The conservative criticism of Obama's message and the fear of a socialist sentiment is a legitimate concern related to the promise of freedom in which We are ALL Constitutionally endowed.
To brand Obama as a socialist is ridiculous. Unlike his predecessor, and would-be successor, when he swears to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States it will not be to antithetically administer the command and control of a power elite.
Socialism is a consolidated conceptual model of government. It is an elitist model of power and political economy in which an elite decide what is to be produced, the quantity, the quality, the price, who is to produce it and the value, the compensation, of the producers, including the management. It is a command economy.
The elite of our consolidated capitalism, of our command economy, decide whether we produce expensive homes and yachts and other class commodities while the rest of the world goes without the basic needs. The higher value is supposed to, in theory, trickle down to provide for the general welfare by deciding who and what has the most value in service to it, and by force of the argument, what is not provided for, by command of the bid on the price, is the best approximation of what the general welfare is.
Like Obama says, this economic theory is a very clear failure. The trickle-down hypothesis is disconfirmed by the brutal force of the evidence. If We do not throw it out to test a new hypothesis (the obvious alternative being to finance a pluralistic economic model--what a model of consolidated power is not and what our Constitution is designed to prevent), then We The People must be entirely stupid, and stupid We are not!
We are a creative, innovative, pragmatic, highly productive people. Relying on the leadership of McCain and company just condemns us to the failed model and legitimacy of the past.
Arguing we should conserve the model we have now to ensure a self-determined fate that is clearly not our own, now that's stupid!
The People are sovereign.
Let The Will of the People rule.
Let freedom reign!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Showing posts with label election 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election 2008. Show all posts
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Simple and Direct
A politician you can trust is simple, direct, and empirical.
Senator Obama says the crisis we are in is no accident. "It is the direct result of a failed economic theory." It is a political statement that does not rely on soliciting the confidence of a sophisticated rhetoric to be believed in or not, but simply relies on the empirical confidence that can only compel a person's trust.
This simple, direct, empirical speech, "my friends," condemns ideology to the dustbin of failed beliefs and expectations.
It's time for the means to real freedom, to real prosperity, to a real creative, entrepreneurial spirit that is not defined by being in servitude to the conceits of others, but the fulfillment of the self, actualized in the pursuit of the good life. It is time for the political will to allow it to happen.
The People are already standing in line to make it happen!
The utility of providing the rich with all the capital they want, the poor with what they then need, and being stuck with the bill in the middle, is spent. It is passe'. It's time to move on.
Sharing the burden to fully Provide for the General Welfare will not rob the rich of their success, "my friends," but allow for the success of The People's wise beneficence and productive providence to have the full effect of a peaceful prosperity.
The line is long to cast the vote for change we need!
Obama/Biden, and David Boswell, U.S. House for the 2nd District of Kentucky!
David Boswell will not sell your jobs to the highest bidder and leave you with a huge tax bill to pay the employer for a job. He will not put your jobs on a boat to China! Republican Bret Guthrie will!!
Senator Obama says the crisis we are in is no accident. "It is the direct result of a failed economic theory." It is a political statement that does not rely on soliciting the confidence of a sophisticated rhetoric to be believed in or not, but simply relies on the empirical confidence that can only compel a person's trust.
This simple, direct, empirical speech, "my friends," condemns ideology to the dustbin of failed beliefs and expectations.
It's time for the means to real freedom, to real prosperity, to a real creative, entrepreneurial spirit that is not defined by being in servitude to the conceits of others, but the fulfillment of the self, actualized in the pursuit of the good life. It is time for the political will to allow it to happen.
The People are already standing in line to make it happen!
The utility of providing the rich with all the capital they want, the poor with what they then need, and being stuck with the bill in the middle, is spent. It is passe'. It's time to move on.
Sharing the burden to fully Provide for the General Welfare will not rob the rich of their success, "my friends," but allow for the success of The People's wise beneficence and productive providence to have the full effect of a peaceful prosperity.
The line is long to cast the vote for change we need!
Obama/Biden, and David Boswell, U.S. House for the 2nd District of Kentucky!
David Boswell will not sell your jobs to the highest bidder and leave you with a huge tax bill to pay the employer for a job. He will not put your jobs on a boat to China! Republican Bret Guthrie will!!
A Vote for Productive Incentive
We hear candidate McCain argue that Obama's economic policy will deprive The People of productive incentive.
It is the classic conservative argument that productive incentive comes from the top down, from the managerial skill of organizing, or "factoring" resources to provide what we want and need. A progressive tax code, they argue, renders the capital necessary for factoring unproductive because it does not have the full capacity of the return on investment. It therefore will not be optimally invested.
Furthermore, they argue, a regressive tax code is only necessary to support the needless operation of government regulatory authority and wasteful welfare programs. The conclusion is that taxation is a non-productive incentive and should be minimized if not eliminated.
According to the conservative argument, a federal government was founded to ensure the sovereignty of The People; that is, to ensure eliminating the non-productive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth. The best way to provide society with what it wants and needs is to deconsolidate power and constitutionally endow The People with organizing its means.
That is exactly what Obama's economic plan will do: diminish the verified unproductive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth.
It is exactly what McCain's economic plan will not do: provide the means of The People the productive incentive, the opportunity, to provide what we want and need; what allowing for the consolidation of the capital will not verifiably do without punctuated periods of deprivational crisis like we have now.
If you want to vote for sure means of deprivcation and a non-productive incentive of the capital, vote for McCain.
If you want to ensure the free flow of capital and the maximum productive incentive that comes with it, vote for Obama/Biden.
It is the classic conservative argument that productive incentive comes from the top down, from the managerial skill of organizing, or "factoring" resources to provide what we want and need. A progressive tax code, they argue, renders the capital necessary for factoring unproductive because it does not have the full capacity of the return on investment. It therefore will not be optimally invested.
Furthermore, they argue, a regressive tax code is only necessary to support the needless operation of government regulatory authority and wasteful welfare programs. The conclusion is that taxation is a non-productive incentive and should be minimized if not eliminated.
According to the conservative argument, a federal government was founded to ensure the sovereignty of The People; that is, to ensure eliminating the non-productive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth. The best way to provide society with what it wants and needs is to deconsolidate power and constitutionally endow The People with organizing its means.
That is exactly what Obama's economic plan will do: diminish the verified unproductive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth.
It is exactly what McCain's economic plan will not do: provide the means of The People the productive incentive, the opportunity, to provide what we want and need; what allowing for the consolidation of the capital will not verifiably do without punctuated periods of deprivational crisis like we have now.
If you want to vote for sure means of deprivcation and a non-productive incentive of the capital, vote for McCain.
If you want to ensure the free flow of capital and the maximum productive incentive that comes with it, vote for Obama/Biden.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Support and Resistance
If you trade equities, you probably notice that support more often than not becomes resistance. Popular analytics are full of this observation and refer to it as psychological modeling rather than identify it as the elitist model that it is to accurately predict price movements. Admitting an elitist model of consolidated wealth will not get you published.
While being psychologically tricked into a market position is licit, manipulation through a disproportionate amount of concentrated capital smacks of an illicit means for fixing the price.
The support-becomes-resistance technique of price manipulation forces the trader to buy-in to a ceiling in order to establish a predictable basis. The result is to manipulate the small investor into a constant wash. It is less important for the power of consolidated capital to profit from program trading--if "you" buy in at X THEN resist at X--than to consolidate the funds available to the market, like 401k funds. It is all important to acquire the means to consolidate, even if it means taking a loss, because it is THE formula for gaining power and keeping it.
Consolidating the value affords the ability to command it in the guise of predicting it; to, in other words, manipulate prices.
Support-to-resistance program trading triggers exchanges to automatically suspend trading to prevent a program collapse of the market. It is rather emblematic of our faceless, impersonal consolidation of wealth and power that, if left unchecked, could result in untold devastation, even for the elite of power, so it is programmed, fixed, to be technically impossible.
The countermove for the small investor is to average-in at the new support level determined by the short-interest program indicator. The bad part is that it requires the small investor use twice the capital to achieve the expected return on a typical technical indication. The indicator must be modified to account for the program trade manipulation of the price with the consolidated capital, which is at record levels. The trader cannot wait for the modifier, per se, and not spend the extra cash since whether a position is taken or not triggers the resistance program.
That record level of consolidation is the prime determinant of our current macro-economic status, in a crisis mode. Where the economy should be at a level of technical support, it becomes resistance. So, we are looking at interest rates getting resistance at historically low levels with high levels of inflation. The result is a highly arbitrary, unpredictable, bureaucratic macro model of command and control that is only predictable from the inside--the elitist model of power.
Command control of our economy is what ails us. It will be an Obama/Biden executive that will reverse the trend for command economy that comes with the over-consolidation of the capital. This reversal will not be socialism which preserves the consolidation of power. We will continue with the command macro if we have a McCain executive.
The progressive tax code Obama proposes will begin to deconsolidate the capital for a macro that will allow typical technical indicators to have predicitve utility without modification. That lack of a needed modifier will indicate that the progression of the tax code is working to deconsolidate the capital to build a more pluralistic economy and a model of power that does not consolidate the opportunity to grow your personal wealth, but fully allows for it!
Obama/Biden 2008!
While being psychologically tricked into a market position is licit, manipulation through a disproportionate amount of concentrated capital smacks of an illicit means for fixing the price.
The support-becomes-resistance technique of price manipulation forces the trader to buy-in to a ceiling in order to establish a predictable basis. The result is to manipulate the small investor into a constant wash. It is less important for the power of consolidated capital to profit from program trading--if "you" buy in at X THEN resist at X--than to consolidate the funds available to the market, like 401k funds. It is all important to acquire the means to consolidate, even if it means taking a loss, because it is THE formula for gaining power and keeping it.
Consolidating the value affords the ability to command it in the guise of predicting it; to, in other words, manipulate prices.
Support-to-resistance program trading triggers exchanges to automatically suspend trading to prevent a program collapse of the market. It is rather emblematic of our faceless, impersonal consolidation of wealth and power that, if left unchecked, could result in untold devastation, even for the elite of power, so it is programmed, fixed, to be technically impossible.
The countermove for the small investor is to average-in at the new support level determined by the short-interest program indicator. The bad part is that it requires the small investor use twice the capital to achieve the expected return on a typical technical indication. The indicator must be modified to account for the program trade manipulation of the price with the consolidated capital, which is at record levels. The trader cannot wait for the modifier, per se, and not spend the extra cash since whether a position is taken or not triggers the resistance program.
That record level of consolidation is the prime determinant of our current macro-economic status, in a crisis mode. Where the economy should be at a level of technical support, it becomes resistance. So, we are looking at interest rates getting resistance at historically low levels with high levels of inflation. The result is a highly arbitrary, unpredictable, bureaucratic macro model of command and control that is only predictable from the inside--the elitist model of power.
Command control of our economy is what ails us. It will be an Obama/Biden executive that will reverse the trend for command economy that comes with the over-consolidation of the capital. This reversal will not be socialism which preserves the consolidation of power. We will continue with the command macro if we have a McCain executive.
The progressive tax code Obama proposes will begin to deconsolidate the capital for a macro that will allow typical technical indicators to have predicitve utility without modification. That lack of a needed modifier will indicate that the progression of the tax code is working to deconsolidate the capital to build a more pluralistic economy and a model of power that does not consolidate the opportunity to grow your personal wealth, but fully allows for it!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Monday, October 27, 2008
It's No Mistake
As we progress into the distribution phase of the lomg-term cycle on an accumulation of income in the top 10 percent not attained since 1938, or The Great Depression, the rhetoric will now be that the crisis it causes is just a bureaucratic mismanagement of our economy, like blaming Greenspan, or Paulson, or Cox....
It's no mistake. The long-term cycle is confirmed, and it has been skillfully managed to where we are now to successfully consolidate the wealth and allow the disribution phase to occur under the banner of the Democratic Party.
If the Party does not take the opportunity to operate with a new economic model to replace the disconfirmed model, the cycle, both politically and economically, repeats itself.
The change we need will be described and explained by mainstream economic theory as a moral hazard. The rhetoric will be presented as declarative knowledge, despite being disconfirmed.
The attribute of the moral hazard is why economics is known as "the dismal science." While we know that the general utility of depriving The People of necessities so that a high income class can enjoy the fruits of labor and. therby, trickle it down to be enjoyed by everyone else is a disconfirmed hypothesis, and categorically immoral, mainstream economics maintains that abandoning the theory that supports the hypothesis is a moral hazard.
The hazard, described as moral because of its dimension of behavioral modification, is dismally described as a non-productive incentive that historically brings societies to collapse.
As Jefferson carefully noted, profligate accumulation of wealth and power is historically a sure indicator of impending collapse, avoided by constitutional provision for a plurality of power and not its consolidation. That way, the prosperity of The People is peaceful, sustainable, and ensured through an empirical process of historical improvement in which making the same mistake over and over again is not supposed to happen. If the society is not allowed to learn from its mistakes, modify its behavior, then the processes of pluralism are not being allowed to fully operate.
So, we have a distribution phase of the cycle that ensures we make the same mistake over and over again. The mistake is a "normative" cycle that if modified is a moral hazard.
What is dismal about the dismal science is that it tends to be dismally unscientific. Instead of describing and explaining the brutal truth of economic existence, it serves to validate the brutal reality of it with self-fufilled mechanics and detrimental effects explained away as misfeasance that if thrown out would be morally hazardous. That hazard is, of course, validated with the name of "science," suggesting it is not a property of belief, or bias, but knowledge.
The scientific method requires confirmation or nullification--verification, not logical proof or disproof--validation.
Something is either verified or not. Having to prove or disprove something through argument and rhetorical manipulation indicates an unwillingness to accept the empirical method and the knowledge it produces.
Much of what is presented for analytical public consumption is a validation process, not a verification process for continuous improvement. That is why we recycle the same "mistake" over and over again.
The change we need is to preserve the value of The People's assets, and doing that will also be the means for economic growth, and stability, that We The People can describe and explain as the moral imperative that verifiably avoids the moral hazard.
Obam/Biden 2008!
It's no mistake. The long-term cycle is confirmed, and it has been skillfully managed to where we are now to successfully consolidate the wealth and allow the disribution phase to occur under the banner of the Democratic Party.
If the Party does not take the opportunity to operate with a new economic model to replace the disconfirmed model, the cycle, both politically and economically, repeats itself.
The change we need will be described and explained by mainstream economic theory as a moral hazard. The rhetoric will be presented as declarative knowledge, despite being disconfirmed.
The attribute of the moral hazard is why economics is known as "the dismal science." While we know that the general utility of depriving The People of necessities so that a high income class can enjoy the fruits of labor and. therby, trickle it down to be enjoyed by everyone else is a disconfirmed hypothesis, and categorically immoral, mainstream economics maintains that abandoning the theory that supports the hypothesis is a moral hazard.
The hazard, described as moral because of its dimension of behavioral modification, is dismally described as a non-productive incentive that historically brings societies to collapse.
As Jefferson carefully noted, profligate accumulation of wealth and power is historically a sure indicator of impending collapse, avoided by constitutional provision for a plurality of power and not its consolidation. That way, the prosperity of The People is peaceful, sustainable, and ensured through an empirical process of historical improvement in which making the same mistake over and over again is not supposed to happen. If the society is not allowed to learn from its mistakes, modify its behavior, then the processes of pluralism are not being allowed to fully operate.
So, we have a distribution phase of the cycle that ensures we make the same mistake over and over again. The mistake is a "normative" cycle that if modified is a moral hazard.
What is dismal about the dismal science is that it tends to be dismally unscientific. Instead of describing and explaining the brutal truth of economic existence, it serves to validate the brutal reality of it with self-fufilled mechanics and detrimental effects explained away as misfeasance that if thrown out would be morally hazardous. That hazard is, of course, validated with the name of "science," suggesting it is not a property of belief, or bias, but knowledge.
The scientific method requires confirmation or nullification--verification, not logical proof or disproof--validation.
Something is either verified or not. Having to prove or disprove something through argument and rhetorical manipulation indicates an unwillingness to accept the empirical method and the knowledge it produces.
Much of what is presented for analytical public consumption is a validation process, not a verification process for continuous improvement. That is why we recycle the same "mistake" over and over again.
The change we need is to preserve the value of The People's assets, and doing that will also be the means for economic growth, and stability, that We The People can describe and explain as the moral imperative that verifiably avoids the moral hazard.
Obam/Biden 2008!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Keynesian Crisis
Keynesian economics was an innovation for organizing production so that growth, success in the marketplace, could still be measured by the profit margin in the classical economic sense.
Monetarism allows the measure of legitimate success of the classical model into the neo-classical world of managing cyclical crisis that does not necessarilly produce legitimately pluralistic, free-market results measured by the profit. It allows for maximum profit with minimal growth, and a way to "successfully" manage the instability that causes.
The promise of the new technique for stabilizing the economy was to calibrate the money supply as needed to control inflation with growth, what a free market will achieve on its own if the capital, industry and markets are not allowed to consolidate.
If capital is always available for investment in profitable markets (buying the greed), the economy can grow with adequate supply to control inflation, and that added supply requires full employment, thus, full employment with low inflation. The effect is a declining rate of profits and return on investment that minimizes an accumulation of wealth and an income-class distinction. Aspiring to the "ruling class" requires a return on investment ensuring a free-market economic through the monetary system denies.
Monetarism was invented to largely stabilize the business cycle of a consolidated capital. It was not invented to finance the competition, but to provide liquidity (interbank lending) when the capital becomes so consolidated that it locks up and has nowhere else to go but to be redistributed to the consumer (spreading the wealth around) to reduce the inventory of overproduction. Rather than finance the competition, causing full employment with low inflation, the recovery is monetized (trickled down) through the central bank system and the treasury, allowing the consolidated capital--the problem--to persist.
The process of economic stimulation and stabilization we have now is the "monetizing of the debt" so that it is not quite as obvious that the business cycle operates to consolidate the capital. Consolidation is antithetical to a free-market legitimacy in which power is sufficiently pluralized to be self-correcting and requires little need for government regulatory authority.
Since monetarism is not used to pluralize, but stabilize the marketplace, there is a big demand for government. That demand has evolved in favor of consolidation of the marketplace, so we have The People's tax money being given to a healthy bank (PNC Bank) to buy an unhealthy bank (National City Bank). Public finance, and the power of legitimacy it represents, is used to consolidate, and not just the accumulated capital. The return on the investment comes in the form of the interest paid on the public debt which, you may have noticed, is a perpetual-debt (leveraging) machine that grows infinitely if it is paid with a regressive tax code.
Keynesian monetarism is easily switched to finance a genuine free-market economic system. The way it is being used now to keep the capital, industry and markets consolidated through an unstable business cycle, "the switch" will eventually become the socialist alternative.
Avoiding a global liquidity crisis, and general instability, is entirely possible. It is time for the political will to do it.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Monetarism allows the measure of legitimate success of the classical model into the neo-classical world of managing cyclical crisis that does not necessarilly produce legitimately pluralistic, free-market results measured by the profit. It allows for maximum profit with minimal growth, and a way to "successfully" manage the instability that causes.
The promise of the new technique for stabilizing the economy was to calibrate the money supply as needed to control inflation with growth, what a free market will achieve on its own if the capital, industry and markets are not allowed to consolidate.
If capital is always available for investment in profitable markets (buying the greed), the economy can grow with adequate supply to control inflation, and that added supply requires full employment, thus, full employment with low inflation. The effect is a declining rate of profits and return on investment that minimizes an accumulation of wealth and an income-class distinction. Aspiring to the "ruling class" requires a return on investment ensuring a free-market economic through the monetary system denies.
Monetarism was invented to largely stabilize the business cycle of a consolidated capital. It was not invented to finance the competition, but to provide liquidity (interbank lending) when the capital becomes so consolidated that it locks up and has nowhere else to go but to be redistributed to the consumer (spreading the wealth around) to reduce the inventory of overproduction. Rather than finance the competition, causing full employment with low inflation, the recovery is monetized (trickled down) through the central bank system and the treasury, allowing the consolidated capital--the problem--to persist.
The process of economic stimulation and stabilization we have now is the "monetizing of the debt" so that it is not quite as obvious that the business cycle operates to consolidate the capital. Consolidation is antithetical to a free-market legitimacy in which power is sufficiently pluralized to be self-correcting and requires little need for government regulatory authority.
Since monetarism is not used to pluralize, but stabilize the marketplace, there is a big demand for government. That demand has evolved in favor of consolidation of the marketplace, so we have The People's tax money being given to a healthy bank (PNC Bank) to buy an unhealthy bank (National City Bank). Public finance, and the power of legitimacy it represents, is used to consolidate, and not just the accumulated capital. The return on the investment comes in the form of the interest paid on the public debt which, you may have noticed, is a perpetual-debt (leveraging) machine that grows infinitely if it is paid with a regressive tax code.
Keynesian monetarism is easily switched to finance a genuine free-market economic system. The way it is being used now to keep the capital, industry and markets consolidated through an unstable business cycle, "the switch" will eventually become the socialist alternative.
Avoiding a global liquidity crisis, and general instability, is entirely possible. It is time for the political will to do it.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Negative Equity
A Real Estate Reinvestment Act
The negative equity in homes is a positive gain for who?
Real estate interests.
This sector is in very large part responsible for wrecking our economy and has received very little criticism for doing so.
A Real Estate Reinvestment Act is in order to recapitalize the benefit into positive home equity toward building an economy that invests the homeowner not with just a fair and equitable mortgage, but the ability to pay it.
Accomplishing that is not by encouraging the leverage financing that makes the greedy rich with an inimical sense of status, but righteous value that comes with providing for each other rather than taking it in declaration of your class superiority.
Real estate is infested with people looking to get rich quick, and they did. The cost of this over-concern with one's personal worth, of class status, has been tremendous. To allow this value to be enjoyed without being retributed to, reinvested in, the hard-working Americans from which it was bilked is entirely wrong!
Instead of an economic sector infested with status-conscious frauds looking to con its customers into just making them rich, and leave the customer holding the devalued bag of goods, let's invest the real estate sector with the value The People deserve without having to borrow their way out of debt. That value exists in the net worth of developers, brokers, lenders, and their agents. That value needs to be reinvested to make the homewoner whole, not just a reward for unfettered greed and fraudulent practices.
Retribute that value with a Real Estate Reinvestment Act. It will very quickly help set our economy on a very sound fundament for quick and sustainable recovery.
The negative equity in homes is a positive gain for who?
Real estate interests.
This sector is in very large part responsible for wrecking our economy and has received very little criticism for doing so.
A Real Estate Reinvestment Act is in order to recapitalize the benefit into positive home equity toward building an economy that invests the homeowner not with just a fair and equitable mortgage, but the ability to pay it.
Accomplishing that is not by encouraging the leverage financing that makes the greedy rich with an inimical sense of status, but righteous value that comes with providing for each other rather than taking it in declaration of your class superiority.
Real estate is infested with people looking to get rich quick, and they did. The cost of this over-concern with one's personal worth, of class status, has been tremendous. To allow this value to be enjoyed without being retributed to, reinvested in, the hard-working Americans from which it was bilked is entirely wrong!
Instead of an economic sector infested with status-conscious frauds looking to con its customers into just making them rich, and leave the customer holding the devalued bag of goods, let's invest the real estate sector with the value The People deserve without having to borrow their way out of debt. That value exists in the net worth of developers, brokers, lenders, and their agents. That value needs to be reinvested to make the homewoner whole, not just a reward for unfettered greed and fraudulent practices.
Retribute that value with a Real Estate Reinvestment Act. It will very quickly help set our economy on a very sound fundament for quick and sustainable recovery.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Tax Havens
European ministers of finance are suggesting they will begin prosecuting tax havens and the unregulated hadege funds that use them to evade tax liability.
Use of these high income class tax-evasive havens causes budget deficits by increasing the need for government while severely reducing revenues, and inflationary tax pressure on lower income classes with deflationary macro economic pressure that reduces their ability to pay it. In other words, because the trickle-down economic model of tax reduction for the top income classes does not work, despite the counter-empirical claims of the McCain campaign, but instead causes crisis with overwhelming evidence, it is time to reverse the policy based on that empirical evidence.
That is very bullish news for markets because trillions of dollars will be more available for macro-economic finance policy, like recapitalizing a recovery from the bottom up, that will hasten recovery and stability instead of being hidden and horded, only brought out to spike markets for a quick, zero-sum capital gain, that is not pro growth and just devalues the savings and pensions of non-upper class incomes.
The rhetoric is very strong positive for markets, the valuation of The People's savings and reinvestment of the capital to allow for economic growth and general economic security that will not only benefit The People, but elits as well. Policies that benefit the rich in priority are just to deprive The People. International markets fully recognize that and will not even begin to support a McCain presidency.
A McCain presidency would be, empirically, verifiably, bad for global markets.
Use of these high income class tax-evasive havens causes budget deficits by increasing the need for government while severely reducing revenues, and inflationary tax pressure on lower income classes with deflationary macro economic pressure that reduces their ability to pay it. In other words, because the trickle-down economic model of tax reduction for the top income classes does not work, despite the counter-empirical claims of the McCain campaign, but instead causes crisis with overwhelming evidence, it is time to reverse the policy based on that empirical evidence.
That is very bullish news for markets because trillions of dollars will be more available for macro-economic finance policy, like recapitalizing a recovery from the bottom up, that will hasten recovery and stability instead of being hidden and horded, only brought out to spike markets for a quick, zero-sum capital gain, that is not pro growth and just devalues the savings and pensions of non-upper class incomes.
The rhetoric is very strong positive for markets, the valuation of The People's savings and reinvestment of the capital to allow for economic growth and general economic security that will not only benefit The People, but elits as well. Policies that benefit the rich in priority are just to deprive The People. International markets fully recognize that and will not even begin to support a McCain presidency.
A McCain presidency would be, empirically, verifiably, bad for global markets.
Economic Stimulus
Analysis in popular media tends to attribute the retrace to deflation following the stimulus package in 2008 to the consumer paying down debt rather than spemding it. It is a fundamental misattribution that identifies the problem.
The stimulus money was inflationary. It went right to the profits of the corporate and was paid out to the shareholders who are largely, disproportionately, the top ten percent of incomes, which causes the need for the other 90% to incur debt borrowed from the very rich. The result was consolidation of the stimulus, or deflationary crisis.
According to Ivy-League analysts that pop media offers us as the experts that will lead us out of the crisis with the intimate understanding of having engineered it and having led us into it for the General Welfare, this is not a matter of Wall Street versus Main Street. It most certainly is and indicates where their leadership will lead us--crisis!
Without reversing the regressive tax code, economic stimulus just stimulates consolidation of the wealth and recession.
While stimulus will cause a steep V-curve in equity valuations, this will not indicate economic recovery. That will be a sell signal. If you do not sell, you will be left holding the bag, and once again Wall Street wins at the expense of Main Street. The People's dependancy on Wall Street is thereby supported through the credit economy in which paying down your debt means you are less likely to have a job which, of course, means you must incur debt, and who are you going to get that from?
Interesting how if The People are forgiven debt, it is taxed as income, while the capital organized to produce the debt is regressively taxed if at all by various accounting rules available only to the very rich. The People need to seriously ask why that analysis is not a part of the pop-media presentation. That it is not included defines the analysis of pop media as mere propaganda that cannot be trusted.
Consider that the trillions of dollars applied for a worldwide, coordinated bailout plan being administered by treasuries and central banks still yields the prospect of global recession. That measures how much value has been expropriated from The People by financial, Wall Street, interests and used against The People. Expecting financial interests to fix it is foolish. The "fix" is in, and fixing that is the political will of The People to identify leadership that will not use The People's value against them. That would not be a person like this Governor Palin that regurgitates Republican platitudes on cue.
Arguing, for example, that spreading the wealth around--that The People fully sharing in the value they produce--will deprive them of the value they produce because they are depriving the investors of the value they need to cause financial panic and crisis is a complete comedy of errors. McCain's bottom-up proposal to buy out bad mortgages at full value, for example, does not recapitalize the benefit which is what is required to allow the mortgage to be affordable with economic conditions that adds the ability to pay for it at any price.
If we consider that the Economic Stabilization Act leaves the use of bailout funds entirely to the discretion of institutions that are prone to cause crisis for The People--the kind of decisionmaking Palin says is good for The People, the probability for risking the funds to perpetuate the crisis and another stimulus package does not indicate recovery.
The recovery funds are likely to be used to buy back shares, pay debt, and buy smaller regional banks with the argument that such consolidation is to ensure stability of the banking system when it has proven destabilizing.
Stabilization and stimulus will produce only a short term recovery because the causal factors of recession are both left intact and reinforced. It does not imdicate a bullish trend till we decide to recpaitalize the benefit with a more progressive tax code and deconsolidate the financial sector. Otherwise, we are locked in short-term oscillations (volatility) indefinitely. Improved leading indicators will only serve to indicate the volatility.
An Obama/Biden victory is a sure bullish indicator.
The stimulus money was inflationary. It went right to the profits of the corporate and was paid out to the shareholders who are largely, disproportionately, the top ten percent of incomes, which causes the need for the other 90% to incur debt borrowed from the very rich. The result was consolidation of the stimulus, or deflationary crisis.
According to Ivy-League analysts that pop media offers us as the experts that will lead us out of the crisis with the intimate understanding of having engineered it and having led us into it for the General Welfare, this is not a matter of Wall Street versus Main Street. It most certainly is and indicates where their leadership will lead us--crisis!
Without reversing the regressive tax code, economic stimulus just stimulates consolidation of the wealth and recession.
While stimulus will cause a steep V-curve in equity valuations, this will not indicate economic recovery. That will be a sell signal. If you do not sell, you will be left holding the bag, and once again Wall Street wins at the expense of Main Street. The People's dependancy on Wall Street is thereby supported through the credit economy in which paying down your debt means you are less likely to have a job which, of course, means you must incur debt, and who are you going to get that from?
Interesting how if The People are forgiven debt, it is taxed as income, while the capital organized to produce the debt is regressively taxed if at all by various accounting rules available only to the very rich. The People need to seriously ask why that analysis is not a part of the pop-media presentation. That it is not included defines the analysis of pop media as mere propaganda that cannot be trusted.
Consider that the trillions of dollars applied for a worldwide, coordinated bailout plan being administered by treasuries and central banks still yields the prospect of global recession. That measures how much value has been expropriated from The People by financial, Wall Street, interests and used against The People. Expecting financial interests to fix it is foolish. The "fix" is in, and fixing that is the political will of The People to identify leadership that will not use The People's value against them. That would not be a person like this Governor Palin that regurgitates Republican platitudes on cue.
Arguing, for example, that spreading the wealth around--that The People fully sharing in the value they produce--will deprive them of the value they produce because they are depriving the investors of the value they need to cause financial panic and crisis is a complete comedy of errors. McCain's bottom-up proposal to buy out bad mortgages at full value, for example, does not recapitalize the benefit which is what is required to allow the mortgage to be affordable with economic conditions that adds the ability to pay for it at any price.
If we consider that the Economic Stabilization Act leaves the use of bailout funds entirely to the discretion of institutions that are prone to cause crisis for The People--the kind of decisionmaking Palin says is good for The People, the probability for risking the funds to perpetuate the crisis and another stimulus package does not indicate recovery.
The recovery funds are likely to be used to buy back shares, pay debt, and buy smaller regional banks with the argument that such consolidation is to ensure stability of the banking system when it has proven destabilizing.
Stabilization and stimulus will produce only a short term recovery because the causal factors of recession are both left intact and reinforced. It does not imdicate a bullish trend till we decide to recpaitalize the benefit with a more progressive tax code and deconsolidate the financial sector. Otherwise, we are locked in short-term oscillations (volatility) indefinitely. Improved leading indicators will only serve to indicate the volatility.
An Obama/Biden victory is a sure bullish indicator.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Stakes
The stakes are driving the "unthawing" of credit markets more than the action of coordinated central banking.
Commanding capital markets (top-down, trickle-down management) falsely suggests that management of the capital in a concentrated, centralized state is the solution and not the problem.
The capital that has been consolidated is detecting siginificant pressure to retribute the value. For concentrated capital, retributing the value is a cost to be minimized. Much better to lend the capital for a return on the accumulated private equity and lobby for keeping a regressive tax code to pay it than to allow the retributive value to accumulate with a credit deficiency. The cost, and benefit, however, is an increased debt burden.
The trick is to be sure you do not end up with the debtor (the payer) assignment, and with the regressive tax code we have now, that would be The People experiencing crisis.
The markets are sensing the sensitivity of policymakers to manage the retributive value with a quick turnaround. Another stimulus package in the U.S. (a bottom-up measure) is being floated and is likely. However, without a more progressive tax code, a bottom-up stimulus is inflationary because it swells the deficit.
Another stimulus package without a more progressive tax code, like the previous stimulus package and temporary middle class tax cuts, will not recapitalize the benefit toward a stable recovery. It reinvests the benefit to relieve the pressure for retributing the value, the power, of the benefit (accumulation of the capital) to its source, The People, without an economic rent (the interest on the debt The People pay through a regressive tax code).
The best another stimulus without a more progressive tax code will do for The People will allow for a very short-term recovery of financial assets that will likely be sold (shook out, or consolidated), still well below their highs.
Since Republicans can't win with an appeal to reason and logic, there is an emotional appeal to fear the logical tendency to a more progressive tax code as that scary monster, "socialism."
The obvious need for a more progressive tax code is not a call for socialism. The capital and means of production is not owned by the state, but is more apt to be reinvested for a more competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, pluralism, instead of consolidation of wealth and power.
If you want socialism, and you need something to fear, just stay the course of the last eight years and vote for McCain. If you want free enterprise and the fullest capacity for choosing what you want to produce and at what price: recapitalize with a more progressive tax code the high accumulation of capital that is causing, commanding, liquidity crisis, and pluralize the marketplace.
Not sharing the wealth, not "spreading the wealth around," not having an equitably distributive ownership of the capital, results in liquidity crisis and massive debt--what we have now. Stop and reversal of the deflationary trend in a timely and equitable fashion REQUIRES that the wealth be shared--recapitalized from the benefit of the last eight years. That is not socialism!
Capitalism does not require the capital be owned by a privileged few elits unless, of course, you want to deprive The People through the indirect means of crisis by establishing and maintaining a cycle of boom and bust in which The People's assets are devalued and consolidated--the business cycle.
If we are going to have socialism, it won't be because we have free enterprise, it will be because we don't. If you want the lack of free enterprise that results from consolidated capital, industry and markets causing crisis of liquidity and overwhelming debt, if you want to cause socialism, vote conservative, vote for McCain.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Commanding capital markets (top-down, trickle-down management) falsely suggests that management of the capital in a concentrated, centralized state is the solution and not the problem.
The capital that has been consolidated is detecting siginificant pressure to retribute the value. For concentrated capital, retributing the value is a cost to be minimized. Much better to lend the capital for a return on the accumulated private equity and lobby for keeping a regressive tax code to pay it than to allow the retributive value to accumulate with a credit deficiency. The cost, and benefit, however, is an increased debt burden.
The trick is to be sure you do not end up with the debtor (the payer) assignment, and with the regressive tax code we have now, that would be The People experiencing crisis.
The markets are sensing the sensitivity of policymakers to manage the retributive value with a quick turnaround. Another stimulus package in the U.S. (a bottom-up measure) is being floated and is likely. However, without a more progressive tax code, a bottom-up stimulus is inflationary because it swells the deficit.
Another stimulus package without a more progressive tax code, like the previous stimulus package and temporary middle class tax cuts, will not recapitalize the benefit toward a stable recovery. It reinvests the benefit to relieve the pressure for retributing the value, the power, of the benefit (accumulation of the capital) to its source, The People, without an economic rent (the interest on the debt The People pay through a regressive tax code).
The best another stimulus without a more progressive tax code will do for The People will allow for a very short-term recovery of financial assets that will likely be sold (shook out, or consolidated), still well below their highs.
Since Republicans can't win with an appeal to reason and logic, there is an emotional appeal to fear the logical tendency to a more progressive tax code as that scary monster, "socialism."
The obvious need for a more progressive tax code is not a call for socialism. The capital and means of production is not owned by the state, but is more apt to be reinvested for a more competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, pluralism, instead of consolidation of wealth and power.
If you want socialism, and you need something to fear, just stay the course of the last eight years and vote for McCain. If you want free enterprise and the fullest capacity for choosing what you want to produce and at what price: recapitalize with a more progressive tax code the high accumulation of capital that is causing, commanding, liquidity crisis, and pluralize the marketplace.
Not sharing the wealth, not "spreading the wealth around," not having an equitably distributive ownership of the capital, results in liquidity crisis and massive debt--what we have now. Stop and reversal of the deflationary trend in a timely and equitable fashion REQUIRES that the wealth be shared--recapitalized from the benefit of the last eight years. That is not socialism!
Capitalism does not require the capital be owned by a privileged few elits unless, of course, you want to deprive The People through the indirect means of crisis by establishing and maintaining a cycle of boom and bust in which The People's assets are devalued and consolidated--the business cycle.
If we are going to have socialism, it won't be because we have free enterprise, it will be because we don't. If you want the lack of free enterprise that results from consolidated capital, industry and markets causing crisis of liquidity and overwhelming debt, if you want to cause socialism, vote conservative, vote for McCain.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Volatility Indicator
The CBOE volatility index, the VIX, is over 80, at a new high.
As I noted recently, big volatility indicates the bottom valuation. It also indicates the inimical effects of a consolidated capital.
As capital, industry and markets continue to consolidate with the deflationary phase of the business cycle, valuations are uncertain and The People largely lose.
The benefit of the cycle is solely the top one-percent of income class. If you are not a member of this class, supporting the conservative agendae, be it economic or social, is not your self-interest, it is not the collective interest.
While the high VIX indicates an undershoot--an oversold condition, it also indicates what the institutions of high finance don't want to tell you. It means not only will The People lose their jobs, but as they dip into their savings to finance daily expenses, they lose net value to the VIX.
Even if you can average-in to the financial markets, the gain to restore your losses could be years away if you are not able to play the volatility. If you do that, the sole determinant of price movement is the money flow of consolidated capital and what side of the market your volume is positioned; that is, the market is rigged for you to lose because the concentration of capital allows for an inequity on the bid which manipulates prices against your position, whatever it may be.
Successfully playing the volatility requires you always be opposite the money flow indicators. Do not hesitate. Do not wait for the top or the bottom. Just bail out, or in, as the case may be. Big money on the bid will change the technicals at a moments notice, leaving you holding the toxic waste.
If you thought the bailout plan would be beneficial to The People... no, it is proving detrimental as I said it would, easily predictable because the plan fits the Hamiltonian model of finance which is to assure the welfare of the rich in priority.
The plan supports consolidation of financials, making them bigger and so will increase the probability of leveraging risk--what causes the crisis we are in. It is not the solution, it is the problem, short and long.
The solution we need is antithetical to the Hamiltonian model--a genuine bottum-up bailout by taxing the gain and reinvesting that gain in pluralizing, recapitalizing, the economy. Capital is made available for growth rather than just profits on an expanded supply of money and an increasing public debt with a declining ability to pay it with a highly regressive, no-groth tax code. The result will be an easily predictable, robust economic recovery both short and long.
Obama/Biden!
As I noted recently, big volatility indicates the bottom valuation. It also indicates the inimical effects of a consolidated capital.
As capital, industry and markets continue to consolidate with the deflationary phase of the business cycle, valuations are uncertain and The People largely lose.
The benefit of the cycle is solely the top one-percent of income class. If you are not a member of this class, supporting the conservative agendae, be it economic or social, is not your self-interest, it is not the collective interest.
While the high VIX indicates an undershoot--an oversold condition, it also indicates what the institutions of high finance don't want to tell you. It means not only will The People lose their jobs, but as they dip into their savings to finance daily expenses, they lose net value to the VIX.
Even if you can average-in to the financial markets, the gain to restore your losses could be years away if you are not able to play the volatility. If you do that, the sole determinant of price movement is the money flow of consolidated capital and what side of the market your volume is positioned; that is, the market is rigged for you to lose because the concentration of capital allows for an inequity on the bid which manipulates prices against your position, whatever it may be.
Successfully playing the volatility requires you always be opposite the money flow indicators. Do not hesitate. Do not wait for the top or the bottom. Just bail out, or in, as the case may be. Big money on the bid will change the technicals at a moments notice, leaving you holding the toxic waste.
If you thought the bailout plan would be beneficial to The People... no, it is proving detrimental as I said it would, easily predictable because the plan fits the Hamiltonian model of finance which is to assure the welfare of the rich in priority.
The plan supports consolidation of financials, making them bigger and so will increase the probability of leveraging risk--what causes the crisis we are in. It is not the solution, it is the problem, short and long.
The solution we need is antithetical to the Hamiltonian model--a genuine bottum-up bailout by taxing the gain and reinvesting that gain in pluralizing, recapitalizing, the economy. Capital is made available for growth rather than just profits on an expanded supply of money and an increasing public debt with a declining ability to pay it with a highly regressive, no-groth tax code. The result will be an easily predictable, robust economic recovery both short and long.
Obama/Biden!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Too Small to Survive
McCain, in a continued attempt to give a populist tone to neo-conservative policies and programs that ALWAYS lead to crisis, is now saying that his economic plan, despite that it will make the rich richer and the poor poorer (the formula for crisis economics and politics) will not be to merely support businesses too big to fail, but too small to survive.
This is to validate a classic elitist argument that can be found in the discipline of organization theory in the area of organizing to manage risk. McCain is using it to support a populist sentiment. Is he really that incompetent that he does not realize that it is a pro-elitist, not a pro-populist argument?
Elite-model organization theorists advocate that the bigger the firm, the more capable of surviving risk, like running the economy into the ground with the least capable to survive beimg, of course, the smaller firms.
The classic illustration of the argument is this: since a small firm is more likely to drown in shallow water, it is at a higher risk, and so it is also unlikely to take risk. The implication is that economic growth is more likely to occur if firms are more able to survive risk and, therefore, take it.
Adhering to the elitist model of risk managememt was applied by hiring quantum physicists to fashion imploding models of debt-structured finance (high return, no growth). The model is just the classic pyramid scheme where the first in, at the top, are highly profitable which lures others into the business model. The result, of course, is classic economic crisis--deflation--and the pyramid comes tumbling down threatening the entire economy if it is not bailed out; an outcome that has been verified, once again, in a very up close and personal way.
Understand, despite what the Ivy League experts tell us, that the model eventually imploding and collapsing, taking small firms down because they are too small to survive, is fully anticipated and intended. That eliminates the competition and consolidates power. Despite the neo-classical innovation of means (algorythms of quantum physics and computer programing), the result is entirely classic.
While it appears to be counter to the pro-elitist model and argument for hedging risk, the effect of McCain's plan is to keep the causal factors of the crisis intact to require the need for government in the future (to socialize the loss-=the risk--by preserving the element "too big to fail"). So much for his stance on limited need for government...very similar to Ronald Reagan's nonsense.
McCain's attempt to give the Hamiltonian (elitist) model of political economy a populist face is just another laughable attempt to put lipstick on the pig. It is just another deceit.
I prefer to go with a genuine intelligence and conscientiousness that can be trusted.
Obama and Biden for President, and David Boswell (D-KY) US House.
This is to validate a classic elitist argument that can be found in the discipline of organization theory in the area of organizing to manage risk. McCain is using it to support a populist sentiment. Is he really that incompetent that he does not realize that it is a pro-elitist, not a pro-populist argument?
Elite-model organization theorists advocate that the bigger the firm, the more capable of surviving risk, like running the economy into the ground with the least capable to survive beimg, of course, the smaller firms.
The classic illustration of the argument is this: since a small firm is more likely to drown in shallow water, it is at a higher risk, and so it is also unlikely to take risk. The implication is that economic growth is more likely to occur if firms are more able to survive risk and, therefore, take it.
Adhering to the elitist model of risk managememt was applied by hiring quantum physicists to fashion imploding models of debt-structured finance (high return, no growth). The model is just the classic pyramid scheme where the first in, at the top, are highly profitable which lures others into the business model. The result, of course, is classic economic crisis--deflation--and the pyramid comes tumbling down threatening the entire economy if it is not bailed out; an outcome that has been verified, once again, in a very up close and personal way.
Understand, despite what the Ivy League experts tell us, that the model eventually imploding and collapsing, taking small firms down because they are too small to survive, is fully anticipated and intended. That eliminates the competition and consolidates power. Despite the neo-classical innovation of means (algorythms of quantum physics and computer programing), the result is entirely classic.
While it appears to be counter to the pro-elitist model and argument for hedging risk, the effect of McCain's plan is to keep the causal factors of the crisis intact to require the need for government in the future (to socialize the loss-=the risk--by preserving the element "too big to fail"). So much for his stance on limited need for government...very similar to Ronald Reagan's nonsense.
McCain's attempt to give the Hamiltonian (elitist) model of political economy a populist face is just another laughable attempt to put lipstick on the pig. It is just another deceit.
I prefer to go with a genuine intelligence and conscientiousness that can be trusted.
Obama and Biden for President, and David Boswell (D-KY) US House.
Saving the Free Market
Bush says the federal government's buying shares of private banks is to save the free market.
Paulson says he is against any socialization of the biggest private firms of the banking sector, but it is necessary to ensure liquidity.
Nowhere is there any mention of what causes the lack of a free market: allowing industry and markets to consolidate. Why?
The solution is focused on "effective" measures deemed necessary to achieve the sufficiency of a false free-market legitimacy.
Ensuring a free market in priority prevents this crisis, and the benefit of it--ensured consolidation of power. The new boss will just be the old boss with a new legitimacy of power to be corrupted for despoiling The People in the name of the General Welfare.
Bush, Paulson, McCain and company are saying they are engaged in preserving what we did not have to begin with, thus the crisis.
Allowing consolidation of industry, markets and capital causes socialism, and that is what happened.
Government ownership of private sector enterprise is the definition of socialism. If you don't want socialism, then don't do what causes it--allowing industry, markets and capital to consolidate. Bush/McCain and company are for measures that will allow, preserve and support, "too big to fail," which is what is wrong with it.
If you are afraid of Barack Obama because he will cause socialism, you are afraid of the wrong candidate! You should be trembling at the very clear and convincing evidence right before your eyes that it is the Republicans who are sure to cause socialism.
Socialism will not deconsolidate power. It will confirm it without any reason to believe it will not be any less corrupt than what we have now.
There is a sure way of structuring for freedom and accountability, easily, affordably and without reliance on a corruptible technocracy. That is ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority. That is NOT what we are doing now and most certainly will not be doing with a McCain presidency.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Paulson says he is against any socialization of the biggest private firms of the banking sector, but it is necessary to ensure liquidity.
Nowhere is there any mention of what causes the lack of a free market: allowing industry and markets to consolidate. Why?
The solution is focused on "effective" measures deemed necessary to achieve the sufficiency of a false free-market legitimacy.
Ensuring a free market in priority prevents this crisis, and the benefit of it--ensured consolidation of power. The new boss will just be the old boss with a new legitimacy of power to be corrupted for despoiling The People in the name of the General Welfare.
Bush, Paulson, McCain and company are saying they are engaged in preserving what we did not have to begin with, thus the crisis.
Allowing consolidation of industry, markets and capital causes socialism, and that is what happened.
Government ownership of private sector enterprise is the definition of socialism. If you don't want socialism, then don't do what causes it--allowing industry, markets and capital to consolidate. Bush/McCain and company are for measures that will allow, preserve and support, "too big to fail," which is what is wrong with it.
If you are afraid of Barack Obama because he will cause socialism, you are afraid of the wrong candidate! You should be trembling at the very clear and convincing evidence right before your eyes that it is the Republicans who are sure to cause socialism.
Socialism will not deconsolidate power. It will confirm it without any reason to believe it will not be any less corrupt than what we have now.
There is a sure way of structuring for freedom and accountability, easily, affordably and without reliance on a corruptible technocracy. That is ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority. That is NOT what we are doing now and most certainly will not be doing with a McCain presidency.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Bear Has the Bull By the Horns
The nearly 40 percent deflationary trend compares to the percentage decline of other bear markets, so the argument goes to offer some consolation.
Much more pernicious is that this decline in valuation represents a fundamental insufficiency, if not instability, of the practical model in operation.
The banking system, the means for funding economic activity is very clearly not doing it. It is not because some inexorable force has determined our fate. It is because it has been deliberately organized to produce a result that, if left in status quo, produces a progressive deprivation.
It is not a matter of casual misgivings over the unavoidable foibles of human nature, but the deliberate structuring of a system of finance that causes hardship for most Americans that just gets worse if not dealt with at the fundamental level.
This is not just a crisis of confidence. We can feel confident, and be summarily disappointed. Americans are looking for more than the mere trappings of instilling confidence. We are looking for fundamental solutions to real problems at the organized fundament of power.
It is a classic tension between the two fundamental organizational models: elitism and pluralism. The models are not necessarily exclusive. They can be combined in various measures, and have been, but to produce largely elitist results with what are argued to be pluralistic processes to legitimize the outcome.
When the arguments are not verified by the evidence, it is time to throw the model out and reorganize toward the desired result. Of course, that is what neo-conservatives are trying to prevent, but you can't verify the productive virtue of consolidated capital with clear and present deprivations. Who is being more unsophisticated here, the elite or the masses?
The bear has the bull by the horns, but we don't have to be locked in conflict. It is possible to reconcile the differences without it being a false legitimacy of pluralistic process and cyclical trends.
Application of the pluralistic model is not only possible, it is looking evermore probable.
Obama/Biden!
Much more pernicious is that this decline in valuation represents a fundamental insufficiency, if not instability, of the practical model in operation.
The banking system, the means for funding economic activity is very clearly not doing it. It is not because some inexorable force has determined our fate. It is because it has been deliberately organized to produce a result that, if left in status quo, produces a progressive deprivation.
It is not a matter of casual misgivings over the unavoidable foibles of human nature, but the deliberate structuring of a system of finance that causes hardship for most Americans that just gets worse if not dealt with at the fundamental level.
This is not just a crisis of confidence. We can feel confident, and be summarily disappointed. Americans are looking for more than the mere trappings of instilling confidence. We are looking for fundamental solutions to real problems at the organized fundament of power.
It is a classic tension between the two fundamental organizational models: elitism and pluralism. The models are not necessarily exclusive. They can be combined in various measures, and have been, but to produce largely elitist results with what are argued to be pluralistic processes to legitimize the outcome.
When the arguments are not verified by the evidence, it is time to throw the model out and reorganize toward the desired result. Of course, that is what neo-conservatives are trying to prevent, but you can't verify the productive virtue of consolidated capital with clear and present deprivations. Who is being more unsophisticated here, the elite or the masses?
The bear has the bull by the horns, but we don't have to be locked in conflict. It is possible to reconcile the differences without it being a false legitimacy of pluralistic process and cyclical trends.
Application of the pluralistic model is not only possible, it is looking evermore probable.
Obama/Biden!
Friday, October 10, 2008
Oil Prices
Remember back when oil prices were peaked to nearly 150, analysts, like myself, argued the technical data indicated the price was being leveraged, manipulated, into a false peak-demand hypothesis (peak oil) that was really a means for deflation of the global economy and consolidation of the wealth.
The pop analysts that discredited the false peak-oil hypothesis as a paranoid delusion are now recognizing a peak oil price that was apparently "artificially high."
Imagine, that we should not believe the oracles of pop analytics!
The artificial, leveraged, value was about 40 percent. The value capitulated from savings is about 40 percent. That's no coincidence.
So, you see how the indirect means of market mechanics, falsely argued as free market economics, with a consolidated capital leveraged (massive money flow volume) operates to expropriate value from the class of non-elits, empirically confirming who are the rulers, and who are the ruled.
It's time to recapitalize the gain, not the loss, into a genuine pluralism of the marketplace--a real free-market economy that keeps the entrepreneurial spirit fully operational and fully accountable with an easily verifiable legitimacy by the full and peacefully prosperous participation and determination of The People.
What We The People want is what We The People need.
Having what We want and need is entirely possible.
It is time to do it!
Obama/Biden!
The pop analysts that discredited the false peak-oil hypothesis as a paranoid delusion are now recognizing a peak oil price that was apparently "artificially high."
Imagine, that we should not believe the oracles of pop analytics!
The artificial, leveraged, value was about 40 percent. The value capitulated from savings is about 40 percent. That's no coincidence.
So, you see how the indirect means of market mechanics, falsely argued as free market economics, with a consolidated capital leveraged (massive money flow volume) operates to expropriate value from the class of non-elits, empirically confirming who are the rulers, and who are the ruled.
It's time to recapitalize the gain, not the loss, into a genuine pluralism of the marketplace--a real free-market economy that keeps the entrepreneurial spirit fully operational and fully accountable with an easily verifiable legitimacy by the full and peacefully prosperous participation and determination of The People.
What We The People want is what We The People need.
Having what We want and need is entirely possible.
It is time to do it!
Obama/Biden!
Intended Consequences
Modeling for Stability
Notice how volatile markets are. Hardly the model of stability.
If you are managing your savings, your capital, for the highest return based on, as we are told, that the highest return is in equities, then there is likely to be a high volume of savings in equities.
While stocks have the highest return on investment, it is volatile. The hedge fund manager--the person that angles to leverage a 30+ percent return--hedges the risk on the return by causing volatility--by market manipulation with volume. Since a 30+ percent return cannot be had through economic growth without causing competition (pluralism of the marketplace) which would diminish the power of consolidating (use of volume to manipulate prices), the return is leveraged from your savings, about 40 percent so far.
If you want to "share" in the wealth, you MUST deconsolidate the capital.
The current political-economic model in operation, the Hamiltonian model, promises to ensure stability. Its legitimacy is that by always providing for the welfare of the highest income class in priority causes stability.
For the highest imcome class, the elite, the model very reliably provides the means of gaining power and keeping it. It is verifiably stable. It always produces the intended consequence--the highest return on the investment with reliable efficiency (falsely referred to as the efficiency of markets).
This model is called, the elitist model of power.
For non-elits, it is the model of instability. The volatility--the micro/macro stochastic oscillation that is naturally predictable--is the business cycle you are "subjected" to, and because the cycle has this "natural" characteristic of predictability, the subjugation, the exploitation, is a natural determinism. The subjugation of the ruled to the rulers is a "dictate" of nature that persists despite whatever imaginary, Jeffersonian notion there may be for The Natural Rights of Humanity.
We cannot escape our natural condition. It exists independently of our imaginary ideals. If we foolishly try to transcend what subjects us to reality, the consequences are reliably determined to be instability, and according to the neo-conservative elements of our global society, the cause of our current instability can be nothing but the foolish attempt to defy conservative principles and values, the laws of nature, the proper and efficient elitist model of power.
The elitist model is, of course, verifiable nonsense, right up there with the flat earth at the center of the universe.
That we continue with this idiocy is a complete tragicomedy.
The McCain/Palin ticket is laughable! Combined with the current economic crisis, a complete tragedy!
Let's get real for much, much needed change.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Notice how volatile markets are. Hardly the model of stability.
If you are managing your savings, your capital, for the highest return based on, as we are told, that the highest return is in equities, then there is likely to be a high volume of savings in equities.
While stocks have the highest return on investment, it is volatile. The hedge fund manager--the person that angles to leverage a 30+ percent return--hedges the risk on the return by causing volatility--by market manipulation with volume. Since a 30+ percent return cannot be had through economic growth without causing competition (pluralism of the marketplace) which would diminish the power of consolidating (use of volume to manipulate prices), the return is leveraged from your savings, about 40 percent so far.
If you want to "share" in the wealth, you MUST deconsolidate the capital.
The current political-economic model in operation, the Hamiltonian model, promises to ensure stability. Its legitimacy is that by always providing for the welfare of the highest income class in priority causes stability.
For the highest imcome class, the elite, the model very reliably provides the means of gaining power and keeping it. It is verifiably stable. It always produces the intended consequence--the highest return on the investment with reliable efficiency (falsely referred to as the efficiency of markets).
This model is called, the elitist model of power.
For non-elits, it is the model of instability. The volatility--the micro/macro stochastic oscillation that is naturally predictable--is the business cycle you are "subjected" to, and because the cycle has this "natural" characteristic of predictability, the subjugation, the exploitation, is a natural determinism. The subjugation of the ruled to the rulers is a "dictate" of nature that persists despite whatever imaginary, Jeffersonian notion there may be for The Natural Rights of Humanity.
We cannot escape our natural condition. It exists independently of our imaginary ideals. If we foolishly try to transcend what subjects us to reality, the consequences are reliably determined to be instability, and according to the neo-conservative elements of our global society, the cause of our current instability can be nothing but the foolish attempt to defy conservative principles and values, the laws of nature, the proper and efficient elitist model of power.
The elitist model is, of course, verifiable nonsense, right up there with the flat earth at the center of the universe.
That we continue with this idiocy is a complete tragicomedy.
The McCain/Palin ticket is laughable! Combined with the current economic crisis, a complete tragedy!
Let's get real for much, much needed change.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Taxpayer
"We The People." The phrase denotes a legal status. It defines who is legally sovereign, or who rules or governs. According to this legally defined status, The People are constitutionally endowed with the "power" of self-determination--freedom.
Within the general case of legally conferred sovereignty is the freedom to achieve a class status. While it is illegal to achieve a royal status, it is legal to achieve what is considered to be a ruling-class status. Members of this class, largely defined by economic, or financial, independence consider themselves to be beyond the legal status of sovereignty which is relegated to the crude ineptitudes of The People, royalty, and government (regulatory) authority generally.
Where government authority (the sovereignty of The People) must act, it should only act in support of the competent ruling class with the empirical proof of private sector success (Hamiltonianism). Treasury secretary Paulson is currently on Capitol Hill making the case for the Hamiltonian model of power and political economy because, he argues, if we do not support the ruling class, the sovereigns (The People) will be much worse off.
The argument effectively separates a class from the legal sovereign status and elevates it to a supra-sovereign status that is not "considered" a royal status but a managerial class with the impunity of a necessary natural condition of rulers and ruled, of forging order from chaos.
According to Paulson and other elitist bureaucrats, congress must act to finance the ability of the supra-sovereigns to forge order from the chaos, and without it, general crisis is assured. This is nothing but a subsidy, welfare, for the rich to maintain an oversurplus of wealth and power (the cause of the crisis), and a surplus of retributive value that "requires" central command and control to manage it and to be paid for by The People, the ruled, the subjects, the taxpayer (Hamiltonianism).
Legally, the status of the managerial class is subject to the sovereign--The People. It's time to exercise the legal power, the constitutional right, the righteousness, the collective wisdom of pluralistic processes that will ensure the general welfare and not the conceits of an illicit power elite that corrupts the Natural Rights, the peaceful prosperity, of The People.
Supra-sovereigns disclaim their exclusive status when it comes to the tax authority of The People. Why, the elit managers argue, do The People want to tax themselves? Obviously "We" do not. It is exacted by elit authority in an illicit ruler-subject relationship that can only be shammed as democracy, freedom and justice that supports an exclusive status that corrupts Constitutional authority and the virtue of the Natural Rights of Humanity (pluralism).
Interesting how the conceit of supra-sovereign status becomes The People when it comes to needing to tap the liquidity required to cultivate general peace and prosperity through the tax authority. So, we have McCain, for example, saying that tapping the needed liquidity, as Obama/Biden propose, "will increase your [The People's] taxes."
The People are looking for the liquidity, the water, that cultivates prosperity. If you want water, you have to go where the water is. That would be the upper class of incomes, the class that otherwise discalims the status of sovereignty for the ruling class, and rulers exercise the authority to tax. Indeed they do!
The sovereign, the rulers, We The People have the authority to tax. It's time to properly irrigate the fertile fields of peace and prosperity with the liquidity that is being deprived by the corrupt conceits of an exclusive, illegitimate command and control that exercises the politics of deprivation as the will of The People.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Within the general case of legally conferred sovereignty is the freedom to achieve a class status. While it is illegal to achieve a royal status, it is legal to achieve what is considered to be a ruling-class status. Members of this class, largely defined by economic, or financial, independence consider themselves to be beyond the legal status of sovereignty which is relegated to the crude ineptitudes of The People, royalty, and government (regulatory) authority generally.
Where government authority (the sovereignty of The People) must act, it should only act in support of the competent ruling class with the empirical proof of private sector success (Hamiltonianism). Treasury secretary Paulson is currently on Capitol Hill making the case for the Hamiltonian model of power and political economy because, he argues, if we do not support the ruling class, the sovereigns (The People) will be much worse off.
The argument effectively separates a class from the legal sovereign status and elevates it to a supra-sovereign status that is not "considered" a royal status but a managerial class with the impunity of a necessary natural condition of rulers and ruled, of forging order from chaos.
According to Paulson and other elitist bureaucrats, congress must act to finance the ability of the supra-sovereigns to forge order from the chaos, and without it, general crisis is assured. This is nothing but a subsidy, welfare, for the rich to maintain an oversurplus of wealth and power (the cause of the crisis), and a surplus of retributive value that "requires" central command and control to manage it and to be paid for by The People, the ruled, the subjects, the taxpayer (Hamiltonianism).
Legally, the status of the managerial class is subject to the sovereign--The People. It's time to exercise the legal power, the constitutional right, the righteousness, the collective wisdom of pluralistic processes that will ensure the general welfare and not the conceits of an illicit power elite that corrupts the Natural Rights, the peaceful prosperity, of The People.
Supra-sovereigns disclaim their exclusive status when it comes to the tax authority of The People. Why, the elit managers argue, do The People want to tax themselves? Obviously "We" do not. It is exacted by elit authority in an illicit ruler-subject relationship that can only be shammed as democracy, freedom and justice that supports an exclusive status that corrupts Constitutional authority and the virtue of the Natural Rights of Humanity (pluralism).
Interesting how the conceit of supra-sovereign status becomes The People when it comes to needing to tap the liquidity required to cultivate general peace and prosperity through the tax authority. So, we have McCain, for example, saying that tapping the needed liquidity, as Obama/Biden propose, "will increase your [The People's] taxes."
The People are looking for the liquidity, the water, that cultivates prosperity. If you want water, you have to go where the water is. That would be the upper class of incomes, the class that otherwise discalims the status of sovereignty for the ruling class, and rulers exercise the authority to tax. Indeed they do!
The sovereign, the rulers, We The People have the authority to tax. It's time to properly irrigate the fertile fields of peace and prosperity with the liquidity that is being deprived by the corrupt conceits of an exclusive, illegitimate command and control that exercises the politics of deprivation as the will of The People.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Classical Economic Crisis, Neo-Classical Means
President Bush characterized our present economic crisis as "unprecendented" requiring unprecedented measures.
This is false.
It is an attempt to mislead the public to think that this 200 year old means of finance, welfare for the rich (the Hamiltonian model of political economy in which the government supports the financial system and its elit ownership, command and control in whatever current form), is new and, therefore, unanticipated, evolving, and not a threat to the General Welfare.
Jefferson argued that Hamilton's model is, by definition, and will always be, a threat to the General Welfare, and it is the Natural Right, The Duty, of The People to ensure the General Welfare. The Bush administration and the McCain campaign falsely argue the novelty of the crisis to sustain the means of continuing it as the General Welfare, and continue to corrupt the Natural Right, The Duty, of The People.
The crisis--the liquidity crisis--is classical. It is the result of an overaccumulation of a surplus which is what happens with a regressive tax code that John McCain wants to sustain. He in fact offers the disease as the cure.
Classic liquidity crisis is simply this: so much money is surplused into capital ownership within the top economic class that there is not enough to drive (grow) the economy. The problem is classic. It has been going on for hundreds of years and culminated in the Great Depression in which monetarism was invented to add the consolidated liquidity that is called "illiquidity." The means to accomplishing the crisis became "neo" classical. Government operation in the marketplace is being defined, by Constitutional authority, as the General Welfare with the result, of course, being the classic crisis with the legitimacy of public authority, or the Will of The People, or by the Consent of the Governed.
Does the crisis and the means of perpetuating the crisis have your consent?
Continuing a regressive tax code--what McCain offers--is the problem.
A progressive tax code--what Obama/Biden offers is the solution.
The accumulation of income into the top one percent of income classes not seen since just before the Great Depression is no coincidence, and is not new. It is a clear indication of crisis and the accumulation was allowed to occur despite ample warning that was deemed socialist, communist or generally socially psychotic.
Monetizing our way out of the crisis just reinvents the problem. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and convincing. A regressive tax code does not produce the General Welfare, it produces general crisis independent of monetizing the debt.
The Obama/Biden solution--raisng the tax rate at the top margin and lowering it for the other income classes--is very specific to the problem despite the criticism of bought-and-paid-for experts that claim otherwise hoping we will all ignore it or dismiss it as an unfitting simplicity to a complex problem.
Vote for the solution.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
This is false.
It is an attempt to mislead the public to think that this 200 year old means of finance, welfare for the rich (the Hamiltonian model of political economy in which the government supports the financial system and its elit ownership, command and control in whatever current form), is new and, therefore, unanticipated, evolving, and not a threat to the General Welfare.
Jefferson argued that Hamilton's model is, by definition, and will always be, a threat to the General Welfare, and it is the Natural Right, The Duty, of The People to ensure the General Welfare. The Bush administration and the McCain campaign falsely argue the novelty of the crisis to sustain the means of continuing it as the General Welfare, and continue to corrupt the Natural Right, The Duty, of The People.
The crisis--the liquidity crisis--is classical. It is the result of an overaccumulation of a surplus which is what happens with a regressive tax code that John McCain wants to sustain. He in fact offers the disease as the cure.
Classic liquidity crisis is simply this: so much money is surplused into capital ownership within the top economic class that there is not enough to drive (grow) the economy. The problem is classic. It has been going on for hundreds of years and culminated in the Great Depression in which monetarism was invented to add the consolidated liquidity that is called "illiquidity." The means to accomplishing the crisis became "neo" classical. Government operation in the marketplace is being defined, by Constitutional authority, as the General Welfare with the result, of course, being the classic crisis with the legitimacy of public authority, or the Will of The People, or by the Consent of the Governed.
Does the crisis and the means of perpetuating the crisis have your consent?
Continuing a regressive tax code--what McCain offers--is the problem.
A progressive tax code--what Obama/Biden offers is the solution.
The accumulation of income into the top one percent of income classes not seen since just before the Great Depression is no coincidence, and is not new. It is a clear indication of crisis and the accumulation was allowed to occur despite ample warning that was deemed socialist, communist or generally socially psychotic.
Monetizing our way out of the crisis just reinvents the problem. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and convincing. A regressive tax code does not produce the General Welfare, it produces general crisis independent of monetizing the debt.
The Obama/Biden solution--raisng the tax rate at the top margin and lowering it for the other income classes--is very specific to the problem despite the criticism of bought-and-paid-for experts that claim otherwise hoping we will all ignore it or dismiss it as an unfitting simplicity to a complex problem.
Vote for the solution.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Very best wishes.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The McCain Tax Increase
The McCain plan to make the Bush administration's tax cuts permanent will be an effective tax increase.
Although his campaign claims Obama will increase taxes, McCain's tax cuts will make the record budget deficits permanent as well which is one gigantic tax increase for incomes below the top ten percent already burdened with stagflation, a reliable effect of a regressive tax code.
McCain says he will cut spending. That, of course, is a very unlikely promise to keep. A more reliable measure is to progress the code, both stimulating the economy and reducing the budget deficit at the same time. McCain's plan will increase the budget deficit which requires a tax increase on the least able to pay which is deflationary, reducing tax revenue and the value of the dollar (stagflation).
Obama's plan is true to its purpose. McCain's plan is a complete misrepresentation--it will be neo-conservative, exactly what the McCain camp claims to reform. The "change" being offered, this "reform," is just a reformulation of the problem.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Although his campaign claims Obama will increase taxes, McCain's tax cuts will make the record budget deficits permanent as well which is one gigantic tax increase for incomes below the top ten percent already burdened with stagflation, a reliable effect of a regressive tax code.
McCain says he will cut spending. That, of course, is a very unlikely promise to keep. A more reliable measure is to progress the code, both stimulating the economy and reducing the budget deficit at the same time. McCain's plan will increase the budget deficit which requires a tax increase on the least able to pay which is deflationary, reducing tax revenue and the value of the dollar (stagflation).
Obama's plan is true to its purpose. McCain's plan is a complete misrepresentation--it will be neo-conservative, exactly what the McCain camp claims to reform. The "change" being offered, this "reform," is just a reformulation of the problem.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Trillion Dollar Tax Investment
A Senate subcommittee has disclosed that rampant tax evasion schemes marketed to foreign companies by major investment banks, like Lehman Brothers, have resulted in a loss of $100 billion in tax revenue each year for the last ten years.
The practical effect for allowing this to happen, so the theory of trickle-down economics goes, is economic growth.
The trillion dollar empirical investment and the resulting evidence--a bankrupt banking system and a gigantic budget deficit (a tax increase)--decidedly disconfirms trickle-down economic theory, wouldn't you say?
McCain and Palin support the trickle-down theory of economics as pro growth despite the evidence overwhelmingly being economic conditions not seen since the Great Depression.
If the recessionary trend has not yet affected you, vote for McCain/Palin, it will be coming for you!
The practical effect for allowing this to happen, so the theory of trickle-down economics goes, is economic growth.
The trillion dollar empirical investment and the resulting evidence--a bankrupt banking system and a gigantic budget deficit (a tax increase)--decidedly disconfirms trickle-down economic theory, wouldn't you say?
McCain and Palin support the trickle-down theory of economics as pro growth despite the evidence overwhelmingly being economic conditions not seen since the Great Depression.
If the recessionary trend has not yet affected you, vote for McCain/Palin, it will be coming for you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)