While the Republican party is touting its role to now lead the way of bringing government closer to The People, the Supreme Court has given more confirmation that the corporation is a person with inalienable rights, like the right to free speech expressed through purchasing power in the media markets.
As we proceed with a clear need for bureaucratic power to cut through the stasus of bivariate politics, the corporate will be annointed with the task. Both devil and savior, it will be the continued tautology of the good and efficiently benevolent private sector versus the evil and disfunctionally malevolent public sector always looking to rob us all of our wealth.
There is nothing new about this conservative narrative turned into deliberate reality. What is new is a comedic convergence of the two parties into a bogus competition for the populist element.
The neo-conservative element, now gaining support from the highest echelon of the judiciary, is becoming the well-established standard for deviation. The old conservative way of assuaging populist sentiment with the always failed expectation of trickle-down economics is completely passe'.
Arguing that the call for a reduced budget deficit is largely a function of reduced spending, or less government, rather than the need for tax increases is recognizably old-school conservative, but independents recognize its lack of credibility.
In order to gain credibility, the conservative message has to merge with a populist message like President Obama's. His State of the Union speech tends to support the hypothesis.
The president declared amnesty for corporate bureaucrats that have engaged in a clearly criminal-like behavior. Combined with the support of the Supreme Court, this is the formula for injustice and an arrogant impunity to the extreme.
As a too-big-to-fail corporate continues to consolidate, all this government support will prove to be inimical to civil society with the civil service in Ivy-League to administer a legitimacy of power neo-conservatively transformed. The promise of both parties to bring power closer to The People will be accomplished with a corporate crush regarded as the right to self-determination with the power of The People reduced to an inalienable predestination.
Showing posts with label Bureaucratic model of power and political economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bureaucratic model of power and political economy. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Politicizing the Fed
Being a quazi-public/private technical bureaucracy, the Federal Reserve is already fully politicized.
While being both public and private is supposed to give the Fed a balanced, independent quality that achieves objective results in the interest of the general welfare, the call for re-mandating its policy agenda certainly does indicate that the benefit of its enterprise is skewed.
The Fed's power is limited to achieving maximum growth while "controlling" inflation by technically correcting the money supply; a function that is anything but apolitical.
The Fed's function, growth with low inflation, is politically indicated by priority. Jobs, Main Street's interests, will follow, or lag as an indicator of prosperity.
Inflation is controlled by command of the money supply, and especially the velocity of that supply. When money becomes consolidated, the velocity (demand) slows and unemployment occurs, controlling inflation. The sequence of events, the priority, is highly political and entails a risk (the gamma risk) that must be commanded and controlled.
Inverting the hypothesis (increased velocity therefore decreased inflation) results in crisis. So, like it is now, we continue to operate with the consolidated model to keep inflation (employment) and interest rates low to finance the recovery. The evidence, however, is that the financing is being consolidated. So, for example, China tightens credit to keep capital from leveraging into monetary expansion (inflation) without growth (stagflation). The resulting slow-to-no growth controls inflation but accumulates gamma risk (accumulating at the leveraged rate) designed to present as a tradeoff--inflation or unemployment.
Since inflation depreciates the value of the accumulated capital, maintaining unemployment, by variously circuitous technical means that cuts across all jurisdictional boundaries of government, gets priority with the Fed ultimately controlling the externalities (the gamma risk presentations like a burgeoning populist sentiment that demands a legitimacy of popular consent, something that ensuring a free-market economics in priority will provide with the risk fully applied and presented, retributed, to the source).
If it is the objective charge of the Fed to promote a purely economic agenda (what political scientists refer to as a "genuine" civil service), it is powerful beyond the means of Constitutional balance of power. That, of course, is exactly what the Federalists have always wanted--for the executive to have unchecked power. The other branches are in service, or support of that executive power.
Unchecked power is hardly apolitical. It is, rather, genuinely political with an agendae of those who stand to benefit from a more centralized, non-Jeffersonian form of government.
Federalists, favoring the Hamiltonian model of government from the top down, prefer government (the consent of the governed) enterprise only by and for the pleasure of the elite. (The justice of this logic is, of course, considering it is completely illiogical, the object of that secret knowlege conservatives have that the non-elite lack. Empirically, however, income, and the means to sufficiently accumulate it, to be in the elite class is all that is lacking, and what the Fed has always been prepared to support.) The legitimacy of power is throughly political and is fully reflected in the current debate over the function and independence of the Federal Reserve in particular and the bureaucratic model of power in general.
See the article, "The Bureaucratic Model of Power and Political Economy."
While being both public and private is supposed to give the Fed a balanced, independent quality that achieves objective results in the interest of the general welfare, the call for re-mandating its policy agenda certainly does indicate that the benefit of its enterprise is skewed.
The Fed's power is limited to achieving maximum growth while "controlling" inflation by technically correcting the money supply; a function that is anything but apolitical.
The Fed's function, growth with low inflation, is politically indicated by priority. Jobs, Main Street's interests, will follow, or lag as an indicator of prosperity.
Inflation is controlled by command of the money supply, and especially the velocity of that supply. When money becomes consolidated, the velocity (demand) slows and unemployment occurs, controlling inflation. The sequence of events, the priority, is highly political and entails a risk (the gamma risk) that must be commanded and controlled.
Inverting the hypothesis (increased velocity therefore decreased inflation) results in crisis. So, like it is now, we continue to operate with the consolidated model to keep inflation (employment) and interest rates low to finance the recovery. The evidence, however, is that the financing is being consolidated. So, for example, China tightens credit to keep capital from leveraging into monetary expansion (inflation) without growth (stagflation). The resulting slow-to-no growth controls inflation but accumulates gamma risk (accumulating at the leveraged rate) designed to present as a tradeoff--inflation or unemployment.
Since inflation depreciates the value of the accumulated capital, maintaining unemployment, by variously circuitous technical means that cuts across all jurisdictional boundaries of government, gets priority with the Fed ultimately controlling the externalities (the gamma risk presentations like a burgeoning populist sentiment that demands a legitimacy of popular consent, something that ensuring a free-market economics in priority will provide with the risk fully applied and presented, retributed, to the source).
If it is the objective charge of the Fed to promote a purely economic agenda (what political scientists refer to as a "genuine" civil service), it is powerful beyond the means of Constitutional balance of power. That, of course, is exactly what the Federalists have always wanted--for the executive to have unchecked power. The other branches are in service, or support of that executive power.
Unchecked power is hardly apolitical. It is, rather, genuinely political with an agendae of those who stand to benefit from a more centralized, non-Jeffersonian form of government.
Federalists, favoring the Hamiltonian model of government from the top down, prefer government (the consent of the governed) enterprise only by and for the pleasure of the elite. (The justice of this logic is, of course, considering it is completely illiogical, the object of that secret knowlege conservatives have that the non-elite lack. Empirically, however, income, and the means to sufficiently accumulate it, to be in the elite class is all that is lacking, and what the Fed has always been prepared to support.) The legitimacy of power is throughly political and is fully reflected in the current debate over the function and independence of the Federal Reserve in particular and the bureaucratic model of power in general.
See the article, "The Bureaucratic Model of Power and Political Economy."
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Tobin Tax
Discussion of the Tobin tax gets little discussion in U.S. pop media because, first of all, pop media outlets are controlled by a consolidated capital which proponents of the tax argue needs to be controlled.
The tax has a progressive, proportional quality because it is targeted at high finance. However, the tax also has a regressive quality because many income classes do engage in the transactions the Tobin levy proposes to tax in order to control the perils of speculative demand (the classic peril of causing liquidity crises and a deflationary trend that consolidates the capital and benefits the primary "class" of the tax's target--those who largely own the capital and apply the peril/benefit).
The tax will not solve the cause of the problem. The income necessary to demand the markets remains consolidated to command it. It is just another Keynesian-like symptomatic treatment. The revenue will be used to fund the welfare state, empowering the bureaucratic model and the elitist technocrats that run it for the power elite in the name of democracy.
The income policy necessary to actually solve the problem of algorythmic, recurrent liquidity crisis is a purely progressive tax: the higher the income, whatever the source, the higher the tax. The retributed revenue puts the "demand" back in the market quickly and easily, defeating the classic benefit of the deflationary trend to keep the capital, and power, consolidated.
The Tobin tax will be falsely sold as a progressive tax measure to falsely satisfy the need, the demand, for that measure. The tax is only "progressive" because it conforms to policies and programs of the progressive era of politics.
The progressive era represents the emergence of a new middle class of elits that aspire to the ruling class, legislating all manner of limits to liberty and raising huge tax revenues that supports their sense of an upper-class status. This cohort largely disguises themselves as "liberals."
The liberal description of progressivism is false. It is an endeavor to tyrannize society with the always-better-judgement of elite authority. It is a tendency that is inimical to a free and civil society and gives credence to the consolidation of wealth and power. It is the problem, not the solution.
The tax has a progressive, proportional quality because it is targeted at high finance. However, the tax also has a regressive quality because many income classes do engage in the transactions the Tobin levy proposes to tax in order to control the perils of speculative demand (the classic peril of causing liquidity crises and a deflationary trend that consolidates the capital and benefits the primary "class" of the tax's target--those who largely own the capital and apply the peril/benefit).
The tax will not solve the cause of the problem. The income necessary to demand the markets remains consolidated to command it. It is just another Keynesian-like symptomatic treatment. The revenue will be used to fund the welfare state, empowering the bureaucratic model and the elitist technocrats that run it for the power elite in the name of democracy.
The income policy necessary to actually solve the problem of algorythmic, recurrent liquidity crisis is a purely progressive tax: the higher the income, whatever the source, the higher the tax. The retributed revenue puts the "demand" back in the market quickly and easily, defeating the classic benefit of the deflationary trend to keep the capital, and power, consolidated.
The Tobin tax will be falsely sold as a progressive tax measure to falsely satisfy the need, the demand, for that measure. The tax is only "progressive" because it conforms to policies and programs of the progressive era of politics.
The progressive era represents the emergence of a new middle class of elits that aspire to the ruling class, legislating all manner of limits to liberty and raising huge tax revenues that supports their sense of an upper-class status. This cohort largely disguises themselves as "liberals."
The liberal description of progressivism is false. It is an endeavor to tyrannize society with the always-better-judgement of elite authority. It is a tendency that is inimical to a free and civil society and gives credence to the consolidation of wealth and power. It is the problem, not the solution.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Substitution of the Value
Assessing the value of assets requires identifying the substitution of value derived from varying sources. For example, announcement of the Obama administration for a moratorium on mountaintop removal will, if enacted as administrative law (the bureaucratic model), reveals the subsidy (the substitution of value) that gives the profits of coal companies more value than the "actual" cost imparts to the benefit. The asset of coal reserves are thus overvalued, and the rate of substitution (Pareto Optimality) is diminished. The measure of cost/benefit efficiency is rendered an inaccurate technical valuation. The subsidy trades, or substitutes, the value of coal assets for the value of alternative energy assets.
The normative value of recognizing the "real" value of the subsitution effectively reassesses the value of the assets. The subsidy is then recognized as a "market distortion" that will be an incentive to innovate the technology to remove the coal asset to recapture the subsidy (the value-added benefit that had substituted the value-subtracted cost to produce a net inefficiency that was determined to be an asset and not a liability, determining the total assessment of the value). The result is a reassessment of market value and the "natural" incentive to minimize the cost and maximize the benefit, or to optimize the economic value to everyone's benefit. The benefit is rendered more indivisible and the marginal profit more accurately measures the marginal utility.
The subsidy is normatively "bad" because it does not allow for the incentive to attribute the value of the profit margin (the measure of marginal utility) to the value of the possible alternatives: it did not allow for a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace (a pluralistic model). Instead, the subsidy is aquired, and the substitution of value maintained, by access to political process (an elitist model), and the value ultimately retributed to its source--the value of possible free-market alternatives--by administrative law (a bureaucratic model). The value is assessed by operation of a bureaucratic model of power and political economy.
Looking at the Bernanke/Geitner plan for recapitalizing the banking system, Geitner's declaration of needing the authority to seize the assets of a failing company that is too big to fail, including non-bank firms, is a declaration of bureaucratic power that counters, or technically corrects for, the critique that the market has been rigged into a tyranny of corporate power. It is substituting for the positive effect (the optimal efficiency) that would obtain if bureaucratic power were applied to ensure in priority a free-market economics in which the economy is pluralistically not dependant on the success or failure of any one small firm, but instead is dependant on a few interlocked firms that are too big to fail and, thus, dependant on bureaucratic power to survive.
Combining the elements of elitism and pluralism, the Bernanke/Geitner plan operationalizes a legitimacy of outcome (of power) that combines the value of market efficiency (pluralism) with the absolute arbitrary value of government (elitism). The synthesis, while being an ad hoc organizational measure to allow what is a failure to succeed, is the organizational technology that can be utilized to effectively ensure free-market efficiencies and the fair and accurate valuation of assets and liabilities that is, in this case, clearly lacking and critically needed.
To incentivize, or optimize the marginal utility like a free-market would, the subsidy, the substitute, of the latest plan to lure private capital to support what is too big to fail but not too big to be government controlled (absolute arbitraty value) is, predictably, entirely at the expense (the risk) of public capital and is, predictably, consistent with the bureaucratic model of power and political economy (see the article, "Restructuring the Elements of Power" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
We see, then, the contradiction to be reconciled, or to be practically applied into what central bankers call "a process of resolution." While the public dollar is imparted less value than the private sector dollar, arbitration of the value is by public authority. The absolute value of public authority is substituted for the efficiency value of free-market economics, and the subsidy (and the sub-optimization) occurs.
The distribution, or retributing, of the accumulated value (the subsidy) is a necessary condition for economic recovery and growth. Without retributing the value, the means of accumulating the value (the subsidy) is not possible. It is a necessary condition of the capital, and the more value retributed without depreciating the value of the dollar (by recapitalizing from the accumulated benefit rather than monetizing the debt with a regressive tax burden--a subsidized valuation), the more profitable firms can be and the more economic expansion that can occur.
The normative value of recognizing the "real" value of the subsitution effectively reassesses the value of the assets. The subsidy is then recognized as a "market distortion" that will be an incentive to innovate the technology to remove the coal asset to recapture the subsidy (the value-added benefit that had substituted the value-subtracted cost to produce a net inefficiency that was determined to be an asset and not a liability, determining the total assessment of the value). The result is a reassessment of market value and the "natural" incentive to minimize the cost and maximize the benefit, or to optimize the economic value to everyone's benefit. The benefit is rendered more indivisible and the marginal profit more accurately measures the marginal utility.
The subsidy is normatively "bad" because it does not allow for the incentive to attribute the value of the profit margin (the measure of marginal utility) to the value of the possible alternatives: it did not allow for a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace (a pluralistic model). Instead, the subsidy is aquired, and the substitution of value maintained, by access to political process (an elitist model), and the value ultimately retributed to its source--the value of possible free-market alternatives--by administrative law (a bureaucratic model). The value is assessed by operation of a bureaucratic model of power and political economy.
Looking at the Bernanke/Geitner plan for recapitalizing the banking system, Geitner's declaration of needing the authority to seize the assets of a failing company that is too big to fail, including non-bank firms, is a declaration of bureaucratic power that counters, or technically corrects for, the critique that the market has been rigged into a tyranny of corporate power. It is substituting for the positive effect (the optimal efficiency) that would obtain if bureaucratic power were applied to ensure in priority a free-market economics in which the economy is pluralistically not dependant on the success or failure of any one small firm, but instead is dependant on a few interlocked firms that are too big to fail and, thus, dependant on bureaucratic power to survive.
Combining the elements of elitism and pluralism, the Bernanke/Geitner plan operationalizes a legitimacy of outcome (of power) that combines the value of market efficiency (pluralism) with the absolute arbitrary value of government (elitism). The synthesis, while being an ad hoc organizational measure to allow what is a failure to succeed, is the organizational technology that can be utilized to effectively ensure free-market efficiencies and the fair and accurate valuation of assets and liabilities that is, in this case, clearly lacking and critically needed.
To incentivize, or optimize the marginal utility like a free-market would, the subsidy, the substitute, of the latest plan to lure private capital to support what is too big to fail but not too big to be government controlled (absolute arbitraty value) is, predictably, entirely at the expense (the risk) of public capital and is, predictably, consistent with the bureaucratic model of power and political economy (see the article, "Restructuring the Elements of Power" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
We see, then, the contradiction to be reconciled, or to be practically applied into what central bankers call "a process of resolution." While the public dollar is imparted less value than the private sector dollar, arbitration of the value is by public authority. The absolute value of public authority is substituted for the efficiency value of free-market economics, and the subsidy (and the sub-optimization) occurs.
The distribution, or retributing, of the accumulated value (the subsidy) is a necessary condition for economic recovery and growth. Without retributing the value, the means of accumulating the value (the subsidy) is not possible. It is a necessary condition of the capital, and the more value retributed without depreciating the value of the dollar (by recapitalizing from the accumulated benefit rather than monetizing the debt with a regressive tax burden--a subsidized valuation), the more profitable firms can be and the more economic expansion that can occur.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Public Finance and Community Power Structure
Distinct bifurcation of the public and private sectors becomes evermore blurred. While it was never a clearly defined distinction in practice, it is critical to the Hamiltonian model of power and political economy to maintain a binary system of power in theory because bivariate systems can practically operate with monolithic authority while giving the appearance of pluralistic freedom of choice--the phenomenon of false choice.
Bifurcating the power structure--a two-party system orperationalized with the organized bifurcation of the public and private sectors--provides a practical means for elitist control of the political economy with a free-market legitimacy. Where legitimacy of the outcome of one is called into question, Hamiltonians (elitists) can conveniently argue the maintenance of pluralism both in theory and practice, justifying their command and control as the operation of a pluralistically organized means of a popular consent. That consent, which is the most basic, the most natural, legitimacy of power and contained within our Constitution as the manifestation of the fundamental "natural" rights of humanity, was at first applied to limiting the power of the royal, "ruling" class and to expand the power of the business elite as the "ruling class."
The power of the King (government) is inept, wasteful and burdensome. It is to be limited to promoting the welfare of the business elite. Ensuring the welfare of the rich is fundamental to the general welfare and is the utilitarian aspect of the Hamiltonian model that gives it arguable strength, or virtue.
The phrase "some people are more equal than others" refers to the supposedly "natural," Nietzche-like superiority-of-elits argument. It does not contradict the bourgeoise argument for displacing the power of royalty, but confirms it with, paradoxically, the argument for a more pluralistic form of power. The free market, according to the argument, provides a constant format, an environment, that allows for a "natural" change of elits if necessary without bloody revolution. This "natural" selection of the fittest to rule is what the Hamiltonian concept of the "natural rights of man" largely refers to. It is the foundation of the Hamiltonian model of power and political economy and the bifurcated system of public and private sectors Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists generally favored at the inception of our nation to the very strongest objection of Jeffersonian Republicans.
We now see the people that organized, that engineered, the current economic crisis being rewarded with huge bonuses. They are not being rewarded for failure. They are being rewarded for organizing and operating within the Hamiltonian model with the "successful" result of deflating the economy and very clearly defining the class distinction of just exactly who is "more equal than others," or the ruling class.
The mostly Ivy-League educated MBA elite that have foisted our economy into the greatest crisis since The Depression are not being rewarded for failure. They are being rewarded for success and, as Hamiltonians know all too well, nature tends to replicate success, and this model for success is replicated across all jurisdictional boundaries, right down to the community level.
A significant difference between the Federalists and Republicans among equal elits was, and is, the power to issue currency for legal tender. Striving to be superior among elits is to entrepreneur your capital (your property) across jurisdictional boundaries. The bigger you are the better because it is the key to gaining power and keeping it, and controlling the money supply is as big and powerful as you can get--all of what Jeffersonians so strongly objected to. Understand, for example, that derivatives--the primary tool of MBA's to make themselves and their underwriters rich at the expense of everyone else--are a private sector expansion of the money supply, and having more money than anyone else--having the ability to command the bid--makes for more power than anyone else; hardly the model of a free-market economy. While the total GDP of the world is around $50 trillion, derivatives recently totaled over $500 trillion before becoming unwound, causing the monumental economic crisis we now have (an accumulation of wealth and consolidation of power that Jeffersonians warned of).
The 500 trillion was used to gain and consolidate the capital (the liquidity crisis we are now experiencing). Converting all that leverage into as much capital gained as possible has to come from somewhere that is considered legal tender (the official money supply), and that would explain where the $1 trillion of Federal Reserve funds reported mysteriously unaccounted for probably went--to make the value of the derivative instruments liquid. It also defines where the tax code needs to be progressed to quickly and effectively pull us out of recession with strategic reinvestment and reduction of the budget deficit.
The money supply and who controls it is at the heart of the public sector's current effort for economic recovery and reinvestment. It reverberates right down to the community level of power where states and municipals maintain the means of power--the bond and tax authority.
Since a state or municipality cannot print its money, bonds are floated, paid with the tax authority, and what we see now is, of course, all manner of regressive taxation to balance the budget.
Regressing the tax code is fundamental to the return-on-investment value of the bonds. It is antithetical to tax the people that can afford to buy the vast majority of the bonds in order to pay for them. Regressive taxation maximizes the value of the bonds to the holder and so are tax exempt, perfectly fitting the Hamiltonian model in which the "little people" pay the taxes, local government agents collect the taxes and distribute the funds to the ruling class busily legislating government projects and contracts that require floating bonds. The process takes on a decidedly feudal form.
While the regressive tax burden gives the bonds their value, the inherently elitist model of power it supports is ultimately deflationary, just as it is at the national level. The value of the regressive tax burden, the sacrifice, since it is no sacrifice for the elite of power (assuring the welfare of the rich in priority), bonds tend to be issued till the value of the bonds experience a falling rate of profit, or deflation (the inability to pay the value, or collect the tax). Not only is the bond process deflationary, but the means of public finance to support the private sector contracts (the profits) is also deflationary because it relies on regressive taxation. The public has less money to spend because it has been taxed to finance the profit and support the value of the bonds that diminish in value due to the deflationary tendency. The result is to tax the poor even more to make the rich richer: that is, to maintain the elite of power--the Hamiltonian model.
As we look to "shovel ready" projects for Federal funding we must keep in mind that it supports the Hamiltonian model that causes crisis and rewards it as "success." This is why President Obama is saying he will "call out" the agents of corrupt practices at the community level of power where the Federal government is expanding its money supply and enhancing the deflationary tendency of the tax/bond authority. Deflation is the problem to be solved here, providing the means of enhancing it is clearly not the solution.
For example, the Commonwealth of Kentucky recently legislated a huge tax increase on alcohol and tobacco. Despite that the governor was elected on a platform of not raising these taxes, of not balancing the budget with regressive tax measures, he pushed it hard and eventually got it. The incentive to commit such a blatant fraud is the "success" of working within the model of power. In the private sector this kind of fraud is a crime. In the public sector it is pragmatism with the sanction to be exacted in the voting booth. The governor and his legislative accomplices will not go to jail but will be rewarded with a firm station within the power structure, within the private sector if not public. Instead of providing for the commonwealth, the government was applied to regressively tax its citizens to finance making the elite rich, and even more ignominous, claim it to be the general welfare and falsely confirm the Hamiltonian hypothesis that the operation of government is the problem by causing the apparent evidence for it--operation of the regressive tax burden and its deflationary tendency by means of government authority.
The elite beneficiaries are not just the brick and morter contractors, real estate developers, brokers and agents, but healthcare professionals. Doctors in particular.
Kentucky's lieutenant governor is an M.D.. The chief legislative proponent for the regressive tax on tobacco, not alcohol, curiously, is an M.D.. Among the wealthiest citizens within the state are medical doctors. They every bit consider themselves to be the elite of society and should be the beneficiary of the primary means of Hamiltonian power--regressive tax policy.
Healthcare costs well exceed the rate of inflation, even with gas prices over four dollars a gallon, because the healthcare sector is feeding at the public trough, utilizing third-party billing practices to bilk the taxpayer and always needing tax increases to stay ahead of inflation that it is causing. Fat healthcare incomes factor prominently into the deflationary trend of our economy in true Hamiltonian fashion. Funding healthcare with regressive tax vehicles is entirely deflationary. Rather than reducing costs, it just provides the funds for price increases. The result is less money for the consumer to spend and small businesses to invest, a high debt-equity ratio and a cohort of wealthy doctors with the time and money to legislate big tax (income) increases.
Supposedly, the funds collected with Kentucky's new regressive tax increases will allow funding to be more available for healthcare, like the SCHIP. It is an argument non sequitor. Providing for the health and welfare is not accomplished with a regressive tax burden, by taxing the least able to pay, because it is deflationary. Even if fewer people drink and smoke, there will be the detriment of declining revenue and the need to increase taxes. It makes no sense because it is not intended to provide for the health and welfare of the citizenry, but to provide for the means of power--the regressive mode of taxation--Hamiltonianism, the fundamental source of the problem across all jurisdictional boundaries, not the solution.
Bifurcating the power structure--a two-party system orperationalized with the organized bifurcation of the public and private sectors--provides a practical means for elitist control of the political economy with a free-market legitimacy. Where legitimacy of the outcome of one is called into question, Hamiltonians (elitists) can conveniently argue the maintenance of pluralism both in theory and practice, justifying their command and control as the operation of a pluralistically organized means of a popular consent. That consent, which is the most basic, the most natural, legitimacy of power and contained within our Constitution as the manifestation of the fundamental "natural" rights of humanity, was at first applied to limiting the power of the royal, "ruling" class and to expand the power of the business elite as the "ruling class."
The power of the King (government) is inept, wasteful and burdensome. It is to be limited to promoting the welfare of the business elite. Ensuring the welfare of the rich is fundamental to the general welfare and is the utilitarian aspect of the Hamiltonian model that gives it arguable strength, or virtue.
The phrase "some people are more equal than others" refers to the supposedly "natural," Nietzche-like superiority-of-elits argument. It does not contradict the bourgeoise argument for displacing the power of royalty, but confirms it with, paradoxically, the argument for a more pluralistic form of power. The free market, according to the argument, provides a constant format, an environment, that allows for a "natural" change of elits if necessary without bloody revolution. This "natural" selection of the fittest to rule is what the Hamiltonian concept of the "natural rights of man" largely refers to. It is the foundation of the Hamiltonian model of power and political economy and the bifurcated system of public and private sectors Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists generally favored at the inception of our nation to the very strongest objection of Jeffersonian Republicans.
We now see the people that organized, that engineered, the current economic crisis being rewarded with huge bonuses. They are not being rewarded for failure. They are being rewarded for organizing and operating within the Hamiltonian model with the "successful" result of deflating the economy and very clearly defining the class distinction of just exactly who is "more equal than others," or the ruling class.
The mostly Ivy-League educated MBA elite that have foisted our economy into the greatest crisis since The Depression are not being rewarded for failure. They are being rewarded for success and, as Hamiltonians know all too well, nature tends to replicate success, and this model for success is replicated across all jurisdictional boundaries, right down to the community level.
A significant difference between the Federalists and Republicans among equal elits was, and is, the power to issue currency for legal tender. Striving to be superior among elits is to entrepreneur your capital (your property) across jurisdictional boundaries. The bigger you are the better because it is the key to gaining power and keeping it, and controlling the money supply is as big and powerful as you can get--all of what Jeffersonians so strongly objected to. Understand, for example, that derivatives--the primary tool of MBA's to make themselves and their underwriters rich at the expense of everyone else--are a private sector expansion of the money supply, and having more money than anyone else--having the ability to command the bid--makes for more power than anyone else; hardly the model of a free-market economy. While the total GDP of the world is around $50 trillion, derivatives recently totaled over $500 trillion before becoming unwound, causing the monumental economic crisis we now have (an accumulation of wealth and consolidation of power that Jeffersonians warned of).
The 500 trillion was used to gain and consolidate the capital (the liquidity crisis we are now experiencing). Converting all that leverage into as much capital gained as possible has to come from somewhere that is considered legal tender (the official money supply), and that would explain where the $1 trillion of Federal Reserve funds reported mysteriously unaccounted for probably went--to make the value of the derivative instruments liquid. It also defines where the tax code needs to be progressed to quickly and effectively pull us out of recession with strategic reinvestment and reduction of the budget deficit.
The money supply and who controls it is at the heart of the public sector's current effort for economic recovery and reinvestment. It reverberates right down to the community level of power where states and municipals maintain the means of power--the bond and tax authority.
Since a state or municipality cannot print its money, bonds are floated, paid with the tax authority, and what we see now is, of course, all manner of regressive taxation to balance the budget.
Regressing the tax code is fundamental to the return-on-investment value of the bonds. It is antithetical to tax the people that can afford to buy the vast majority of the bonds in order to pay for them. Regressive taxation maximizes the value of the bonds to the holder and so are tax exempt, perfectly fitting the Hamiltonian model in which the "little people" pay the taxes, local government agents collect the taxes and distribute the funds to the ruling class busily legislating government projects and contracts that require floating bonds. The process takes on a decidedly feudal form.
While the regressive tax burden gives the bonds their value, the inherently elitist model of power it supports is ultimately deflationary, just as it is at the national level. The value of the regressive tax burden, the sacrifice, since it is no sacrifice for the elite of power (assuring the welfare of the rich in priority), bonds tend to be issued till the value of the bonds experience a falling rate of profit, or deflation (the inability to pay the value, or collect the tax). Not only is the bond process deflationary, but the means of public finance to support the private sector contracts (the profits) is also deflationary because it relies on regressive taxation. The public has less money to spend because it has been taxed to finance the profit and support the value of the bonds that diminish in value due to the deflationary tendency. The result is to tax the poor even more to make the rich richer: that is, to maintain the elite of power--the Hamiltonian model.
As we look to "shovel ready" projects for Federal funding we must keep in mind that it supports the Hamiltonian model that causes crisis and rewards it as "success." This is why President Obama is saying he will "call out" the agents of corrupt practices at the community level of power where the Federal government is expanding its money supply and enhancing the deflationary tendency of the tax/bond authority. Deflation is the problem to be solved here, providing the means of enhancing it is clearly not the solution.
For example, the Commonwealth of Kentucky recently legislated a huge tax increase on alcohol and tobacco. Despite that the governor was elected on a platform of not raising these taxes, of not balancing the budget with regressive tax measures, he pushed it hard and eventually got it. The incentive to commit such a blatant fraud is the "success" of working within the model of power. In the private sector this kind of fraud is a crime. In the public sector it is pragmatism with the sanction to be exacted in the voting booth. The governor and his legislative accomplices will not go to jail but will be rewarded with a firm station within the power structure, within the private sector if not public. Instead of providing for the commonwealth, the government was applied to regressively tax its citizens to finance making the elite rich, and even more ignominous, claim it to be the general welfare and falsely confirm the Hamiltonian hypothesis that the operation of government is the problem by causing the apparent evidence for it--operation of the regressive tax burden and its deflationary tendency by means of government authority.
The elite beneficiaries are not just the brick and morter contractors, real estate developers, brokers and agents, but healthcare professionals. Doctors in particular.
Kentucky's lieutenant governor is an M.D.. The chief legislative proponent for the regressive tax on tobacco, not alcohol, curiously, is an M.D.. Among the wealthiest citizens within the state are medical doctors. They every bit consider themselves to be the elite of society and should be the beneficiary of the primary means of Hamiltonian power--regressive tax policy.
Healthcare costs well exceed the rate of inflation, even with gas prices over four dollars a gallon, because the healthcare sector is feeding at the public trough, utilizing third-party billing practices to bilk the taxpayer and always needing tax increases to stay ahead of inflation that it is causing. Fat healthcare incomes factor prominently into the deflationary trend of our economy in true Hamiltonian fashion. Funding healthcare with regressive tax vehicles is entirely deflationary. Rather than reducing costs, it just provides the funds for price increases. The result is less money for the consumer to spend and small businesses to invest, a high debt-equity ratio and a cohort of wealthy doctors with the time and money to legislate big tax (income) increases.
Supposedly, the funds collected with Kentucky's new regressive tax increases will allow funding to be more available for healthcare, like the SCHIP. It is an argument non sequitor. Providing for the health and welfare is not accomplished with a regressive tax burden, by taxing the least able to pay, because it is deflationary. Even if fewer people drink and smoke, there will be the detriment of declining revenue and the need to increase taxes. It makes no sense because it is not intended to provide for the health and welfare of the citizenry, but to provide for the means of power--the regressive mode of taxation--Hamiltonianism, the fundamental source of the problem across all jurisdictional boundaries, not the solution.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Function of Crisis and Bailout
Interlocking the Directorate
The financial crisis and the bailout functions to organize a directorate that is otherwise illegal to avoid the tyranny of command economy.
Interclocking directorates is illegal because it is fundamentally anithtetical to democracy and a free-market economy, but is argued to be a necessary condition in theory and practice so that The People will not suffer tyranny by ensuring its organized practice.
The People are too sophisticated for this hoax!
The bailout money--the TARP--had no legislative directive because that would be socialism. The effect is to interlock the directorates in the private administration of power with the legitimacy of public authority. The difference is that the private administration will tend not to produce results that are favorable to The People, like ensuring a free market will, but to administer their exploitation in their self-interest by bureaucratic directive--by command.
Not using the bailout funds to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in which The People are in command will result in forcing the legitimacy of the socialist alternative.
If you do not want socialism, do not organize the political economy as it is being organized now with the crisis-management funding from the top down.
The more consolidated the capital becomes, the more probable the switch to a socialist administration of the state and capital from the top down--a confirmed command economy.
McCain's economic plan will continue the consolidation of capital that causes crisis and the need for command and control. It is the elitist model of power that will not empower Joe Six Pack, but enslave him to the arbitrations of a bureaucratic command elit whether organized for state capitalism or state socialism.
Top-down legitimacy for the administration of power is always subject to an illegitimate administering and is not easily accounted for or made accountable. Isn't that the neo-conservative plan?
It is possible to secure the ends of freedom by ensuring its means.
Obama/Biden 2008!
The financial crisis and the bailout functions to organize a directorate that is otherwise illegal to avoid the tyranny of command economy.
Interclocking directorates is illegal because it is fundamentally anithtetical to democracy and a free-market economy, but is argued to be a necessary condition in theory and practice so that The People will not suffer tyranny by ensuring its organized practice.
The People are too sophisticated for this hoax!
The bailout money--the TARP--had no legislative directive because that would be socialism. The effect is to interlock the directorates in the private administration of power with the legitimacy of public authority. The difference is that the private administration will tend not to produce results that are favorable to The People, like ensuring a free market will, but to administer their exploitation in their self-interest by bureaucratic directive--by command.
Not using the bailout funds to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in which The People are in command will result in forcing the legitimacy of the socialist alternative.
If you do not want socialism, do not organize the political economy as it is being organized now with the crisis-management funding from the top down.
The more consolidated the capital becomes, the more probable the switch to a socialist administration of the state and capital from the top down--a confirmed command economy.
McCain's economic plan will continue the consolidation of capital that causes crisis and the need for command and control. It is the elitist model of power that will not empower Joe Six Pack, but enslave him to the arbitrations of a bureaucratic command elit whether organized for state capitalism or state socialism.
Top-down legitimacy for the administration of power is always subject to an illegitimate administering and is not easily accounted for or made accountable. Isn't that the neo-conservative plan?
It is possible to secure the ends of freedom by ensuring its means.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Economy of Innovation
President Bush says that regulatory reform of the financial sector should allow for innovation. The general suggestion is that regulation of industry and markets stifles innovation, including financials.
That is incorrect.
First, innovation is likely to occur where the capital is, and if the capital is allowed to concentrate as much as it is (not spreading the wealth around), then innovative ways to produce profit without growth are assured, has occured, and has resulted in general crisis.
Innovative ways to prevent crisis (optimal investment), instead of causing crisis, requires spreading the wealth around, or deconsolidating the capital.
Regulation can also produce innovation to control externalities, like pollution. Unfortunately, the capital is so consolidated, the innovation is resisted, considered a cost, not a benefit, so it suffers deficient investment (economic growth) and tends to be exported along with the jobs associated with it.
Neo-conservatives opt to keep the regulatory authority proactively cooperative, acquiescent, and a sycophantic satrapy organized to give the abuses of consolidated power the legitimacy of public authority, and to reactively manage the risk, the cost, to a minimum.
For the financial sector, the lack of regulatory authority produced negative innovations that are now being dealt with as negative externalities to be crisis-managed by the regulatory authority.
The negative externalities are the product of extreme misfeasance if not malfeasance of a public/private power structure called "The Iron Triangle." It is the bureaucratic model of power and political economy and it yielded a competence for corruption because its power is so huge and concentrated (non-pluralistic). The result is a systematic, structural, failure not seen since the Great Depression.
There is no reason to believe switching this bureaucratic form of power to a socialist legitimacy will be any less corrupt, and here is where the conservative rhetoric is focused to instill fear, loathing, and logical fallacy.
What needs to be innovative about the financial sector?
Innovative ways to lure consolidated capital out of its horded haunts yields crisis. We have incontrovertible empirical proof of that by living it now, but McCain still wants us to "believe" that innovation of leverage finance, encouraging it with a highly regressive tax code, will "create wealth." No, it creates crisis!
According to McCain, and what has proven to be a greedy, malfeasant, neo-conservative cohort, ensuring a very clear means of verifying class distinction drives productivity, innovation, and wealth. The argument is that if we do not subsidize the rich to stay rich, by not spreading the wealth around, we will suffer the effects of socialism--low productivity.
Policies and programs that encourage innovation of financial instruments yields low productivity and economic growth with the empirical proof of the current crisis. The employment we have had has been mostly to confirm ensuring class society of rich and poor so that we will be productive by exporting our good paying non-service jobs. A service economy, that is, an economy of servitude was created. Being assured A 2.50 an hour job serving food is not the model of innovative financing that assures creating the wealth. What it does assure is consolidation of the wealth and a workforce structurally enslaved to serve it up.
Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin... NO THANKS!
We need our financial sector to very simply finance innovation of productivity in the marketplace. If the talent we have now--greedy, self-involved, incapable of seeing past their self-interest and the consciousness of their class--cannot identify the entrepreneurial talent that will pluralize the marketplace and cause productive capacity, full employment and low inflation, then let's get those that will, and we know all too well that will not be the party of McCain and neo-conservatives.
That is incorrect.
First, innovation is likely to occur where the capital is, and if the capital is allowed to concentrate as much as it is (not spreading the wealth around), then innovative ways to produce profit without growth are assured, has occured, and has resulted in general crisis.
Innovative ways to prevent crisis (optimal investment), instead of causing crisis, requires spreading the wealth around, or deconsolidating the capital.
Regulation can also produce innovation to control externalities, like pollution. Unfortunately, the capital is so consolidated, the innovation is resisted, considered a cost, not a benefit, so it suffers deficient investment (economic growth) and tends to be exported along with the jobs associated with it.
Neo-conservatives opt to keep the regulatory authority proactively cooperative, acquiescent, and a sycophantic satrapy organized to give the abuses of consolidated power the legitimacy of public authority, and to reactively manage the risk, the cost, to a minimum.
For the financial sector, the lack of regulatory authority produced negative innovations that are now being dealt with as negative externalities to be crisis-managed by the regulatory authority.
The negative externalities are the product of extreme misfeasance if not malfeasance of a public/private power structure called "The Iron Triangle." It is the bureaucratic model of power and political economy and it yielded a competence for corruption because its power is so huge and concentrated (non-pluralistic). The result is a systematic, structural, failure not seen since the Great Depression.
There is no reason to believe switching this bureaucratic form of power to a socialist legitimacy will be any less corrupt, and here is where the conservative rhetoric is focused to instill fear, loathing, and logical fallacy.
What needs to be innovative about the financial sector?
Innovative ways to lure consolidated capital out of its horded haunts yields crisis. We have incontrovertible empirical proof of that by living it now, but McCain still wants us to "believe" that innovation of leverage finance, encouraging it with a highly regressive tax code, will "create wealth." No, it creates crisis!
According to McCain, and what has proven to be a greedy, malfeasant, neo-conservative cohort, ensuring a very clear means of verifying class distinction drives productivity, innovation, and wealth. The argument is that if we do not subsidize the rich to stay rich, by not spreading the wealth around, we will suffer the effects of socialism--low productivity.
Policies and programs that encourage innovation of financial instruments yields low productivity and economic growth with the empirical proof of the current crisis. The employment we have had has been mostly to confirm ensuring class society of rich and poor so that we will be productive by exporting our good paying non-service jobs. A service economy, that is, an economy of servitude was created. Being assured A 2.50 an hour job serving food is not the model of innovative financing that assures creating the wealth. What it does assure is consolidation of the wealth and a workforce structurally enslaved to serve it up.
Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin... NO THANKS!
We need our financial sector to very simply finance innovation of productivity in the marketplace. If the talent we have now--greedy, self-involved, incapable of seeing past their self-interest and the consciousness of their class--cannot identify the entrepreneurial talent that will pluralize the marketplace and cause productive capacity, full employment and low inflation, then let's get those that will, and we know all too well that will not be the party of McCain and neo-conservatives.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Investing the Talent
Organizing for Economic Growth
There is some indication that technocrats are having to admit that economic growth correlated with organizational size and efficiency means that the financial sector should be encouraged to consist of small firms.
The grudging implication is that a proper, fair, and efficient action plan for economic stabilization may be to invest a competitive multiplicity of the matketplace, or switching to a more pluralistic practical model.
That is very wise and will yield quick, strong-positive results for everyone.
The allowed consolidation of industry, markets and capital meant that most of the entrepreneurial, MBA, talent that our many business schools graduate have been employed to wreck our economy because that is where the money, the capital, is. It is very clearly, overwhelmingly, the model of inefficiency and has not only brought the world economy to the brink of collapse, but has questioned the practicality of the very fundamentals of power, making the risk too high to merely temporize the way to recovery with what obviously does not work.
Instead of entrepreneuring innovative leverage schemes to magnify the profits of a consolidated capital, our highly educated and innovative talent may be utilized to engineer, organize, for maximum growth and employment with minimum inflation.
Instead of organizing for the instability of providing for the least number of people by depriving the greatest number of The People, we will be organizing for the General Welfare.
The bureaucracy does not have to operate to apply the dictates of an elite ruling class. It can "choose" to apply the welfare of The People.
The interest of the self can be perfectly correlated with the collective will and wisdom of The People.
Rather than being slaves to our passions and emotions, greed becomes fufillment, fear is turned into confidence, and loathing is the object of freedom denied.
Very best wishes.
There is some indication that technocrats are having to admit that economic growth correlated with organizational size and efficiency means that the financial sector should be encouraged to consist of small firms.
The grudging implication is that a proper, fair, and efficient action plan for economic stabilization may be to invest a competitive multiplicity of the matketplace, or switching to a more pluralistic practical model.
That is very wise and will yield quick, strong-positive results for everyone.
The allowed consolidation of industry, markets and capital meant that most of the entrepreneurial, MBA, talent that our many business schools graduate have been employed to wreck our economy because that is where the money, the capital, is. It is very clearly, overwhelmingly, the model of inefficiency and has not only brought the world economy to the brink of collapse, but has questioned the practicality of the very fundamentals of power, making the risk too high to merely temporize the way to recovery with what obviously does not work.
Instead of entrepreneuring innovative leverage schemes to magnify the profits of a consolidated capital, our highly educated and innovative talent may be utilized to engineer, organize, for maximum growth and employment with minimum inflation.
Instead of organizing for the instability of providing for the least number of people by depriving the greatest number of The People, we will be organizing for the General Welfare.
The bureaucracy does not have to operate to apply the dictates of an elite ruling class. It can "choose" to apply the welfare of The People.
The interest of the self can be perfectly correlated with the collective will and wisdom of The People.
Rather than being slaves to our passions and emotions, greed becomes fufillment, fear is turned into confidence, and loathing is the object of freedom denied.
Very best wishes.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Passive Investor
Bush, Paulson and company, and that includes John McCain in that company, say that the government's passive investment in the critically decisive economic sector of finance is not a long term commitment.
The rhetoric is laughable. Validation of a system of finance with a commitment to returning it to its former condition as soon as we are out of the crisis it creates is an absolute farce! Should we laugh or cry with this deliberate ignorance, avoidance, of the empirical method of verifiable hypothesis?
The trickle-down hypothesis and the consolidation of wealth into organized entities too big to fail does not even remotely resemble the free-market capitalism these neo-conservatives say works by, not allowing for it.
One very famous classical economist said that the farcical contradictions of capitalism will indicate change to a socialist legitimacy of government--a switch from state capitalism (not a free market) to state socialism (not a free market). In both cases the critical element of freedom is compromised for the greater good, the General Welfare.
For those that think socialism cannot happen because consolidated capital is too powerful, we see very clearly the strong tendency for consolidated power to switch its legitimacy to maintain a bureaucratic relevance to its clientele in order to survive. This is the bureaucratic model of power combined with the task of administering the political economy (the capital).
Empowering the bureaucracy with the primary task of ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, of keeping the means of power unconsolidated, is an easily testable, verified, hypothesis and a practical alternative to the other two classical alternatives that we erroneously think is the inevitable fate of our freedom.
Considering that details of the buy-in Action Plan do not exclude the possibility of the taxpayer paying the shareholders a dividend by determination of its directors, effectively paying the corporate to receive the bail-out money, and that the decision would not include the government, The People, as passive investor, effectively suggests Hamiltonianism isn't dead yet. If the legitimacy of the socialist solution can be corrupted, this is exactly where it would start, by directive.
The rhetoric is laughable. Validation of a system of finance with a commitment to returning it to its former condition as soon as we are out of the crisis it creates is an absolute farce! Should we laugh or cry with this deliberate ignorance, avoidance, of the empirical method of verifiable hypothesis?
The trickle-down hypothesis and the consolidation of wealth into organized entities too big to fail does not even remotely resemble the free-market capitalism these neo-conservatives say works by, not allowing for it.
One very famous classical economist said that the farcical contradictions of capitalism will indicate change to a socialist legitimacy of government--a switch from state capitalism (not a free market) to state socialism (not a free market). In both cases the critical element of freedom is compromised for the greater good, the General Welfare.
For those that think socialism cannot happen because consolidated capital is too powerful, we see very clearly the strong tendency for consolidated power to switch its legitimacy to maintain a bureaucratic relevance to its clientele in order to survive. This is the bureaucratic model of power combined with the task of administering the political economy (the capital).
Empowering the bureaucracy with the primary task of ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, of keeping the means of power unconsolidated, is an easily testable, verified, hypothesis and a practical alternative to the other two classical alternatives that we erroneously think is the inevitable fate of our freedom.
Considering that details of the buy-in Action Plan do not exclude the possibility of the taxpayer paying the shareholders a dividend by determination of its directors, effectively paying the corporate to receive the bail-out money, and that the decision would not include the government, The People, as passive investor, effectively suggests Hamiltonianism isn't dead yet. If the legitimacy of the socialist solution can be corrupted, this is exactly where it would start, by directive.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Getting the Credit That You Need
This is the stated goal of the technocrats using the neo-classical tools of economics to rescue us from crisis so that we will be anchored-in, relieved, with a classical outcome that has accomplished consolidatation of the wealth without The People starving massively in the streets.
Moving up from here will be considered a technical success of the bureacratic model of power and political economy to control the retributive value that must be paid at some time.
If the trend to repay the accumulation of the retributive value with the consolidation of wealth and power does not have to be paid in the short term (realizing a small loss to falsely justify a gigantic gain as the collective will), the probability that it will be allowed to accumulate long is likely.
Counter-party risk still abounds in the credit markets. It is a function of confidence which is an emotion, not a property of reason and logic, but rhetorical ruse--a con game. All you have to do is get a person to "believe" you are not lying, cheating and stealing, then lie to them, cheat them, and steal from them, then repeat the cycle.
We need a confidence built on a system of finance that structurally warrants the trust of The People. That is a free and unconsolidated marketplace in which the righteous are rewarded with profit, and the unrighteous sanctioned with failure; a structure orgainzed so that "too big to fail" (economy of scale) does not determine the success of worst practices, but cultivates, teaches, the discipline, the virtue, the strength, the assured succes, of the best practices--of doing the right thing.
It is not impossible to organize an economy that minimizes the possibility for corrupt practices. That would not be a consolidated model of capitalism or the socialism it causes. No. That would be the deliberate, self-determination of establishing and maintaining a deconsolidation of power, democratic processes, in priority. That would be to establish and maintain a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority through the political will, the collective wisdom and action, of The People, so that we may enjoy the fruit of life by ensuring that it will be fruitful, and to be assured it may be enjoyed in peace.
That begins with a vote for Obama/Biden.
Beware of the purported benefit of top-down coordinated efforts of central bankers to manage the current crisis favorable to you. No, the measures that are most favorable to The People are from the bottom up, by empowering The People with ensuring pluralistic processes. Again, that is a vote for Obama/Biden.
Economies of scale that are only marginally competitive at the global level have, and will continue to be, an empirical failure! This top-down (trickle-down) management of economy is not worth defending unless, of course, you are rich and powerful. or rely on the largesse of the rich and powerful to finance your argumentation.
Getting the credit you need will not be from the top down. Relying on the central bankers to provide the credit you need IS THE PROBLEM, not the solution! Each nation is capable of organizing out of this crisis from the bottom up. Global, top-down management just temporizes the effects of the crisis for it to cycle around and make The People suffer the deprivations of consolidated capitalism another day.
This is not a matter of getting money flowing again from the top down. Doing that is a confirmed failure! Investing form the bottom up will organize the success, the virtue, of power that is the free and full self-determination of The People: a global economy organized from the bottom up in which getting the credit you need is assured in priority, by operation of your self-determination, by being posessed, not dispossessed by the dictates of a powerful few from the top down.
The credit you need will be possessed in priority to finance the success of the righteous in a free and unconsolidated marketplace in your community, in your nation, in the world!
Just do it!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Moving up from here will be considered a technical success of the bureacratic model of power and political economy to control the retributive value that must be paid at some time.
If the trend to repay the accumulation of the retributive value with the consolidation of wealth and power does not have to be paid in the short term (realizing a small loss to falsely justify a gigantic gain as the collective will), the probability that it will be allowed to accumulate long is likely.
Counter-party risk still abounds in the credit markets. It is a function of confidence which is an emotion, not a property of reason and logic, but rhetorical ruse--a con game. All you have to do is get a person to "believe" you are not lying, cheating and stealing, then lie to them, cheat them, and steal from them, then repeat the cycle.
We need a confidence built on a system of finance that structurally warrants the trust of The People. That is a free and unconsolidated marketplace in which the righteous are rewarded with profit, and the unrighteous sanctioned with failure; a structure orgainzed so that "too big to fail" (economy of scale) does not determine the success of worst practices, but cultivates, teaches, the discipline, the virtue, the strength, the assured succes, of the best practices--of doing the right thing.
It is not impossible to organize an economy that minimizes the possibility for corrupt practices. That would not be a consolidated model of capitalism or the socialism it causes. No. That would be the deliberate, self-determination of establishing and maintaining a deconsolidation of power, democratic processes, in priority. That would be to establish and maintain a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority through the political will, the collective wisdom and action, of The People, so that we may enjoy the fruit of life by ensuring that it will be fruitful, and to be assured it may be enjoyed in peace.
That begins with a vote for Obama/Biden.
Beware of the purported benefit of top-down coordinated efforts of central bankers to manage the current crisis favorable to you. No, the measures that are most favorable to The People are from the bottom up, by empowering The People with ensuring pluralistic processes. Again, that is a vote for Obama/Biden.
Economies of scale that are only marginally competitive at the global level have, and will continue to be, an empirical failure! This top-down (trickle-down) management of economy is not worth defending unless, of course, you are rich and powerful. or rely on the largesse of the rich and powerful to finance your argumentation.
Getting the credit you need will not be from the top down. Relying on the central bankers to provide the credit you need IS THE PROBLEM, not the solution! Each nation is capable of organizing out of this crisis from the bottom up. Global, top-down management just temporizes the effects of the crisis for it to cycle around and make The People suffer the deprivations of consolidated capitalism another day.
This is not a matter of getting money flowing again from the top down. Doing that is a confirmed failure! Investing form the bottom up will organize the success, the virtue, of power that is the free and full self-determination of The People: a global economy organized from the bottom up in which getting the credit you need is assured in priority, by operation of your self-determination, by being posessed, not dispossessed by the dictates of a powerful few from the top down.
The credit you need will be possessed in priority to finance the success of the righteous in a free and unconsolidated marketplace in your community, in your nation, in the world!
Just do it!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
One World Order
Centralized Planning and Political Economy: Confirming the Bureaucratic Model of Power
Coordination of central banks to restore confidence, liquidity, to financial markets in reaction to the current economic crisis confirms the Bureaucratic Model of Power and Political Economy on a global scale.
The ruling class is now fully in control and unaccountable as supra-sovereign.
The neo-conservative agenda has been accomplished.
Centralized planning and control does not lead to freedom. It is tyranny!
The trend for continuous consolidation of capital and power is inimical to a civil society. It must be reversed.
Let freedom reign!
Coordination of central banks to restore confidence, liquidity, to financial markets in reaction to the current economic crisis confirms the Bureaucratic Model of Power and Political Economy on a global scale.
The ruling class is now fully in control and unaccountable as supra-sovereign.
The neo-conservative agenda has been accomplished.
Centralized planning and control does not lead to freedom. It is tyranny!
The trend for continuous consolidation of capital and power is inimical to a civil society. It must be reversed.
Let freedom reign!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Reinventing the Problem
The Fed and Treasury chiefs recommended to the House Financial Services Committee today a reinvention of the financial regulatory system.
While no insurance company will insure a house that is on fire, that's more or less what's going on here, and does absolutely nothing to address the cause of the problem.
Rather than suggesting there be assurance that we do not have a consolidated and collusive financial marketplace that results in firms too big to allow to fail, Bernanke says, rather, "new tools are needed for ensuring an orderly liquidation of a systemically important securities firm that is on the verge of bankruptcy, together with a more formal process for deciding when to use those tools." (AP)
So instead of ensuring a failed financial institution cannot be "critical" in a non-collusive, pluralisitic, free market environment of relative safety, we are going to ensure the means for a critical failure with "an orderly liquidation" and "a more formal process" that gives it the legitimacy of public authority--or ensuring a Hamiltonian model, which is the problem reinvented, not the solution.
No. These people are not stupid. They are corrupt!
This is not public service. It is self-service using good offices with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
Get the neo-conservatives out!
Vote Obama, 2008!
Very best wishes.
While no insurance company will insure a house that is on fire, that's more or less what's going on here, and does absolutely nothing to address the cause of the problem.
Rather than suggesting there be assurance that we do not have a consolidated and collusive financial marketplace that results in firms too big to allow to fail, Bernanke says, rather, "new tools are needed for ensuring an orderly liquidation of a systemically important securities firm that is on the verge of bankruptcy, together with a more formal process for deciding when to use those tools." (AP)
So instead of ensuring a failed financial institution cannot be "critical" in a non-collusive, pluralisitic, free market environment of relative safety, we are going to ensure the means for a critical failure with "an orderly liquidation" and "a more formal process" that gives it the legitimacy of public authority--or ensuring a Hamiltonian model, which is the problem reinvented, not the solution.
No. These people are not stupid. They are corrupt!
This is not public service. It is self-service using good offices with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
Get the neo-conservatives out!
Vote Obama, 2008!
Very best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)