is for the top-income classification. Since the evidence is verifiably positive by confirming a verifiable detriment for everybody else, the detriment is modeled as a naturally occurring, objective reality, a la Ayn Rand, in the aggregate. The outcome is commanded by nature, and so it is foolish--"intellectually lazy" as Ryan describes it--to resist it on demand. It is in this way that technical failure is modeled as technical success, and why we keep making the same mistakes, like regressing the tax burden to make the people that pay it more prosperous, over and over again.
One sure measure of success is the rate of taxation. A regressive tax burden indicates technical success if you want to be king (and technically conserves the power to stay king) since the king exacts the burden and subjects pay it. Keep in mind as well, the higher the burden (the more austerity exacted on demand to pay the debt--what the king referred to as extension of the rent), the more power technically indicated.
For a power elite, the closer the economy is to technical failure, the closer we are to technical success in the name of much-needed austerity to pay our debts and keep the king(s) (the "job creators") fully liquid and in command. The more failure (the more capital invested in credit-default swaps, for example, to extend the rent), the more success to be derived.
Today, rent is extended by consolidation of capital, which is described as free-market efficiency. Using the "demand" dimension of the marketplace, deflation (reduction of net worth, a 40 percent reduction for 99 percent of Americans as the result of the Great Recession, for example) occurs with an on-demand legitimacy and permutations of popular rule by elite authority.
Whether the objective reality is considered to be capitalist, socialist, or communist, consolidation of power (value attributed to the king in the form of taxation) is considered to be the most efficient way to limit the risk, paradoxically, by accumulating it (value to be retributed). The king (government authority) is not rendered less powerful by an accumulation of capital, but more powerful. Is this a technical failure or a technical success?
While capitalism has pluralized the possible number of would-be rulers who supposedly operate with more productive efficiency with less government, why is there so much demand for government, and higher taxes?
Limited government, remember, technically indicates a working, pluralistic model. Limited government on command does not cause freedom, it is the measurable effect on demand.
Lowering the marginal rate on command, like Romney and Ryan propose, will not reduce the demand for higher taxes. Instead, demand to tax will increase while the supply to meet demand (high profits supported by monetized debt) accumulates at the margin. The marginal rate, then, will naturally rise to meet demand. The risk of loss is fully assumed on demand despite all attempts to broaden the base and flatten the rate on command.
Since the Romney-Ryan plan is technically doomed to fail, it is necessary to invoke Rand's Aristotelian philosophy of risk. It is the latest version of conservative philosophy that posits the poor are too rich and the rich too poor because the tax rate is too progressive.
A lower marginal rate, according to conservative philosophy, makes us more productive, in fact, so productive that we have more supply, like housing, than we can demand, and the cure for that is, curiously, to be more productive.
Building more houses that consumers can't afford to buy is not the objective reality of curing shortages, understand, but deflation on demand. What is "produced" is the crisis of liquidity that private equity capitalizes on, demanding the rate of taxation be regressed to conserve the value derived from the detriment.
Voters need to understand that complex credit instruments swapped in derivatives markets are intended to deflate the economy on demand. It is a highly technical endeavor intended to make markets technically appear to be in control of our fate "on demand" by legitimate means of self-determination.
Swapping credit for risk-value in capital markets in the form of credit-default swaps, however, is not something the vast majority of voters are directly involved in. Technically, "We" are not in a position to determine the value derived in the image of the "self" as our founders envisioned it, but instead "We" are being positioned to consume the risk on command authority in the guise of the general welfare.
Securing the general welfare means controlling the macro-risk proportion--crises in the aggregate realm of technical analayses in which only the so-called "best and the brightest" are capable of managing into technical failure. The rest of us, about 99 percent of us, don't have the technical knowledge to manage the risk, and when it is a technical failure, "We" are too stupid and ignorant--or as Ryan describes it, "intellectually lazy"--to understand it for the success it really is in the realm of objective reality.
Romney and Ryan are prepared, I understand, to turn technical failure into technical success, but only if "We" let them.
No comments:
Post a Comment