Health care reformers advocating the public option have stated the problem this way: health care is a right and not a privilege.
Empirically, it is necessary to clearly identify the hypothesis to be tested.
Is health care being "a right and not a privilege" a testable hypothesis?
Of course not. That is largely why the problem, and the solution, tends to be framed in a political, qualitatively normative way.
To test the normative hypothesis, there has to be a way to measure the change.
If the problem is to make health care more affordable, and thus the measure of verification is how many people receive health care because they can afford it, the problem (the hypothesis) is strongly stated in a clearly verifiable way--financed from the consumer up, not the top down.
Alternatively, the problem is weakly stated as "a right and not a privilege" because the objective (the teleology of the argument) is to rig the price without really making it more affordable. How much wealth is accumulated and consolidated--the real measure of affordability-- is not the hypothesis to be tested. Consolidation of wealth and power then has the moral--the normative--force, or strength, of the argument. The cause of the problem is falsely confirmed to be the right thing to do by a process of validation.
Taxing the value added to health care and returning the revenue to fund a free and unconsolidated marketplace is the testable solution. Not only may health care be affordably provided, but free of political (gamma risk) manipulation verified from the bottom up. It is something that can be clearly measured or verified with a strong immunity to the anachronism of pure rhetorical artifice.
The normative argument "right and not privilege" can be rendered a verifiable hypothesis from the bottom up. A person participates with the full capacity for an exchange of value: with the disinflationary capacity to demand or not demand rather than just the aggregate inflationary pressure, and the deflationary consequence, of a massively monetized insurance policy.
Monetizing in the aggregate from the top down, rathering than empowering the consumer, serves to ensure providers get rich enough to retire at fifty, causing a shortage of doctors instead of creating the incentive to add supply in a profitable market.
Rendering the normative argument a verifiable hypothesis from the bottom up provides an effective means of controlling costs instead of consolidating wealth and causing the crises that deprives affordability of goods and services. Deprivation in the name of natural right over privilege is a ruse of days gone by.
Empirics is the order of the day, not the same old rhetorical tricks of the normative trade. Just like when the monarch claimed to be the absolute arbitor of what is righteous and good, favoring the republican form of government over real and directly verifiable democratic solutions to our problems is an anachronism.
The elitist model, with clearly verifiable deprivational qualities, is clearly passe'. The absolute is obsolete when reform is in demand.
The organizational typology is the strong predictor of the probable outcome, not partisan rhetoric and duopolistic schemas that innovatively reinvent the problem as the solution in the guise of the empirical process of continuous improvement.
To explain the necessity of centralizing the market in the name of reform (making health care a right and not a privilege), the medical profession is said to be over-specialized and too expensive. The result is a system of rationing that deprives the right to goods and services, rendering health care a class commodity--an emblem of status or privilege. Depriving people of what they need is categorically wrong.
While the normative sentiment is veritably agreeable, it is not verifiably rigorous considering that consolidation of power into the privilege of conferring it, rather than democratically sharing it, is the problem, not the solution.
The solution is not to confer the privilege, but to democratically ensure the right to freely participate in a way that maximizes a person's individual utility which, in turn, determines the profitability of the health care providers and insurers, not the other way around.
Showing posts with label ethics and morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics and morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Gaming With Too Big to Fail
We will see the oversized financial firms being compensated by the public sector for wrecking the economy bargain to have it all their way with the threat of not participating in the government programs, or threatening to wreck it even more. That is what organizing to be too big to fail is for--to have it all your way. To be a tyrant.
Considering that "too big to fail" means they are indispensable, it is nothing but extortion. The fraud and abuse we have come to expect from these unexpendable economic entities is apparently not enough to demonstrate the extent of corporate hegemony.
Fascism is not the acceptable alternative to the threat of socialism.
What is too big to fail is easily cured with the public sector operating to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, the antithesis of "too big to fail." Fascism or socialism (another false binomial choice in which to toggle) is not the only alternative. The government action will not be ex-post-facto, it will not be a bill of attainder to punish corporates that have organized to get away with fraud, abuse and extortion. The progressive tax code needed to finance the third alternative will be to pluralize and destroy the tyranny that plagues The People.
The lack of action to progress the tax code renders the Obama administration's Keynesian stimulus plan equally unstimulating because it depreciates the value of the dollar. Energy and food prices will rise with a depreciating dollar, deflating the economy, what the stimulus spending is supposed to cure.
Understand that being able to dictate the cause-effect relationship of the dollar's value coupled with consumer prices is accomplished by organizing to be too big to fail, mainly by being able to restrict supply and thereby determine demand (deflation).
Being too big to fail does not suffer from deflation. It is a winner on the up cycle and the down cycle. It is being too small to survive that incurs all the detriment, and that detriment is consolidated into the benefit of being able to dictate the relationship, the ability to assess the value, control the bid, of commodities and currencies.
Ensuring the competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, financed with a progressive tax code across all jurisdictions, in priority cures this organizational problem of being too big to fail. The economy is then dominated by small firms with highly adaptable and innovative efficiencies that are as much concerned with low prices, full employment and adding supply (a strong dollar) by default of the system than just making a profit and deflating the economy by default.
Large, too-big-to-fail corporates benefit from deflation. It is profitable. It strengthens the ability to tyrannize the marketplace. The favorable terms for the corporate to be offered by treasury secretary, Geitner to recapitalize the financial market is a demonstration of "success" of the business model that Federal Reserve chairman, Bernanke describes as inimical but inevitable. Tyranny is the efficiency that a consolidated and collusive corporate achieves (and that can be a socialist legitimacy as well) at the expense of all other efficiencies.
Arguing that the large size, and big profits, of the large corporate allows for risk taking that would not otherwise occur, providing productive and innovative efficiency that only organizing to be too big to fail can provide, is an empirically nulled hypothesis. Maintaining the argument at this point is just a lie intended to conserve the means of tyranny (the elitist model of power and political economy).
The treasury secretary's plan to recapitalize "too big to fail" (remember, huge profits were made and converted into private equity before big financial firms "failed" with the probability of global economic collapse, which means that they--what is inimical--really should be allowed to fail) will be a demonstration of the power of the corporate that will confirm by false induction the Hamiltonian model as the only possible alternative: the private sector's too-big-to-fail corporate structure trumps the value of government (the sovereignty of The People). The empirical measure of superior value will be the assessed value of return on investment for one private enterprise dollar over a government (The People's) dollar. According to Geitner's plan, "The Public-Private Investment Program," The People's dollar only has a fraction of the value a hedge-fund, private-equity dollar of the private sector. The value of the private sector's dollar is considered, and validated, as supra-sovereign, and in the same way, as Nietzsche describes it, the inexorable "will to power" that is "beyond good and evil."
The difference between the public and private sector's return on the investment is the reward, the vigorish, of the will to power (to organize to be too big to fail). The struggle for political-economic dominance, hegemony of power, is the reason for being and existence again being played out and verified by the gaming we see now in progress. If we want to be verified existential moral deficients, we buy into this philosophical construct and practical modeling of power.
If we want to ensure the good life (a moral existence), we should try the third alternative: ensuring the competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, financed with a progressive tax code across all jurisdictions, in priority to cure the organizational problem of being too big to fail.
Considering that "too big to fail" means they are indispensable, it is nothing but extortion. The fraud and abuse we have come to expect from these unexpendable economic entities is apparently not enough to demonstrate the extent of corporate hegemony.
Fascism is not the acceptable alternative to the threat of socialism.
What is too big to fail is easily cured with the public sector operating to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, the antithesis of "too big to fail." Fascism or socialism (another false binomial choice in which to toggle) is not the only alternative. The government action will not be ex-post-facto, it will not be a bill of attainder to punish corporates that have organized to get away with fraud, abuse and extortion. The progressive tax code needed to finance the third alternative will be to pluralize and destroy the tyranny that plagues The People.
The lack of action to progress the tax code renders the Obama administration's Keynesian stimulus plan equally unstimulating because it depreciates the value of the dollar. Energy and food prices will rise with a depreciating dollar, deflating the economy, what the stimulus spending is supposed to cure.
Understand that being able to dictate the cause-effect relationship of the dollar's value coupled with consumer prices is accomplished by organizing to be too big to fail, mainly by being able to restrict supply and thereby determine demand (deflation).
Being too big to fail does not suffer from deflation. It is a winner on the up cycle and the down cycle. It is being too small to survive that incurs all the detriment, and that detriment is consolidated into the benefit of being able to dictate the relationship, the ability to assess the value, control the bid, of commodities and currencies.
Ensuring the competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, financed with a progressive tax code across all jurisdictions, in priority cures this organizational problem of being too big to fail. The economy is then dominated by small firms with highly adaptable and innovative efficiencies that are as much concerned with low prices, full employment and adding supply (a strong dollar) by default of the system than just making a profit and deflating the economy by default.
Large, too-big-to-fail corporates benefit from deflation. It is profitable. It strengthens the ability to tyrannize the marketplace. The favorable terms for the corporate to be offered by treasury secretary, Geitner to recapitalize the financial market is a demonstration of "success" of the business model that Federal Reserve chairman, Bernanke describes as inimical but inevitable. Tyranny is the efficiency that a consolidated and collusive corporate achieves (and that can be a socialist legitimacy as well) at the expense of all other efficiencies.
Arguing that the large size, and big profits, of the large corporate allows for risk taking that would not otherwise occur, providing productive and innovative efficiency that only organizing to be too big to fail can provide, is an empirically nulled hypothesis. Maintaining the argument at this point is just a lie intended to conserve the means of tyranny (the elitist model of power and political economy).
The treasury secretary's plan to recapitalize "too big to fail" (remember, huge profits were made and converted into private equity before big financial firms "failed" with the probability of global economic collapse, which means that they--what is inimical--really should be allowed to fail) will be a demonstration of the power of the corporate that will confirm by false induction the Hamiltonian model as the only possible alternative: the private sector's too-big-to-fail corporate structure trumps the value of government (the sovereignty of The People). The empirical measure of superior value will be the assessed value of return on investment for one private enterprise dollar over a government (The People's) dollar. According to Geitner's plan, "The Public-Private Investment Program," The People's dollar only has a fraction of the value a hedge-fund, private-equity dollar of the private sector. The value of the private sector's dollar is considered, and validated, as supra-sovereign, and in the same way, as Nietzsche describes it, the inexorable "will to power" that is "beyond good and evil."
The difference between the public and private sector's return on the investment is the reward, the vigorish, of the will to power (to organize to be too big to fail). The struggle for political-economic dominance, hegemony of power, is the reason for being and existence again being played out and verified by the gaming we see now in progress. If we want to be verified existential moral deficients, we buy into this philosophical construct and practical modeling of power.
If we want to ensure the good life (a moral existence), we should try the third alternative: ensuring the competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, financed with a progressive tax code across all jurisdictions, in priority to cure the organizational problem of being too big to fail.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Assessing Value
AIG Retention Bonuses
The MBA executives that devised and administered the hedge fund division of AIG without fear of government regulation did their job with superior expertise. They executed what they were hired to do with superior performance.
They are being compensated for a job well done. So, what's wrong with that?
If we think that the AIG, MBA hedge fund executives were not hired to wreck the economy, we would be wrong. They produced huge value put away into the private property--the personal wealth--of the upper class, creating the largest accumulation of income in the upper class since before The Great Depression; deflated and consolidated the economic expansion--the more pluralistic expansion and equitable distribution of the wealth--that occured in the 90's when we had a more progressive tax code; created a huge budget deficit to be paid with a regressive tax burden while increasing the demand (the need) for government (including the TARP); and a convergence of what is public and what is private into a practical, organizational technology that ensures private ownership of the benefit, and public ownership of the detriment. This is a macro-economic model of economic entities too large to fail, antithetical to a free-market economics, that operationalizes neo-classical, Keynesian, capitalism into a low-risk, high-return business model, designed and executed by the best and brightest our educational institutions can produce and that money can buy.
The model is an elitist model called, state capitalism in which financing the cost is a function of the public sector, and financing compensation (the reward of success) is a function of the private sector. It is a bifurcation of the power structure retained by evolution of the model in order for it to survive and maintain an obviously inequitable outcome with a democratic legitimacy (see the article "Public Finance and Community Power Structure" and "Evolution of the Political Economy" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
Notice how the controversial AIG compensation cannot be changed. It is compensation for value received, which includes the value lost--like small businesses that will be allowed to fail (less competition) with the value of unemployment (lower compensation costs) and the loss of asset values (net worth) consolidated due to illiquidity (a lack of available credit and income) that will be resold with the lost value re-"gained," or realized in the recovery (distribution) phase of the business cycle. The value is not lost, it is consolidated, which is the goal, the intended consequence, the effect, the outcome of the classical model of capitalism in which the measure of success is defined by class distinction (unequal compensation and net worth). According to the power elite, it is the moral imperative, the "natural" outcome, that should not be, and as we see, cannot be, changed.
So we see, the economic value (the compensation, or what "We" are "willing" to pay) is a "moral" value to be conserved. Changing the inequity (the assessment of value) would rip the very moral fabric of civilized society and would condemn us to a conflicted process of chaos to be forged into order by a power elite. Nature is inescapable. It is inexorable. It is futile--immoral--to resist what is natural and, therefore, righteous in both the means and ends of power.
With a necessary talent for masterfully arguing the fallacy of composition, the inequity of what "We" are "willing" to pay, conservatives argue, is the equilibrium, the stability, of a civil society. The will to power is, therefore, the will to a peaceful prosperity and, therefore, the natural will of The People and the function of "the republic." Denying the ministers of the power elite full value is, therefore, neither legal or proper. The inequitable compensation is really the will of The People, the public good that, if you recall, Palin described during the last presidential campaign as the secret knowlege, the inscrutably difficult wisdom, conservatives have about what is really moral and righteous.
Controlling The Bid
It is, therefore, by the conservative argument, righteous to ensure the means of the power elite to control the bid (economic inequity), or what is "willing" to be paid and cannot be changed with the force and legitimacy of law (public authority, or the Hamiltonian model of government, "...the Republic for which it stands, under God, with liberty and justice for all").
Organizing to ensure the consolidation of wealth and power--organizing to be too big to fail--is the means to control the bid and, thus, the obviously inequitable compensation that, according to the force and legitimacy of public authority, is an assessment of value that is freely contracted and to be justly paid as compensation we are all entitled to (political equity) for services rendered of comparable quality (the effect, or the value rendered and received--the inequity). It is our natural right to be fully compensated for value freely contracted, performed and received. The value assessed and the compensation to be received is, then, legal and proper?
No!
The ability to control the bid is illegal! It is the effect of organizing to defeat the mechanism of free-market economics. That is entirely illegal and improper.
The conservative argument presented above is 18th Century utilitarianism in which the bourgeosie needed a legitimacy of power that was beyond the inherited and divine right of royalty. While the legal philosophy of the want-to-be kings expanded the right to rule (collect taxes and generally decide the fate of others) to the "natural rights of man," the divine right to rule is retained as a vestige of an evolving structure of power (see the article "Evolution of the Political Economy" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
For the government (what was previously the king, or the sovereign) to abrogate the contractual obligation for AIG's retention bonuses would be an illegal usurpation of public power; a dictatorial act strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
For the new power elite, power has to be gained, or won, by a pluralistic economic process freely pursued without government (the king's) interference (laissez-faire capitalism). God, or nature, acts to determine, or providentially endows, the legitimacy of power by class distinction of economic measure, and the "natural right" to that economic value (the private sector) is enforced with the constitutional legitimacy of public authority (the public sector). Where we see the right to private property becoming evermore a function of public policy and finance, assessing the value is no longer the exclusive domain of private want-to-be kings. Evolution of the power structure has been reduced to a choice between the fundamental elements of power. Should we choose an elitist or pluralist model of power and political economy?
Where the reward of gaining wealth, and power, is the ability to dictate the marketplace without government interference, the legitimacy of power is lost; and where government has evolved with a convergence of what is public and private to operate for administering private profit through public process (the political economy), what has evolved is the means and not the ends of power (see the article "Restructuring the Elements of Power" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
In order for the ends to converge with the legitimate means of power, we must choose the practical model to accomplish it. The elitist model is a confirmed failure--a nulled hypothesis (see the article "Science and Life" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
If we choose a pluralist model, the public and private dimensions of power will be fused by government ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority. Choosing an elitist model will evolve the legitimacy of power from state capitalism (private gains with public losses) to state socialism. The probability of democracy diminishes significantly when it will be possible to operate as a fascist or a socialist state depending on the ability of the power elite to argue the value, if not the reality, of one or the other by means of public process, much like what we have now.
Does not Chavez argue his concept of the good life is what The People really want just like the conservative argument above, with what The People want always to be announced? Will exploitation of value assessed be an evolutionary vestige from state capitalism to state socialism? Accepting the pluralist model renders the question moot. Rather than uncertainty, we will have the practical application of continuous improvement through empirical process of close accountability--Democracy with a big "D." What is good and practically righteous--the value assessed--becomes the full value of choice, the full measure of what We The People decide in the full realization of what it means to be free.
Instead of ensuring the means to control the bid (the value assessed), ensure the means to prevent it with the clear and up close verifiable legitimacy that a free-market economics (pluralism) provides.
The MBA executives that devised and administered the hedge fund division of AIG without fear of government regulation did their job with superior expertise. They executed what they were hired to do with superior performance.
They are being compensated for a job well done. So, what's wrong with that?
If we think that the AIG, MBA hedge fund executives were not hired to wreck the economy, we would be wrong. They produced huge value put away into the private property--the personal wealth--of the upper class, creating the largest accumulation of income in the upper class since before The Great Depression; deflated and consolidated the economic expansion--the more pluralistic expansion and equitable distribution of the wealth--that occured in the 90's when we had a more progressive tax code; created a huge budget deficit to be paid with a regressive tax burden while increasing the demand (the need) for government (including the TARP); and a convergence of what is public and what is private into a practical, organizational technology that ensures private ownership of the benefit, and public ownership of the detriment. This is a macro-economic model of economic entities too large to fail, antithetical to a free-market economics, that operationalizes neo-classical, Keynesian, capitalism into a low-risk, high-return business model, designed and executed by the best and brightest our educational institutions can produce and that money can buy.
The model is an elitist model called, state capitalism in which financing the cost is a function of the public sector, and financing compensation (the reward of success) is a function of the private sector. It is a bifurcation of the power structure retained by evolution of the model in order for it to survive and maintain an obviously inequitable outcome with a democratic legitimacy (see the article "Public Finance and Community Power Structure" and "Evolution of the Political Economy" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
Notice how the controversial AIG compensation cannot be changed. It is compensation for value received, which includes the value lost--like small businesses that will be allowed to fail (less competition) with the value of unemployment (lower compensation costs) and the loss of asset values (net worth) consolidated due to illiquidity (a lack of available credit and income) that will be resold with the lost value re-"gained," or realized in the recovery (distribution) phase of the business cycle. The value is not lost, it is consolidated, which is the goal, the intended consequence, the effect, the outcome of the classical model of capitalism in which the measure of success is defined by class distinction (unequal compensation and net worth). According to the power elite, it is the moral imperative, the "natural" outcome, that should not be, and as we see, cannot be, changed.
So we see, the economic value (the compensation, or what "We" are "willing" to pay) is a "moral" value to be conserved. Changing the inequity (the assessment of value) would rip the very moral fabric of civilized society and would condemn us to a conflicted process of chaos to be forged into order by a power elite. Nature is inescapable. It is inexorable. It is futile--immoral--to resist what is natural and, therefore, righteous in both the means and ends of power.
With a necessary talent for masterfully arguing the fallacy of composition, the inequity of what "We" are "willing" to pay, conservatives argue, is the equilibrium, the stability, of a civil society. The will to power is, therefore, the will to a peaceful prosperity and, therefore, the natural will of The People and the function of "the republic." Denying the ministers of the power elite full value is, therefore, neither legal or proper. The inequitable compensation is really the will of The People, the public good that, if you recall, Palin described during the last presidential campaign as the secret knowlege, the inscrutably difficult wisdom, conservatives have about what is really moral and righteous.
Controlling The Bid
It is, therefore, by the conservative argument, righteous to ensure the means of the power elite to control the bid (economic inequity), or what is "willing" to be paid and cannot be changed with the force and legitimacy of law (public authority, or the Hamiltonian model of government, "...the Republic for which it stands, under God, with liberty and justice for all").
Organizing to ensure the consolidation of wealth and power--organizing to be too big to fail--is the means to control the bid and, thus, the obviously inequitable compensation that, according to the force and legitimacy of public authority, is an assessment of value that is freely contracted and to be justly paid as compensation we are all entitled to (political equity) for services rendered of comparable quality (the effect, or the value rendered and received--the inequity). It is our natural right to be fully compensated for value freely contracted, performed and received. The value assessed and the compensation to be received is, then, legal and proper?
No!
The ability to control the bid is illegal! It is the effect of organizing to defeat the mechanism of free-market economics. That is entirely illegal and improper.
The conservative argument presented above is 18th Century utilitarianism in which the bourgeosie needed a legitimacy of power that was beyond the inherited and divine right of royalty. While the legal philosophy of the want-to-be kings expanded the right to rule (collect taxes and generally decide the fate of others) to the "natural rights of man," the divine right to rule is retained as a vestige of an evolving structure of power (see the article "Evolution of the Political Economy" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
For the government (what was previously the king, or the sovereign) to abrogate the contractual obligation for AIG's retention bonuses would be an illegal usurpation of public power; a dictatorial act strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
For the new power elite, power has to be gained, or won, by a pluralistic economic process freely pursued without government (the king's) interference (laissez-faire capitalism). God, or nature, acts to determine, or providentially endows, the legitimacy of power by class distinction of economic measure, and the "natural right" to that economic value (the private sector) is enforced with the constitutional legitimacy of public authority (the public sector). Where we see the right to private property becoming evermore a function of public policy and finance, assessing the value is no longer the exclusive domain of private want-to-be kings. Evolution of the power structure has been reduced to a choice between the fundamental elements of power. Should we choose an elitist or pluralist model of power and political economy?
Where the reward of gaining wealth, and power, is the ability to dictate the marketplace without government interference, the legitimacy of power is lost; and where government has evolved with a convergence of what is public and private to operate for administering private profit through public process (the political economy), what has evolved is the means and not the ends of power (see the article "Restructuring the Elements of Power" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
In order for the ends to converge with the legitimate means of power, we must choose the practical model to accomplish it. The elitist model is a confirmed failure--a nulled hypothesis (see the article "Science and Life" at griffithlighton.blogspot.com).
If we choose a pluralist model, the public and private dimensions of power will be fused by government ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority. Choosing an elitist model will evolve the legitimacy of power from state capitalism (private gains with public losses) to state socialism. The probability of democracy diminishes significantly when it will be possible to operate as a fascist or a socialist state depending on the ability of the power elite to argue the value, if not the reality, of one or the other by means of public process, much like what we have now.
Does not Chavez argue his concept of the good life is what The People really want just like the conservative argument above, with what The People want always to be announced? Will exploitation of value assessed be an evolutionary vestige from state capitalism to state socialism? Accepting the pluralist model renders the question moot. Rather than uncertainty, we will have the practical application of continuous improvement through empirical process of close accountability--Democracy with a big "D." What is good and practically righteous--the value assessed--becomes the full value of choice, the full measure of what We The People decide in the full realization of what it means to be free.
Instead of ensuring the means to control the bid (the value assessed), ensure the means to prevent it with the clear and up close verifiable legitimacy that a free-market economics (pluralism) provides.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Re-Modeling the Iteration
With the election of Senator Obama, we can organize a newly effective political-eonomic fractile iteration.
Organization theorists generally agree that the morality of the population generally reflects its leadership. The deduction is only partially true. The economic crisis we are in reflects a conformity with a morality of greed and avarice, for example, that is systematically instilled by a practical model of elitist power that iterates throughout the bureaucratic structure right down to the individual.
At the individual level is where we see the structuralist model break down. A more Jeffersonian model of government in which the legitimacy of power is empirically built and verified from the bottom up will iterate a new structure of power.
A more pluralistic model allows for the morality of The People's wisdom to iterate a self-similarity into the echelons of leadership. The result will be an organizational efficiency of means to ends that moral concepts are largely concerned with in practice, but become the teleological claptrap of elitist moral inducements, like "spreading the wealth around will makes us less productive," and even more insidious, to suggest that re-capitalizing the accumulated capital through a more progressive tax code is tantamount to stealing it from its rightful owner.
The moral concepts and practices, like anything in Nature, are due for a technical correction. To correct itself for what is truly righteous. It is an ontological event that has the teleology of human habilations converging with human ethical intelligence to form the pragmatics of achieving the good life, which cannot be attained without it being "spread around."
Obama naturally fits this ontological convergence to form a new iteration of our self-concept that conservatives have hopelessly endeavored to prevent by every possible means throughout our political-economic history. The ontology of the corrective event is not to be transcended by operation of elitist conceit to power. The truth just "is" and ontologically asserts itself regardless of our teleological means to induce the ends of power.
Obama is the catalyst for change, not the cause of it. He will build the coalition for change we need, but We The People make it happen, We iterate the good life to the upper echelons of power, from family to neighborhood, from community to nation, from nation to the world. We The People are truly sovereign.
Organization theorists generally agree that the morality of the population generally reflects its leadership. The deduction is only partially true. The economic crisis we are in reflects a conformity with a morality of greed and avarice, for example, that is systematically instilled by a practical model of elitist power that iterates throughout the bureaucratic structure right down to the individual.
At the individual level is where we see the structuralist model break down. A more Jeffersonian model of government in which the legitimacy of power is empirically built and verified from the bottom up will iterate a new structure of power.
A more pluralistic model allows for the morality of The People's wisdom to iterate a self-similarity into the echelons of leadership. The result will be an organizational efficiency of means to ends that moral concepts are largely concerned with in practice, but become the teleological claptrap of elitist moral inducements, like "spreading the wealth around will makes us less productive," and even more insidious, to suggest that re-capitalizing the accumulated capital through a more progressive tax code is tantamount to stealing it from its rightful owner.
The moral concepts and practices, like anything in Nature, are due for a technical correction. To correct itself for what is truly righteous. It is an ontological event that has the teleology of human habilations converging with human ethical intelligence to form the pragmatics of achieving the good life, which cannot be attained without it being "spread around."
Obama naturally fits this ontological convergence to form a new iteration of our self-concept that conservatives have hopelessly endeavored to prevent by every possible means throughout our political-economic history. The ontology of the corrective event is not to be transcended by operation of elitist conceit to power. The truth just "is" and ontologically asserts itself regardless of our teleological means to induce the ends of power.
Obama is the catalyst for change, not the cause of it. He will build the coalition for change we need, but We The People make it happen, We iterate the good life to the upper echelons of power, from family to neighborhood, from community to nation, from nation to the world. We The People are truly sovereign.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Moralizing the Hazard
According to the McCain campaign, spreading the wealth is a moral hazard.
Mainstream economists, and the McCain campaign, argue that without the consolidation of wealth and power, capitalism will not operate to make the necessary sacrifice to produce capital and investment needed to produce economic growth and the wealth for The People. Spreading the wealth nullifies the sacrifice necessary to produce capital and wealth. It is, therefore, a "moral hazard."
Redistribution of the wealth is to be avoided because, as Sarah Palin proclaims, with her professed deeper understanding of what is right and good for The People, giving the wealth away to the people that labor to create it will ultimately make them unproductive. To suffer deprivation of the wealth is the sacrifice necessary to accumulate capital so that The People will be willing to suffer for its creation.
The deeper understanding neo-conservatives have, accordingly, is that the sacrifice of The People--the crisis we are now experiencing--is a necessary condition for the creation of the wealth. Not allowing for it to occur will result in crisis, so the solution to our crisis is to be sure that it happens. Avoiding the crisis is a hazard to be avoided, so we should be sure to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and realizing that is the product of a higher moral intelligence.
In order to have all the things a wealthy person buys but does not need that trickles the wealth down to The People, must be suffered by The People not being able to buy what they need. The result is a debtor economy. Not to allow for the sacrifice is, by the deeper understanding, immoral because it deprives consolidation of the wealth, falsely argued as the formation of capital.
The capital does not have to be consolidated. Consolidating the capital, the sacrifice, causes debt, economic crisis. It always has and always will.
Instead of avoiding a moral hazard, the conservative, Hamiltonian argument moralizes the hazard.
The Good Lord Says: "...forgive us our debts as We forgive those that have debts against us." The McCain campaign has a deeper understanding of this: forgiving the debt, not allowing the debt to be suffered, is a moral hazard. It will ultimately make us all unproductive.
The Lord's Prayer is not just sanctified sentiment for soothing the soul. It is a call to action!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Mainstream economists, and the McCain campaign, argue that without the consolidation of wealth and power, capitalism will not operate to make the necessary sacrifice to produce capital and investment needed to produce economic growth and the wealth for The People. Spreading the wealth nullifies the sacrifice necessary to produce capital and wealth. It is, therefore, a "moral hazard."
Redistribution of the wealth is to be avoided because, as Sarah Palin proclaims, with her professed deeper understanding of what is right and good for The People, giving the wealth away to the people that labor to create it will ultimately make them unproductive. To suffer deprivation of the wealth is the sacrifice necessary to accumulate capital so that The People will be willing to suffer for its creation.
The deeper understanding neo-conservatives have, accordingly, is that the sacrifice of The People--the crisis we are now experiencing--is a necessary condition for the creation of the wealth. Not allowing for it to occur will result in crisis, so the solution to our crisis is to be sure that it happens. Avoiding the crisis is a hazard to be avoided, so we should be sure to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and realizing that is the product of a higher moral intelligence.
In order to have all the things a wealthy person buys but does not need that trickles the wealth down to The People, must be suffered by The People not being able to buy what they need. The result is a debtor economy. Not to allow for the sacrifice is, by the deeper understanding, immoral because it deprives consolidation of the wealth, falsely argued as the formation of capital.
The capital does not have to be consolidated. Consolidating the capital, the sacrifice, causes debt, economic crisis. It always has and always will.
Instead of avoiding a moral hazard, the conservative, Hamiltonian argument moralizes the hazard.
The Good Lord Says: "...forgive us our debts as We forgive those that have debts against us." The McCain campaign has a deeper understanding of this: forgiving the debt, not allowing the debt to be suffered, is a moral hazard. It will ultimately make us all unproductive.
The Lord's Prayer is not just sanctified sentiment for soothing the soul. It is a call to action!
Obama/Biden 2008!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Pro-Life Politics
Few among us want to end incipient human life, and few would champion the right to life for the unborn so they may suffer deprivations and a sorrowful existence by devices that we determine, we choose, for them.
Assuring a life to lead is peaceful, prosperous, meaningfully self-determined is to provide the unborn with the highest assurance of their right to live.
Choosing to build a world that assures "The Right to Life" is only by our confirmation of an undeprived "Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." By assuring a life to be lived and not aborted.
Choice is a function of intelligence, a moral intelligence. Choosing to build a world for life requires its use and determines the righteousness of our existence.
The Republican, neo-conservative politics of deprivation that you can very easily confirm with the most casual awareness of what we have now is not Pro-Life.
Yes! Choose life!
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Assuring a life to lead is peaceful, prosperous, meaningfully self-determined is to provide the unborn with the highest assurance of their right to live.
Choosing to build a world that assures "The Right to Life" is only by our confirmation of an undeprived "Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." By assuring a life to be lived and not aborted.
Choice is a function of intelligence, a moral intelligence. Choosing to build a world for life requires its use and determines the righteousness of our existence.
The Republican, neo-conservative politics of deprivation that you can very easily confirm with the most casual awareness of what we have now is not Pro-Life.
Yes! Choose life!
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Limited Liability
The legal status of the corporate entity is the limited liability. The people that own the assets of the corporation cannot be held personally responsible (accountable) for any wrong doing. It alienates the "person" from the corporate detriment that can, and does, operate to produce value that is "personally" held as private property.
The legitimacy for the limited accountability is solely dependant on the operation of a free and unconsolidated marketplace. That's why consolidation of industry and markets (power) is illegal by statute.
The theory of a limited corporate liability is not void of a moral intelligence. As long as a free and unconsolidated marketplace obtains, the entrepreneur that loses his business due to abusive practices survives the negative sanction both public and private to prove himself worthy of the public's consent. The business person is not criminalized or prohibited from practice, but the corporate is allowed to be reorganized into a productive entity that is both legal and proper. That effectively maximizes the probability for maximum supply by maximizing the incentive to provide it without being abusive. It is a legacy of 18th Century utilitarianism.
While the corporate limit to liability has evolved limitations, a salient example being the liability of Enron executives, the limits are to preserve the limited liability without its proper legitimacy--a free and unconsolidated marketplace. This is where the limited liability suffers a lack of moral intelligence.
The cure is to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority (pluralism). This will not lead to economic collapse and massive unemployment as the advocates of large, consolidated entities argue. On the contrary, it will maximize those values.
Join the coalition to elect Barack Obama and maximize the profitability of your business and the peaceful, secure prosperity of your family, of your nation, of your world!
Very best wishes.
The legitimacy for the limited accountability is solely dependant on the operation of a free and unconsolidated marketplace. That's why consolidation of industry and markets (power) is illegal by statute.
The theory of a limited corporate liability is not void of a moral intelligence. As long as a free and unconsolidated marketplace obtains, the entrepreneur that loses his business due to abusive practices survives the negative sanction both public and private to prove himself worthy of the public's consent. The business person is not criminalized or prohibited from practice, but the corporate is allowed to be reorganized into a productive entity that is both legal and proper. That effectively maximizes the probability for maximum supply by maximizing the incentive to provide it without being abusive. It is a legacy of 18th Century utilitarianism.
While the corporate limit to liability has evolved limitations, a salient example being the liability of Enron executives, the limits are to preserve the limited liability without its proper legitimacy--a free and unconsolidated marketplace. This is where the limited liability suffers a lack of moral intelligence.
The cure is to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority (pluralism). This will not lead to economic collapse and massive unemployment as the advocates of large, consolidated entities argue. On the contrary, it will maximize those values.
Join the coalition to elect Barack Obama and maximize the profitability of your business and the peaceful, secure prosperity of your family, of your nation, of your world!
Very best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)