Don't be fooled by the drop in the health insurance sector.
I can see it coming. We're headed for a mandate. Both doctors and insurance companies are going to be able to command a person's income into oblivion on something you have to have. The inelasticity of demand will be chiseled in stone.
Let's say you go to Barf Burger and order a super-size infarction burger. "That'l be $2.50."
"$2.50! What do you mean. This thing is gonna kill me and you want me to pay too much for it too!"
Not buying the burger is to "demand" the price be lower.
Mandating is a way to rig, or command, the price; exactly what healthcare does not need if we are to control the cost.
Demand is more than what pulls the price up. It can also pull it down, but we are not apt to discuss that because it is disinflationary--it maximizes the ability to demand the price and minimizes the ability to command it.
Organizing for demand economics maximizes the consumer's income and minimizes the probability, if not the severity, of liquidity crises. Organizing for command maximizes accumulation and concentration of income and always causes liquidity crises.
Which should we choose to organize for in priority, choice or mandate?
Let's say the price of an infarction burger is disinflated or "demanded" lower. The cost of healthcare is included in the lower price. If buying two instead of one kills you twice as fast, the demand is rendered more elastic.
Dictating, or mandating, the marketplace is just a bad idea.
The choice here is whether we all have freedom or allow the means for a few want-to-be tyrants to accumulate the wealth and power to dictate it.
Showing posts with label free market economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free market economics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Organizing for Needed Change
If We The People want to effectively reverse and eliminate the cyclical crisis we are now experiencing, not only is trickle-down economics an empirically disconfirmed hypothesis that demands much-needed change, but the organized consolidation of the economy that it operates to produce and maintain demands change as well.
We see the congressional delegaton attempting to apply solutions to our economic woes that are the problem. It can hardly be characterized as "change we need."
From the price of commodities to the way public and private entities plan what we produce, the problem is organizational.
Bailing out what is "too big to fail" just perpetuates the problem--too big to fail--and effectively validates the "belief" that it is the model of efficiency when it is a hypothesis clearly disconfirmed by the evidence (massive unemployment and massive monetary support).
The massive monetary support will not reorganize the problem. It will provide a short term monetary stimulus that will forget the cause of the problem--the acquired belief that bigger is better, or most efficient.
The evidence that it is not is overwhelming!
Organizing for the consolidation of the political economy, for the consolidation of power, is the status quo ante, not change we need.
Instead of a point at which change is to naturally occur for a continuous, empirical improvement, our current crisis is being used to reinvent the problem into a confirmed consolidation of practical power that allows for elitist command and control of our political economy and for a continued false self-determination of The People.
If we do not reinvest, reorganize, consolidation of economic factors into small factors of manageable efficiencies that are quickly responsive to supply and demand costs and benefits and the tastes and preferences of the consumer (the public) with an equally quick accountability, the public is condemned to elite management of the political economy that in no way ensures a rational, objective, pragmatic decisional process that the collective will of The People is most apt to provide with a clearly verifiable legitimacy.
It is not impossible, and surely more possible and less complex than what we are doing now, to invest a small entrepreneurial economic system in which the stabilty of the system is not dependant, and therefore less apt to be corrupt, abusive and inefficient, if the failure of one industry or market entity does not condemn the entire system to short or long-term cyclical crisis.
Instead of how big you are being the measure of success, surviving the pluralism of the free marketplace is the measure of success.
Allowing for organized consolidation renders as the measure of success how corrupt and abusive a business can be and still stay in business (like securitizing--consolidating--debt obligations too big to let fail and impossible to renegotiate so that the debtor must fail and the lender must be bailed out). The abuse includes the margin of profit (inflation and unemployment to be managed politically) and a decisional process that leads to clearly verfied inefficiencies of current form that are shown to be difficult at best to reverse even with the force of public funding and authority. Reversing this measure of success is the change we need, and is entirely possible.
More than $2 trillion of monetary and fiscal stimulus (investment) is best spent to pluralize (deconsolidate) the economy, and power. The reason this alternative is ignored if not discouraged is because it will effectively cure what ails us. It will minimize the probability of crisis by not maintaining a consolidated model of power in which its huge costs are rendered a predictable, recurrent benefit of a power elite and a means to apply power rather than properly deny it.
Instead of denying access to power the inefficiencies of aspiring to be big enough to be corrupt and abusive, what access to financing provides and largely determines, the rigors of pluralism are discouraged for a systematic structure of power in which the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is largely the discretion of a ruling class, enforced by the self-determination of the masses to be in service to it. It is antithetical to a structural model for freedom, morality, and efficiency.
Maintaining the model we have now is to commit to a proven model for encouraging inefficiency, immorality and a lack of freedom that interact to be a cause for crisis and, historically, acquiesence to an elitist model that cyclically reinforces and reinvents itself. An elitist model always deliberately discourages the natural tendency for a peaceful and prosperous pluralism. It cultivates and ensures its succession with the promise of a short-term comfort and security that assures the probability of an insecure future.
Invest pluralism of the marketplace in priority, not its continued consolidation as we are determined to do now despite the domonstrable political will for "change we need."
We see the congressional delegaton attempting to apply solutions to our economic woes that are the problem. It can hardly be characterized as "change we need."
From the price of commodities to the way public and private entities plan what we produce, the problem is organizational.
Bailing out what is "too big to fail" just perpetuates the problem--too big to fail--and effectively validates the "belief" that it is the model of efficiency when it is a hypothesis clearly disconfirmed by the evidence (massive unemployment and massive monetary support).
The massive monetary support will not reorganize the problem. It will provide a short term monetary stimulus that will forget the cause of the problem--the acquired belief that bigger is better, or most efficient.
The evidence that it is not is overwhelming!
Organizing for the consolidation of the political economy, for the consolidation of power, is the status quo ante, not change we need.
Instead of a point at which change is to naturally occur for a continuous, empirical improvement, our current crisis is being used to reinvent the problem into a confirmed consolidation of practical power that allows for elitist command and control of our political economy and for a continued false self-determination of The People.
If we do not reinvest, reorganize, consolidation of economic factors into small factors of manageable efficiencies that are quickly responsive to supply and demand costs and benefits and the tastes and preferences of the consumer (the public) with an equally quick accountability, the public is condemned to elite management of the political economy that in no way ensures a rational, objective, pragmatic decisional process that the collective will of The People is most apt to provide with a clearly verifiable legitimacy.
It is not impossible, and surely more possible and less complex than what we are doing now, to invest a small entrepreneurial economic system in which the stabilty of the system is not dependant, and therefore less apt to be corrupt, abusive and inefficient, if the failure of one industry or market entity does not condemn the entire system to short or long-term cyclical crisis.
Instead of how big you are being the measure of success, surviving the pluralism of the free marketplace is the measure of success.
Allowing for organized consolidation renders as the measure of success how corrupt and abusive a business can be and still stay in business (like securitizing--consolidating--debt obligations too big to let fail and impossible to renegotiate so that the debtor must fail and the lender must be bailed out). The abuse includes the margin of profit (inflation and unemployment to be managed politically) and a decisional process that leads to clearly verfied inefficiencies of current form that are shown to be difficult at best to reverse even with the force of public funding and authority. Reversing this measure of success is the change we need, and is entirely possible.
More than $2 trillion of monetary and fiscal stimulus (investment) is best spent to pluralize (deconsolidate) the economy, and power. The reason this alternative is ignored if not discouraged is because it will effectively cure what ails us. It will minimize the probability of crisis by not maintaining a consolidated model of power in which its huge costs are rendered a predictable, recurrent benefit of a power elite and a means to apply power rather than properly deny it.
Instead of denying access to power the inefficiencies of aspiring to be big enough to be corrupt and abusive, what access to financing provides and largely determines, the rigors of pluralism are discouraged for a systematic structure of power in which the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is largely the discretion of a ruling class, enforced by the self-determination of the masses to be in service to it. It is antithetical to a structural model for freedom, morality, and efficiency.
Maintaining the model we have now is to commit to a proven model for encouraging inefficiency, immorality and a lack of freedom that interact to be a cause for crisis and, historically, acquiesence to an elitist model that cyclically reinforces and reinvents itself. An elitist model always deliberately discourages the natural tendency for a peaceful and prosperous pluralism. It cultivates and ensures its succession with the promise of a short-term comfort and security that assures the probability of an insecure future.
Invest pluralism of the marketplace in priority, not its continued consolidation as we are determined to do now despite the domonstrable political will for "change we need."
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Having It All Your Way
If you can have it all your way in the marketplace, it is not a free market.
Republicans have stalled the damned-if-you-do-or-don't rescue bill. They want to include a provision for a capital gains tax reduction in order to attract the liquidity "sitting on the sidelines" needed to resolve the liquidity crisis.
Republicans effectively propose increasing the regressive tax burden that causes liquidity crisis so that providing liquidity--financial service, investment, banking--is made without any tax burden. People that are withholding liquidity and willing to cause hardship for "The People" unless they get a favorable tax burden for causing crisis, and then act like they are our saviors when we have to pay them to save us, is nothing but the very height of corrupt--a lack of practical moral intelligence.
The application of this Hamiltonian model of political economy is a model for having it all one way. It is not a free market model. Yet Republicans argue the legitimacy of the capital gains tax reduction, to validate the operation of free-market "principles" (the private ownership of the capital), to be provision for the free-market model with a competitive tax rate in a rescue bill deemed to be otherwise socialist.
Application of the Hamiltonian model reduces the "competitive" dimension of a free market to a "necessary" use of the surplus, the capital, without a tax burden which, by the overwhelming evidence we have staring us square in the face, causes socialism of the capital.
If socialism is not what you want, don't do what causes it.
What we see here is the application of rhetoric for the development of public policy. Where verification, the scientific method, is needed to produce an effective public policy, validation--the rhetoric of ideological "principles"--is instead being applied.
If you recall, at the outset of the Bush administration, Bush said he would execute "the principles" of conservative economic policy, which are the tax cuts that the McCain camp says it will make permanent. Chief among these cuts was the capital gains tax and the perverse incentive to leverage profit before growth which produced this extra-extensive liquidity crisis that, in the end, cannot, predictably will not, produce the growth to pay the debt (the leverage).
Lowering the capital gains tax is the proverbial putting the fire out with gasoline!
Obama says he will not increase the capital gains tax to increase the incentive for consolidated capital to distribute its consolidated, frozen, liquidity. It is a measure that conserves the consolidation of capital where deconsolidation is needed. It is a pragmatic measure to provide short-term relief, not a confirmation of the necessity for making regressive tax policy, and what causes the crisis, permanent.
The pressure for a tax free use of the consolidated capital is extortionate. Extortion is characterisitic of a criminal element and indicates a lack of choice, a tyranny, where choice must obtain for a legitimately free market economics. It is a means of illegitimately having it all your way.
Republicans have stalled the damned-if-you-do-or-don't rescue bill. They want to include a provision for a capital gains tax reduction in order to attract the liquidity "sitting on the sidelines" needed to resolve the liquidity crisis.
Republicans effectively propose increasing the regressive tax burden that causes liquidity crisis so that providing liquidity--financial service, investment, banking--is made without any tax burden. People that are withholding liquidity and willing to cause hardship for "The People" unless they get a favorable tax burden for causing crisis, and then act like they are our saviors when we have to pay them to save us, is nothing but the very height of corrupt--a lack of practical moral intelligence.
The application of this Hamiltonian model of political economy is a model for having it all one way. It is not a free market model. Yet Republicans argue the legitimacy of the capital gains tax reduction, to validate the operation of free-market "principles" (the private ownership of the capital), to be provision for the free-market model with a competitive tax rate in a rescue bill deemed to be otherwise socialist.
Application of the Hamiltonian model reduces the "competitive" dimension of a free market to a "necessary" use of the surplus, the capital, without a tax burden which, by the overwhelming evidence we have staring us square in the face, causes socialism of the capital.
If socialism is not what you want, don't do what causes it.
What we see here is the application of rhetoric for the development of public policy. Where verification, the scientific method, is needed to produce an effective public policy, validation--the rhetoric of ideological "principles"--is instead being applied.
If you recall, at the outset of the Bush administration, Bush said he would execute "the principles" of conservative economic policy, which are the tax cuts that the McCain camp says it will make permanent. Chief among these cuts was the capital gains tax and the perverse incentive to leverage profit before growth which produced this extra-extensive liquidity crisis that, in the end, cannot, predictably will not, produce the growth to pay the debt (the leverage).
Lowering the capital gains tax is the proverbial putting the fire out with gasoline!
Obama says he will not increase the capital gains tax to increase the incentive for consolidated capital to distribute its consolidated, frozen, liquidity. It is a measure that conserves the consolidation of capital where deconsolidation is needed. It is a pragmatic measure to provide short-term relief, not a confirmation of the necessity for making regressive tax policy, and what causes the crisis, permanent.
The pressure for a tax free use of the consolidated capital is extortionate. Extortion is characterisitic of a criminal element and indicates a lack of choice, a tyranny, where choice must obtain for a legitimately free market economics. It is a means of illegitimately having it all your way.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Profit Before Growth
The economic theory in operation that has led to this current fiancial crisis, just like during the Reaganomics era and the savings and loan crisis, is that ensuring profits through welfare for the rich produces economic growth. Of course, it does not. It results in stagflation and general economic crisis.
Just like the savings and loan crisis in which loans were made to develop commercial real estate before the economic growth was there to support it (the trickle-down theory of economics), the current credit crisis was caused exactly in the same way, through real estate development, and has solicited exactly the same remedial measures.
Are we so stupid that we MUST make the same mistake over and over again?
The recovery plan offered by the treasury secretary for the financial system was predictably Hamiltonian, and opposition to it goes back to the inception of our nation and the modeling of our political-economic system.
The recovery plan is unpopular with The People, favorable to those who do not consider themselves to be a part of "the mob" described as The People. Accordingly, Alexander Hamilton's model of political economy calls for the privilege of profit in priority, assured without risk and financed by taxing The People regressively to secure the welfare of the privileged few first.
The Hamiltonian model was problematic with the popular consent of The People from the start. Not long after Independence, we had the Jacksonian era in which democracy was being reasserted as the legitimacy of power. Much of that revolved around the organization, control and practical administration of the financial system by private ownership of a small elite who considered themselves beyond the legal status of The People. Exactly the same scenario we have today.
The Hamiltonian model of political economy is what is wrong with our financial system. The model needs to be abandoned for a more pluralistic model of power and political economy. The elitist model clearly does not work for The People. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and is decidedly confirmed by the empirics of a popular non-consent of The People. Ignoring the consent of the governed is fundamentally unconstitutional. It is illegal. Disallowing for the wisdom of popular consent, for the efficiency of pluralistic process and determination, is not just a political liability, it is a crime against civil society.
Deconsolidation of political and economic power, replacing the elitist model with the pluralist model, is fully in order.
We do not have to keep making the same mistake over and over again. We should allow the collective wisdom and righteousness of pluralistic processes, like democracy and a free and unconsolidated marketplace, to be assured in priority over a conceited, self-righteous socio-political-economic elit of an overwhelmingly verifiable incompetence!
We must abandon the profit-before-growth model of political economy (the elitist, Hamiltonian model).
The recovery plan offered by the treasury secretary is to provide the liquidity to the banking system (buy the bad debt that could not be paid due to insufficient income due to overconsolidation) and that will trickle-down to The People and stabilize the economy.
The trickle-down theory has been thoroughly tested and it verifiably fails The People with 100 percent reliability. Offering a trickle-down economic solution is an insult to human intelligence! It is nothing but the selfish conceit of a bunch of economic animals incapable of the intelligence required to admimister power toward the General Welfare. These elits do whatever they can to defeat the pluralistic processes of power because it renders their selfish incompetence obsolete.
The defining, and critically operational, characteristic of the Hamiltonian model is the regressive tax code. The first step to a more pluralistic model is a more progressive tax code.
The liquidity necessary to grow the economy before profit must be accessed where it has been consolidated into the wealth of upper incomes whether it be a business or an individual's income. If this measure is not taken, the probability of financial crisis is 100 percent, proven over and over again. It does not mean that a person or their business cannot grow and prosper. It means wealth and power cannot be consolidated into crisis proportion.
Ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority and a progressive tax code organizes the process of ensuring growth before profit that maximizes efficiencies and innovation, ensures an easily verifiable legitimacy and productive equity, and a peaceful prosperity that, instead of always being the means of impending crisis, is not a struggle to maintain.
Very best wishes.
Just like the savings and loan crisis in which loans were made to develop commercial real estate before the economic growth was there to support it (the trickle-down theory of economics), the current credit crisis was caused exactly in the same way, through real estate development, and has solicited exactly the same remedial measures.
Are we so stupid that we MUST make the same mistake over and over again?
The recovery plan offered by the treasury secretary for the financial system was predictably Hamiltonian, and opposition to it goes back to the inception of our nation and the modeling of our political-economic system.
The recovery plan is unpopular with The People, favorable to those who do not consider themselves to be a part of "the mob" described as The People. Accordingly, Alexander Hamilton's model of political economy calls for the privilege of profit in priority, assured without risk and financed by taxing The People regressively to secure the welfare of the privileged few first.
The Hamiltonian model was problematic with the popular consent of The People from the start. Not long after Independence, we had the Jacksonian era in which democracy was being reasserted as the legitimacy of power. Much of that revolved around the organization, control and practical administration of the financial system by private ownership of a small elite who considered themselves beyond the legal status of The People. Exactly the same scenario we have today.
The Hamiltonian model of political economy is what is wrong with our financial system. The model needs to be abandoned for a more pluralistic model of power and political economy. The elitist model clearly does not work for The People. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and is decidedly confirmed by the empirics of a popular non-consent of The People. Ignoring the consent of the governed is fundamentally unconstitutional. It is illegal. Disallowing for the wisdom of popular consent, for the efficiency of pluralistic process and determination, is not just a political liability, it is a crime against civil society.
Deconsolidation of political and economic power, replacing the elitist model with the pluralist model, is fully in order.
We do not have to keep making the same mistake over and over again. We should allow the collective wisdom and righteousness of pluralistic processes, like democracy and a free and unconsolidated marketplace, to be assured in priority over a conceited, self-righteous socio-political-economic elit of an overwhelmingly verifiable incompetence!
We must abandon the profit-before-growth model of political economy (the elitist, Hamiltonian model).
The recovery plan offered by the treasury secretary is to provide the liquidity to the banking system (buy the bad debt that could not be paid due to insufficient income due to overconsolidation) and that will trickle-down to The People and stabilize the economy.
The trickle-down theory has been thoroughly tested and it verifiably fails The People with 100 percent reliability. Offering a trickle-down economic solution is an insult to human intelligence! It is nothing but the selfish conceit of a bunch of economic animals incapable of the intelligence required to admimister power toward the General Welfare. These elits do whatever they can to defeat the pluralistic processes of power because it renders their selfish incompetence obsolete.
The defining, and critically operational, characteristic of the Hamiltonian model is the regressive tax code. The first step to a more pluralistic model is a more progressive tax code.
The liquidity necessary to grow the economy before profit must be accessed where it has been consolidated into the wealth of upper incomes whether it be a business or an individual's income. If this measure is not taken, the probability of financial crisis is 100 percent, proven over and over again. It does not mean that a person or their business cannot grow and prosper. It means wealth and power cannot be consolidated into crisis proportion.
Ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority and a progressive tax code organizes the process of ensuring growth before profit that maximizes efficiencies and innovation, ensures an easily verifiable legitimacy and productive equity, and a peaceful prosperity that, instead of always being the means of impending crisis, is not a struggle to maintain.
Very best wishes.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Taking the Risk
The $700 billion to bail out the financial system and prevent collapse of our economy not only measures the size of the risk taken, but what it costs not to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace.
If you recall, bigger was touted as better because, as large consolidated corporates argued, big economic organizations are able to take bigger risks and do not need to be regulated because the financials of these big economic entities are equally large, so they can afford the risk of loss. This was argued to be the benefit of allowing for consolidation of industries and markets by both Democrats and Republicans, and for a regressive tax policy to finance it by Republicans like Senator Bunning of Kentucky who now laments that the bail out is socialism.
Senator Bunning still maintains that bigger is better and, like McCain, maintains that making the tax cuts permanent and staying the economic course, which includes this failed organizational model of consolidation, is the solution. This is nothing but pure ideological idiocy!
The risk was taken and the size of the organizations taking the risk prevents the free market sanction of eliminating the bad risk and the bad risk takers because they are too big to allow to fail, and if they are allowed to fail, as Bunning would have it, the financial market will be even more consolidated and the dependance even deeper.
The market has been rigged so that the most corrupt is fittest to survive. It is entirely antithetical to a free market economics. It is the model of what a free market is not. It is what is wrong with it.
Change better be coming because with or without the $700 billion bail out, economic crisis is assured because it has been organized for it.
The knowledge, the technical understanding and expertise exists to entirely prevent this crisis. We need to stop ignoring it and stop rewarding the perpetrators of crisis politics and economics.
Organizing for a peaceful and prosperous pluralism is entirely possible by ensuring it in priority.
Rewarding the perversions of consolidated capital and markets, and its corrupt practitioners, should not be the priority, not now, not in the future. If we do, crisis is assured. The choice is ours to make. Ultimately it is a free market--we are self-determined.
What is it going to be? The collective wisdom of our Natural Rights in operation of pluralistic process, or the dictates of tyrannical conceits in operation of consolidated power?
If you recall, bigger was touted as better because, as large consolidated corporates argued, big economic organizations are able to take bigger risks and do not need to be regulated because the financials of these big economic entities are equally large, so they can afford the risk of loss. This was argued to be the benefit of allowing for consolidation of industries and markets by both Democrats and Republicans, and for a regressive tax policy to finance it by Republicans like Senator Bunning of Kentucky who now laments that the bail out is socialism.
Senator Bunning still maintains that bigger is better and, like McCain, maintains that making the tax cuts permanent and staying the economic course, which includes this failed organizational model of consolidation, is the solution. This is nothing but pure ideological idiocy!
The risk was taken and the size of the organizations taking the risk prevents the free market sanction of eliminating the bad risk and the bad risk takers because they are too big to allow to fail, and if they are allowed to fail, as Bunning would have it, the financial market will be even more consolidated and the dependance even deeper.
The market has been rigged so that the most corrupt is fittest to survive. It is entirely antithetical to a free market economics. It is the model of what a free market is not. It is what is wrong with it.
Change better be coming because with or without the $700 billion bail out, economic crisis is assured because it has been organized for it.
The knowledge, the technical understanding and expertise exists to entirely prevent this crisis. We need to stop ignoring it and stop rewarding the perpetrators of crisis politics and economics.
Organizing for a peaceful and prosperous pluralism is entirely possible by ensuring it in priority.
Rewarding the perversions of consolidated capital and markets, and its corrupt practitioners, should not be the priority, not now, not in the future. If we do, crisis is assured. The choice is ours to make. Ultimately it is a free market--we are self-determined.
What is it going to be? The collective wisdom of our Natural Rights in operation of pluralistic process, or the dictates of tyrannical conceits in operation of consolidated power?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Creating Crisis
Bailing Out Freddie and Fannie
This is a regulatory function of the modern bureacratic political economy.
Despite the conventional wisdom, it is not a function of substituting, or correcting, for market failure. The market did not fail. It was not allowed to operate by regulatory authority in priority. Rather, regulatory authority was designed and acted to allow for consolidation of capital and markets that defeats the collective wisdom and practical utility of pluralistic processes, like a free and unconsolidated marketplace, toward an easily manageable, predictable, and legitimately self-correcting fundament of economic theory and practice.
If regulatory authority does not ensure pluralistic processes in priority, the result is a complex of economic techniques that further alienate the fundamentals from the problem. The result is an economy that is operating with a false self-correcting operational mechanism and legitimacy that creates a reliance on technocratic management of the crisis it creates, which is what is wrong with it.
This kind of economic modeling (elitist modeling) requires central management and control--a command economy.
The very people that denounce socialism and communism as command control of economy have created it for you and argue that it is the result of free market economics. It is a fraud. It is the model of corporate fascism in operation in which a few plutocrats fancy themselves the supra sovereigns of society. They are the criminal element, a few of whom are in the process of being prosecuted, like Broadcom executives, but that is not sufficient. These are just well-paid lieutenants of the fascist form of power.
It is the model that needs to be changed: from corporate elitism to corporate pluralism in which the free market mechanism is truly and legitimately operating to produce the public good, which will be a genuine supply-side economics that renders the demand-side economics (an economics of deprivation) we have now a crude conceit of consolidated corporate power and corruption.
The McCain camp is not the agent for this change.
We need change that genuinely fulfills the requirement for legitimate pluralistic processes that make for a world in which the collective wisdom is allowed to operate with the predictable patterns of peace and prosperity, and not the tyranical machinations of a conceited, consolidated corporate always innovating new ways of creating classic economic crisis and ways to manage it. McCain is just an element, presented as an unwilling tool, of this innovation.
The McCain camp is a continuation of the fraud.
Real, much-needed change is found with Obama and Biden.
If you vote Republican, you vote for the means of your deprivation.
This is a regulatory function of the modern bureacratic political economy.
Despite the conventional wisdom, it is not a function of substituting, or correcting, for market failure. The market did not fail. It was not allowed to operate by regulatory authority in priority. Rather, regulatory authority was designed and acted to allow for consolidation of capital and markets that defeats the collective wisdom and practical utility of pluralistic processes, like a free and unconsolidated marketplace, toward an easily manageable, predictable, and legitimately self-correcting fundament of economic theory and practice.
If regulatory authority does not ensure pluralistic processes in priority, the result is a complex of economic techniques that further alienate the fundamentals from the problem. The result is an economy that is operating with a false self-correcting operational mechanism and legitimacy that creates a reliance on technocratic management of the crisis it creates, which is what is wrong with it.
This kind of economic modeling (elitist modeling) requires central management and control--a command economy.
The very people that denounce socialism and communism as command control of economy have created it for you and argue that it is the result of free market economics. It is a fraud. It is the model of corporate fascism in operation in which a few plutocrats fancy themselves the supra sovereigns of society. They are the criminal element, a few of whom are in the process of being prosecuted, like Broadcom executives, but that is not sufficient. These are just well-paid lieutenants of the fascist form of power.
It is the model that needs to be changed: from corporate elitism to corporate pluralism in which the free market mechanism is truly and legitimately operating to produce the public good, which will be a genuine supply-side economics that renders the demand-side economics (an economics of deprivation) we have now a crude conceit of consolidated corporate power and corruption.
The McCain camp is not the agent for this change.
We need change that genuinely fulfills the requirement for legitimate pluralistic processes that make for a world in which the collective wisdom is allowed to operate with the predictable patterns of peace and prosperity, and not the tyranical machinations of a conceited, consolidated corporate always innovating new ways of creating classic economic crisis and ways to manage it. McCain is just an element, presented as an unwilling tool, of this innovation.
The McCain camp is a continuation of the fraud.
Real, much-needed change is found with Obama and Biden.
If you vote Republican, you vote for the means of your deprivation.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Pragmatic Alternative
The alternative to all the complexity we experience with political-economic issues can be obviated with a very simple political measure: ensuring a free and unconsolidated economic model in priority.
Ensuring a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, Adam Smith said, is the first and foremost job of government.
Why is it we don't hear big business mention that part of Adam Smith's prescription for free market economics? How come we don't hear Bernanke or Paulson say anything about ensuring a practical pluralism instead of ensuring that what is big cannot be allowed to fail? How pragmatic is it to not put all the eggs in one basket? I do believe an MBA can figure that out as being of a very high practical utility, yet it is suffering a complete technocratic deficiency.
Why is because it does not have priority. In fact, it has no priority for the administration of power. The alternative we need to achieve an efficienct accountability of power is being denied access to its constitutional apparatus. It is barred from entry, and those barriers must be removed to achieve a genuine constitutional legitimacy of power. The antithesis of the true legitimacy is not just a bad approximation of the perfect model, it is the lack of it. It is wholly illegitimate.
Notice that the inflation has been increasing most in sectors that have been allowed to consolidate the most. That clearly identifies a direct causal relationship that can be effectively treated with ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority instead of trying, or not trying, to regulate it with an easily cooptable authority.
Pluralism is poison to a consolidated model of power. It ensures accountability, low prices, full employment and adequate compensation for sustainable growth through innovation in priority. It is a deconsolidation of power that centralized power authorities consider inimical to its interests and must falsely sell to The People as the general welfare.
We need to stop buying it and strive for the perfect market model. Practice makes perfect, and if we try, we can get close enough for all practical purposes. What do we have to lose but the chains that bind us with what we have now.
The antithesis of what we have now is ensuring a free market model, not ensuring a consolidation of power.
Obama is the consumate pragmatist. He is most suited to allow for the pragmatic processes of a legitimately free market mechanism that allows for the innovative empirics of a continuous improvement and a quality of life we all deserve, that we all KNOW we can have, if we try!
Very best wishes.
Ensuring a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, Adam Smith said, is the first and foremost job of government.
Why is it we don't hear big business mention that part of Adam Smith's prescription for free market economics? How come we don't hear Bernanke or Paulson say anything about ensuring a practical pluralism instead of ensuring that what is big cannot be allowed to fail? How pragmatic is it to not put all the eggs in one basket? I do believe an MBA can figure that out as being of a very high practical utility, yet it is suffering a complete technocratic deficiency.
Why is because it does not have priority. In fact, it has no priority for the administration of power. The alternative we need to achieve an efficienct accountability of power is being denied access to its constitutional apparatus. It is barred from entry, and those barriers must be removed to achieve a genuine constitutional legitimacy of power. The antithesis of the true legitimacy is not just a bad approximation of the perfect model, it is the lack of it. It is wholly illegitimate.
Notice that the inflation has been increasing most in sectors that have been allowed to consolidate the most. That clearly identifies a direct causal relationship that can be effectively treated with ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority instead of trying, or not trying, to regulate it with an easily cooptable authority.
Pluralism is poison to a consolidated model of power. It ensures accountability, low prices, full employment and adequate compensation for sustainable growth through innovation in priority. It is a deconsolidation of power that centralized power authorities consider inimical to its interests and must falsely sell to The People as the general welfare.
We need to stop buying it and strive for the perfect market model. Practice makes perfect, and if we try, we can get close enough for all practical purposes. What do we have to lose but the chains that bind us with what we have now.
The antithesis of what we have now is ensuring a free market model, not ensuring a consolidation of power.
Obama is the consumate pragmatist. He is most suited to allow for the pragmatic processes of a legitimately free market mechanism that allows for the innovative empirics of a continuous improvement and a quality of life we all deserve, that we all KNOW we can have, if we try!
Very best wishes.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Shifting Focus
The focus is being placed on allowing the failures of capitalism to occur and, of course, those failures result in consolidation of the capital.
Horizontal and vertical integration of financial entities with deregulation was not a measure for pluralism. It was integration of markets shammed as a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace through the deregulation of the financial sector. It allowed for consolidation that does not allow the "bigness" of a particular business to fail without dragging others down with it. That is not pluralism. That is consolidation and shifts the risk to the public debt; and who is identified as the debtor on that debt when the regressive quality of trickle-down economics is figured in?
It devolves the debt to those least able to pay, which is the new rule for not lending the money that has led to the liquidity crisis. Why is it not OK for a mortgage, but OK for paying the public debt? The result, of course, is just a continuously accumulating public debt until it is stopped and reversed with a more progressive tax code.
Allowing for integration of industries and markets occurs through deregulation if the goal is to ensure crisis without risk of failure and consolidation of the wealth (the reward of success without the legitimacy of risk in either case of failure or not) as a result.
Trickle down economics was sold as a benefit to those that it assigns the larger part of debtor status on the public debt. If you do not buy government debt (bonds)--and you are not likely to if you have to pay all that debt both public and private--you've been had, but good, by this system of capitalism that is being falsely sold to you as the operation of free market economics.
It is capitalism with illegitimate consolidation of markets. It is a systematic means of stealing value and calling it your personal property. It is theft. That's why consolidating markets,including their integration by diversification within an industry or sector, has been, and should be illegal.
Payment of the value on the risk can be equitably assigned by operation of public process toward a more progressive tax code. That is where the focus needs to be, along with prosecuting the criminals that corrupt the free marketplace into tyranny, in our courts of criminal justice and with the verifiable legitimacy of your popular vote.
Join the coalition for Obama and build a system for ensuring the freedom to prosper your business, your job, your nation, your world, instead of enslaving it!
Very best wishes.
Horizontal and vertical integration of financial entities with deregulation was not a measure for pluralism. It was integration of markets shammed as a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace through the deregulation of the financial sector. It allowed for consolidation that does not allow the "bigness" of a particular business to fail without dragging others down with it. That is not pluralism. That is consolidation and shifts the risk to the public debt; and who is identified as the debtor on that debt when the regressive quality of trickle-down economics is figured in?
It devolves the debt to those least able to pay, which is the new rule for not lending the money that has led to the liquidity crisis. Why is it not OK for a mortgage, but OK for paying the public debt? The result, of course, is just a continuously accumulating public debt until it is stopped and reversed with a more progressive tax code.
Allowing for integration of industries and markets occurs through deregulation if the goal is to ensure crisis without risk of failure and consolidation of the wealth (the reward of success without the legitimacy of risk in either case of failure or not) as a result.
Trickle down economics was sold as a benefit to those that it assigns the larger part of debtor status on the public debt. If you do not buy government debt (bonds)--and you are not likely to if you have to pay all that debt both public and private--you've been had, but good, by this system of capitalism that is being falsely sold to you as the operation of free market economics.
It is capitalism with illegitimate consolidation of markets. It is a systematic means of stealing value and calling it your personal property. It is theft. That's why consolidating markets,including their integration by diversification within an industry or sector, has been, and should be illegal.
Payment of the value on the risk can be equitably assigned by operation of public process toward a more progressive tax code. That is where the focus needs to be, along with prosecuting the criminals that corrupt the free marketplace into tyranny, in our courts of criminal justice and with the verifiable legitimacy of your popular vote.
Join the coalition for Obama and build a system for ensuring the freedom to prosper your business, your job, your nation, your world, instead of enslaving it!
Very best wishes.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Stock in Trade
To be arbitrary and capricious. To be unpredictable is the stock in trade of a consolidated capital. It is a hallmark of power: something is, or is not, just because you command it. Economically, that would be a command economy.
So we have a current macro-technical in which the relationship of a giant budget deficit and the interest rate has been improperly reversed into an ad hoc deflation of our economy in which nothing seems to make sense, cause-effect is a matter of an ideological opinion, and the uncertainty causes a high risk factor, and trepidation, of acting contrary to convention. Will raising the interest rate reverse the deflationary trend or deepen it?
Rather than rely on what we don't know, let's rely on what we do!
Consolidated capital distorts markets. The technicals just reflect an arbitrary and capricious market behavior. Things that should have value do not, things that don't do, things that have value are irrationally overvalued...valuations are entirely at the mercy of a consolidated command of capital. It is the antithesis of a free market economics.
Thus, both the problem of our economic woes has been properly identified and the solution properly induced in priority.
All we need to do now is act on it in priority.
Build the coalition for Barack Obama, 2008!
Very best wishes.
So we have a current macro-technical in which the relationship of a giant budget deficit and the interest rate has been improperly reversed into an ad hoc deflation of our economy in which nothing seems to make sense, cause-effect is a matter of an ideological opinion, and the uncertainty causes a high risk factor, and trepidation, of acting contrary to convention. Will raising the interest rate reverse the deflationary trend or deepen it?
Rather than rely on what we don't know, let's rely on what we do!
Consolidated capital distorts markets. The technicals just reflect an arbitrary and capricious market behavior. Things that should have value do not, things that don't do, things that have value are irrationally overvalued...valuations are entirely at the mercy of a consolidated command of capital. It is the antithesis of a free market economics.
Thus, both the problem of our economic woes has been properly identified and the solution properly induced in priority.
All we need to do now is act on it in priority.
Build the coalition for Barack Obama, 2008!
Very best wishes.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
What's the Plan?
Our economic planners, after the unprecedented economic growth produced by a more progressive tax code in the 1990's, planned the economy to deflate.
The rejection of trickle-down economics in the 90's for a more Jeffersonian model of political economy produced an environment in which new businesses flourished and labor was more in control than it had ever been by market forces. Economic growth was exceptionally strong, disconfirming the trickle-down hypothesis, and confirming the progressive tax hypothesis.
The pluralistic environment of a progressive tax code is inimical to big business which relies on regressive taxation, accumulating debt, slow growth (minimal competition), high prices (maximal inflation and profits), demand reduction (declining purchasing power), overproduction (rising inventories) and rising unemployment--stagflation and deflation, or what we have now. That's the plan. Mission accomplished.
The Hamiltonian plan entails shipping our raw materials to Asia, where it is a labor-buyer's market, and shipping cheap finished goods back. The only advantage of the free trade agreements is the labor cost advantage. Otherwise, the trade agreements are a model of inefficiency, or extremely bad planning. The result, the plan, is inflation AND unemployment for our nation, which is why it is beyond the technology of monetarism to bank our way out of it.
For a small elite of the super rich, the supra-sovereign elite in command of the global economy, the plan is a complete success. For the vast majority of Americans, it is proving to be a dismal failure, just as planned.
Now that Americans are increasingly desperate for jobs, the comparative labor-cost advantage shifts back, especially if we have state-provided healthcare. The energy cost also adds a comparative, natural, advantage for manufacturing to be closer to both its raw material inputs and its consumer market. Again, this advantage should have never been commanded away. It was a huge misfeasance, if not a deliberate malfeasance, doing tremendous harm for a very narrow benefit.
A more pluralistic model of power and political economy is clearly in order to wrest this command economy away from its commanders.
Ensuring a genuine, unconsolidated, free market mechanism in priority, beginning with a simple progressive tax code on all income without exception, is clearly in order.
John McCain is not the candidate to do that.
If you want a plan that works for the vast majority of America, its businesses, its government, with a thoroughly verifiable legitimacy that is the constitutional legitimacy of providing for the general welfare, and not a small group of would-be monarchs, vote for the conscience and competence we need to move our nation forward, Barack Obama!
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton
The rejection of trickle-down economics in the 90's for a more Jeffersonian model of political economy produced an environment in which new businesses flourished and labor was more in control than it had ever been by market forces. Economic growth was exceptionally strong, disconfirming the trickle-down hypothesis, and confirming the progressive tax hypothesis.
The pluralistic environment of a progressive tax code is inimical to big business which relies on regressive taxation, accumulating debt, slow growth (minimal competition), high prices (maximal inflation and profits), demand reduction (declining purchasing power), overproduction (rising inventories) and rising unemployment--stagflation and deflation, or what we have now. That's the plan. Mission accomplished.
The Hamiltonian plan entails shipping our raw materials to Asia, where it is a labor-buyer's market, and shipping cheap finished goods back. The only advantage of the free trade agreements is the labor cost advantage. Otherwise, the trade agreements are a model of inefficiency, or extremely bad planning. The result, the plan, is inflation AND unemployment for our nation, which is why it is beyond the technology of monetarism to bank our way out of it.
For a small elite of the super rich, the supra-sovereign elite in command of the global economy, the plan is a complete success. For the vast majority of Americans, it is proving to be a dismal failure, just as planned.
Now that Americans are increasingly desperate for jobs, the comparative labor-cost advantage shifts back, especially if we have state-provided healthcare. The energy cost also adds a comparative, natural, advantage for manufacturing to be closer to both its raw material inputs and its consumer market. Again, this advantage should have never been commanded away. It was a huge misfeasance, if not a deliberate malfeasance, doing tremendous harm for a very narrow benefit.
A more pluralistic model of power and political economy is clearly in order to wrest this command economy away from its commanders.
Ensuring a genuine, unconsolidated, free market mechanism in priority, beginning with a simple progressive tax code on all income without exception, is clearly in order.
John McCain is not the candidate to do that.
If you want a plan that works for the vast majority of America, its businesses, its government, with a thoroughly verifiable legitimacy that is the constitutional legitimacy of providing for the general welfare, and not a small group of would-be monarchs, vote for the conscience and competence we need to move our nation forward, Barack Obama!
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton
Monday, June 30, 2008
What Freedom is Not
Elits disagree over the direction, the control, of our economy, on the surface at least.
Ben Bernanke, federal reserve chief, a quasi-public bureaucrat who must choose the clientele he serves--the private financial sector that funds the agency or the general public, favors the Hamiltonian model.
The federal reserve now faces another potential bailout with a combine of public and private funds as another big investment bank flounders. It could be that Bernanke may let it fail to demonstrate the effects of not supporting the Hamiltonian model of political economy.
The public administration of a consolidated capital does not mean it is not misfeasant or malfeasant. No, it can be just as irresponsible, like most central planners of a consolidated power, because the central authority (the central bank) will not allow it to fail. If the federal reserve does allow an oversized horizontally and vertically integrated financial entity to fail, the integration of which should have been illegal and the scenario prevented in priority, the assets of this company will be consolidated, further centralized, into a command and control economy.
Berkshire Hathaway will be there to consolidate the assets, with Warren Buffet standing in opposition to the federal reserve's Hamiltonian modeling. It will be the pot calling the kettle black, but Buffet will claim it is not a taxpayer bailout, and "the public" will not be paying to keep a private institution of power solvent without sharing in the profits (shareholder class status), just the losses, to be shared by the class of "little people."
The "little people" are not the stupid masses to be taken advantage of by a more clever Hamiltonian elite. No. They are commanded to be the shareholders of detriment by the indirect means of the political-economic process of power, protected by the force and legitimacy of public authority. It is the product of a "command" economy, not free market economics.
The legitimacy must be by force of public authority because command and control by an elite is not Constitutional (publicly legitimate) and the command of the economy (organized consolidation of assets) is not, by definition, a free market mechanism (private legitimacy).
The model is entirely illegitimate.
The illegitimacy must not be managed with overt force in priority, but only as a consequence, like not allowing for consolidation of your assets as a result of the business cycle, which will earn you a forceful visit from the local constabulary.
Extending from the macro level, command and control is by a central planning authority of public/private means to form a bureaucratic model of power and political economy. The private sector operates with a false free-market legitimacy, and the public sector operates to adjust for the externalities, the consequences, mostly in the form of value in demand to be retributed as disposable income. That value, however, is accumulated as capital to deprive demand to increase the supply and maximize the profit on that limited supply.
Ensuring a true free-market legitimacy will cure this problem by organizing to produce the supply to produce the profit, and not its deprivation, or supply-side economics.
John McCain and his neo-conservative company are not supply-side, free marketeers. They are command and control Hamiltonians masquerading the mere mechanics of buying and selling as proof of free market economics. It is a fraud that must be managed and applied by central authority.
At the heart of this central authority is the means of finance through the treasury department and the federal reserve system (the bureaucratic model of power).
The federal reserve system largely functions to manage the volatility of the business cycle, and along with treasury operates to attenuate the negative externalities of illiquidity (an overaccumulation, consolidation, of wealth). The Economic Stimulus Package of 2008, for example, was distributed through treasury and financed by the federal reserve (the public debt).
The volatility we experience now manifests with shorter terms and less depth. Capital, however, becomes so consolidated it literally dictates the economy, but within the limits of fail-safe mechanisms, like limits on trage programme trading (the SEC). Both hedge-fund money and programme trading accounts for at least half the volume of the NYSE every day, more than enough to dictate the direction of prices with an inequity on the bid (a suboptimal distribution of capital wealth).
While the power of a consolidated capital is contrary to the legitimacy of free markets, the choice since the trauma of the Great Depression has been monetarism or socialism. The federal reserve maintains a system of monetarism with a consolidated capital. Socialism decidely does not obtain, but as the economy becomes evermore centralized and power consolidated, all it takes is a political decision to make the switch, but it may well be just a change of legitimacy that reinvents, revolutionizes, the inequity it purports to eliminate.
As many political economists have observed, the switch of legitimacy is just a tragicomedy of a change of elites. This is something to be avoided with insistence for a free and unconsolidated marketplace. Otherwise, despite whatever "ism" you brand it, it is still central authority, a consolidated power--the problem!
The complexity, the confusion, associated with identifying the problem is avoided not by identifying what it is, but by what it is not. If it is not the design of a free and unconsolidated market mechanism, then whatever "it" is, is not sufficient to pluralistically check the elements of power toward a peacefully and prosperous, verifiable legitimacy. Anything other than freedom is just an arbitration of what that is.
Discussions always philosophically reduce to legitimacies and attempts to identify or label the means to ends. It is entirely unresolvable and left to the arbitration and caprice of the powerful. It is much easier and effective to identify what freedom is not.
I can most assuredly identify John McCain and the neo-conservative coaltion as what freedom is not!
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a skilled pragmatist of a high moral intelligence capable of helping us realize what freedom really is.
Don't forge the chains that bind you. Forge the tools to break them.
Build the coaltion for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton.
Ben Bernanke, federal reserve chief, a quasi-public bureaucrat who must choose the clientele he serves--the private financial sector that funds the agency or the general public, favors the Hamiltonian model.
The federal reserve now faces another potential bailout with a combine of public and private funds as another big investment bank flounders. It could be that Bernanke may let it fail to demonstrate the effects of not supporting the Hamiltonian model of political economy.
The public administration of a consolidated capital does not mean it is not misfeasant or malfeasant. No, it can be just as irresponsible, like most central planners of a consolidated power, because the central authority (the central bank) will not allow it to fail. If the federal reserve does allow an oversized horizontally and vertically integrated financial entity to fail, the integration of which should have been illegal and the scenario prevented in priority, the assets of this company will be consolidated, further centralized, into a command and control economy.
Berkshire Hathaway will be there to consolidate the assets, with Warren Buffet standing in opposition to the federal reserve's Hamiltonian modeling. It will be the pot calling the kettle black, but Buffet will claim it is not a taxpayer bailout, and "the public" will not be paying to keep a private institution of power solvent without sharing in the profits (shareholder class status), just the losses, to be shared by the class of "little people."
The "little people" are not the stupid masses to be taken advantage of by a more clever Hamiltonian elite. No. They are commanded to be the shareholders of detriment by the indirect means of the political-economic process of power, protected by the force and legitimacy of public authority. It is the product of a "command" economy, not free market economics.
The legitimacy must be by force of public authority because command and control by an elite is not Constitutional (publicly legitimate) and the command of the economy (organized consolidation of assets) is not, by definition, a free market mechanism (private legitimacy).
The model is entirely illegitimate.
The illegitimacy must not be managed with overt force in priority, but only as a consequence, like not allowing for consolidation of your assets as a result of the business cycle, which will earn you a forceful visit from the local constabulary.
Extending from the macro level, command and control is by a central planning authority of public/private means to form a bureaucratic model of power and political economy. The private sector operates with a false free-market legitimacy, and the public sector operates to adjust for the externalities, the consequences, mostly in the form of value in demand to be retributed as disposable income. That value, however, is accumulated as capital to deprive demand to increase the supply and maximize the profit on that limited supply.
Ensuring a true free-market legitimacy will cure this problem by organizing to produce the supply to produce the profit, and not its deprivation, or supply-side economics.
John McCain and his neo-conservative company are not supply-side, free marketeers. They are command and control Hamiltonians masquerading the mere mechanics of buying and selling as proof of free market economics. It is a fraud that must be managed and applied by central authority.
At the heart of this central authority is the means of finance through the treasury department and the federal reserve system (the bureaucratic model of power).
The federal reserve system largely functions to manage the volatility of the business cycle, and along with treasury operates to attenuate the negative externalities of illiquidity (an overaccumulation, consolidation, of wealth). The Economic Stimulus Package of 2008, for example, was distributed through treasury and financed by the federal reserve (the public debt).
The volatility we experience now manifests with shorter terms and less depth. Capital, however, becomes so consolidated it literally dictates the economy, but within the limits of fail-safe mechanisms, like limits on trage programme trading (the SEC). Both hedge-fund money and programme trading accounts for at least half the volume of the NYSE every day, more than enough to dictate the direction of prices with an inequity on the bid (a suboptimal distribution of capital wealth).
While the power of a consolidated capital is contrary to the legitimacy of free markets, the choice since the trauma of the Great Depression has been monetarism or socialism. The federal reserve maintains a system of monetarism with a consolidated capital. Socialism decidely does not obtain, but as the economy becomes evermore centralized and power consolidated, all it takes is a political decision to make the switch, but it may well be just a change of legitimacy that reinvents, revolutionizes, the inequity it purports to eliminate.
As many political economists have observed, the switch of legitimacy is just a tragicomedy of a change of elites. This is something to be avoided with insistence for a free and unconsolidated marketplace. Otherwise, despite whatever "ism" you brand it, it is still central authority, a consolidated power--the problem!
The complexity, the confusion, associated with identifying the problem is avoided not by identifying what it is, but by what it is not. If it is not the design of a free and unconsolidated market mechanism, then whatever "it" is, is not sufficient to pluralistically check the elements of power toward a peacefully and prosperous, verifiable legitimacy. Anything other than freedom is just an arbitration of what that is.
Discussions always philosophically reduce to legitimacies and attempts to identify or label the means to ends. It is entirely unresolvable and left to the arbitration and caprice of the powerful. It is much easier and effective to identify what freedom is not.
I can most assuredly identify John McCain and the neo-conservative coaltion as what freedom is not!
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a skilled pragmatist of a high moral intelligence capable of helping us realize what freedom really is.
Don't forge the chains that bind you. Forge the tools to break them.
Build the coaltion for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Pay More Now or Pay a Lot More Later?
Pay more now or pay a lot more later is the latest argument to justify the excessive shock-price of oil.
The excessive price is being argued as the free-market function of profit indicating the need for added supply.
It is absolutely no such thing!
The shock-price is not a measure of fundamental value reflecting the long term demand-overshoots-supply dimension. Rather, it is a short term measure on the value of the power to command a price of an overconsolidated capital. It is a way to deflate the economy and empirically define class distinction--the haves and the have nots. The more you are made to suffer, the more you are deprived, the lower your demonstrated class. That is what the shock-price of oil is for; to consolidate wealth and demonstrate class.
Arguing you must pay an excessive price now to avoid an even higher price later is a fraud. The people making the argument fully intend for you to pay a higher price later by deflating the economy (deflating your income) even as the artificial peak-price of oil sells off in a technical correction of its real value. There is no intention to add supply because when the economy recovers (a retrace of the down-phase of the cycle falsely argued as economic growth), the cycle of speculative-demand, peak-oil valuation will be repeated as the latest means of cyclical oscillation in a neo-classical, post-monetarist environment.
People that are made to suffer the consequences of deliberate cyclical compression and decompression of the economy are not demonstrably lower class, you are victim of a fraud in the marketplace!
Deny the frauds, the criminals, the practitioners of the politics of deprivation, access to power. It is your legal right, it is your legal obligation.
If you want to grow your business, if you want sustainable economic growth, join the coalition for Barack Obama and start to command your own fate!
Very best wishes.
The excessive price is being argued as the free-market function of profit indicating the need for added supply.
It is absolutely no such thing!
The shock-price is not a measure of fundamental value reflecting the long term demand-overshoots-supply dimension. Rather, it is a short term measure on the value of the power to command a price of an overconsolidated capital. It is a way to deflate the economy and empirically define class distinction--the haves and the have nots. The more you are made to suffer, the more you are deprived, the lower your demonstrated class. That is what the shock-price of oil is for; to consolidate wealth and demonstrate class.
Arguing you must pay an excessive price now to avoid an even higher price later is a fraud. The people making the argument fully intend for you to pay a higher price later by deflating the economy (deflating your income) even as the artificial peak-price of oil sells off in a technical correction of its real value. There is no intention to add supply because when the economy recovers (a retrace of the down-phase of the cycle falsely argued as economic growth), the cycle of speculative-demand, peak-oil valuation will be repeated as the latest means of cyclical oscillation in a neo-classical, post-monetarist environment.
People that are made to suffer the consequences of deliberate cyclical compression and decompression of the economy are not demonstrably lower class, you are victim of a fraud in the marketplace!
Deny the frauds, the criminals, the practitioners of the politics of deprivation, access to power. It is your legal right, it is your legal obligation.
If you want to grow your business, if you want sustainable economic growth, join the coalition for Barack Obama and start to command your own fate!
Very best wishes.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Classic Problem (Perennialism)
There is a philosophical concept called perennialism.
Most philosophers describe a perennialism, grappling with current problems and perception of those problems. Many describe it as inevitable historic recurrence.
A determinism soft or hard, the command mode our economy is in now, the tendency to deflation, is the recurrent bugaboo of capitalism and classical economics--the crisis of overproduction.
All the classic and neo-classic indices are present to suggest a classic economic depression, or a perennial problem. It is a problem even for the beneficiaries of the business cycle (consolidation of wealth) because with each oscillation, within a recent memory especially, the legitimacy of the political-economic process is called into question.
Clearly, the global economy is determined to deflate. It is being commanded by a consolidated wealth. Even though there are differences in the form of the crisis, and the remedial measures available to stabilize it, like monetarism, are more efficient, the result will be the same--overproduction due to a reduction of demand, or deflation. It is a demand-side economics that benefits the consolidation of capital, which is the source of the problem. It is a "classical" economic problem that ALL the classical economists have described, explained, and all predict to be perennially persistent.
The antithesis to demand-side economics is obviously, rationally, in order. Supply-side economics is the solution nature is demanding, awaiting our command.
The solution is simple, it is direct: invest in the supply side, not the demand side like the speculative demand driving the global economy into depression now.
The solution is simple and easily applied. We just have to decide to do it.
Join the coalition for Obama and build the peacefully prosperous world of a self-determined pluralism we all "know" we can have.
Very best wishes.
Most philosophers describe a perennialism, grappling with current problems and perception of those problems. Many describe it as inevitable historic recurrence.
A determinism soft or hard, the command mode our economy is in now, the tendency to deflation, is the recurrent bugaboo of capitalism and classical economics--the crisis of overproduction.
All the classic and neo-classic indices are present to suggest a classic economic depression, or a perennial problem. It is a problem even for the beneficiaries of the business cycle (consolidation of wealth) because with each oscillation, within a recent memory especially, the legitimacy of the political-economic process is called into question.
Clearly, the global economy is determined to deflate. It is being commanded by a consolidated wealth. Even though there are differences in the form of the crisis, and the remedial measures available to stabilize it, like monetarism, are more efficient, the result will be the same--overproduction due to a reduction of demand, or deflation. It is a demand-side economics that benefits the consolidation of capital, which is the source of the problem. It is a "classical" economic problem that ALL the classical economists have described, explained, and all predict to be perennially persistent.
The antithesis to demand-side economics is obviously, rationally, in order. Supply-side economics is the solution nature is demanding, awaiting our command.
The solution is simple, it is direct: invest in the supply side, not the demand side like the speculative demand driving the global economy into depression now.
The solution is simple and easily applied. We just have to decide to do it.
Join the coalition for Obama and build the peacefully prosperous world of a self-determined pluralism we all "know" we can have.
Very best wishes.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Technical Correction
Correcting for the Whipsaw
There needs to be a technical correction on income.
The whipsaw is your income going down while costs go up. The result is a redistribution of income that, by a free market legitimacy, is supposed to add supply to control inflation at full employment which is created by the investment to add the supply (liquidity of capital).
The technical measure for correction is a progressive income tax code with no exceptions. The measure will not cause a budget deficit. It will cause a budget surplus. A regressive income tax code causes a budget deficit in every case across all jurisdictional boundaries.
While the detriment of the tax rate progresses, that progression also has the benefit of the highest incomes being assured payment of the public debt held in the highest proportion. Figuring in a risk-free payment of the debt on a declining rate of infaltion is a substantial benefit that more than offsets the loss of the tax increase. The argued inequity and detriment of the progressive tax increase is entirely false.
The Pareto Optimality of the progressive income tax measure is Strong Positive.
The technical correction to income will not interrupt or materially change the productive incentive of a free market mechanics. Rather it will both restore the mechanism and correct for its absence where the distribution of capital was allowed to consolidate into a liquidity crisis of massive proportion. The corrective measure will technically add the liquidity necessary for economic recovery and sustainable economic growth.
The role of the Federal Reserve will be reduced to ensuring the free market mechanics of the financial sector. Adding liquidity will be in large part rendered progressively obsolete being provided for in priority. Violators of the free market mechanism will be strictly prosecuted and convicted by the Department of Justice with the burden of proof on the defendant to show no violation, like it is now with any alleged tax code violation strictly enforced through Treasury and Justice.
Build the coaltion for Obama, and let the technical correction begin!
Very best wishes.
tags:
technical correction,progressive income taxation,free market economics,adjusting for externalities,public finance,election 2008
There needs to be a technical correction on income.
The whipsaw is your income going down while costs go up. The result is a redistribution of income that, by a free market legitimacy, is supposed to add supply to control inflation at full employment which is created by the investment to add the supply (liquidity of capital).
The technical measure for correction is a progressive income tax code with no exceptions. The measure will not cause a budget deficit. It will cause a budget surplus. A regressive income tax code causes a budget deficit in every case across all jurisdictional boundaries.
While the detriment of the tax rate progresses, that progression also has the benefit of the highest incomes being assured payment of the public debt held in the highest proportion. Figuring in a risk-free payment of the debt on a declining rate of infaltion is a substantial benefit that more than offsets the loss of the tax increase. The argued inequity and detriment of the progressive tax increase is entirely false.
The Pareto Optimality of the progressive income tax measure is Strong Positive.
The technical correction to income will not interrupt or materially change the productive incentive of a free market mechanics. Rather it will both restore the mechanism and correct for its absence where the distribution of capital was allowed to consolidate into a liquidity crisis of massive proportion. The corrective measure will technically add the liquidity necessary for economic recovery and sustainable economic growth.
The role of the Federal Reserve will be reduced to ensuring the free market mechanics of the financial sector. Adding liquidity will be in large part rendered progressively obsolete being provided for in priority. Violators of the free market mechanism will be strictly prosecuted and convicted by the Department of Justice with the burden of proof on the defendant to show no violation, like it is now with any alleged tax code violation strictly enforced through Treasury and Justice.
Build the coaltion for Obama, and let the technical correction begin!
Very best wishes.
tags:
technical correction,progressive income taxation,free market economics,adjusting for externalities,public finance,election 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Theory of Retributive Value
Retributive Value
Positing a theory of retributive value is crucial for understanding the physics of political-economic dynamics; of managing the natural relationships of cause and effect toward predictable, desireable consequences.
Two plus two equals four. Simple, universally understandable, logically positive. If somehow value is removed from the simple, natural equation without adding its value to the natural, necessary, balance of it, the universal balance of the eqation is unstable and naturally acts to correct itself, and will be corrected, without active intervention of the expropriator of the value.
Classical economists were well aware of retributive value. Adam Smith argued nature always equilibriates with the sanction of profit and loss toward continuous improvement much as Darwin observed in nature. Both thinkers posit the theory based on empirical, ontological observation. It was not to support any teleological belief or ideology, but just the pursuit of knowlege from the the particular to the general--the scientific method, a process of induction. It is an exercise in Logical Positivism.
Smith and Darwin are not devoid of moral value. Quite the contrary. They both observed the ontological result of natural forces was a continuous improvement to environmental conditions. It is naturally, teleologically, positive.
If someone removes value from the equation and declares that doing so has rendered the naturally stable and logically positive equation to now be 2+2=5, the eqation is now naturally unstable and illogical. The expropriator will constantly have to act to "conserve" the value removed from the equation to prevent it from returning to its natural condition.
While it is possible to expand the pie, transform nature into wealth, the physics--the logically positive attributes--are naturally conserved. Creating wealth does not create more matter or energy to be utilized: 2+2=5 can only be maintained by political proclamation and practice--by an abstraction of the sociological imagination.
There is a retributive value, a cost, that is accumulated over time as society suffers the unnatural equation of 2+2=3 and the political dissonance of a cognitively abstract 2+2=5 legitimacy. Conserving the removed value can be by brute force, legal proclamation, bureaucratic management. It can be theorized, systematized and monetized many times over, but still, something has got to give.
We are in a highly progressed phase of bureaucratic management. Without it, we regress to legal proclamation and then to brute force, much as our founding fathers observed and has characteristized much of the 20th Century, moving back and forth between the phases of managing the accumulated, surplused, retributive value.
The fundamental empirical measure of this surplused retributive value, always being mortgaged to the future, is the nominal value of the accumulating public debt. Progress will be the simple, fundamental function of a progressive tax code to surrender the retributive value to distributive justice. A simple calculus that is easily verified by the outcome, the evidence.
A simple, progressive tax code, with no exceptions, is clearly and verifiably fair and equitable. Rather than the subject of political parsing, fallacious rhetoric and pious frauds, the legitimacy of power is rendered simple, universally understandable, and scientifically unambiguous. The difference betweem belief and knowlege, validation and verification, is rendered an easy, naturally occuring operation of common life rather than the abstruse, safely impractical and accessibly limited domain of deliberate, scholarly pursuit.
Although the reactionary tendency to regress has been mitigated by improved organizational technologies, the natural tendency to correct the equation naturally, inexorably, persits and can be observed in persistent pluralistic tendencies that take the form of bureaucratic power and public authority as markets are allowed to consolidate and maintain an unstable equation.
The Federal Reserve argues its function is to organize, manage, chaos. It is not! What we see is the private sector preventing the organized efficiency of free markets to produce a stable social environment and a genuine, easily verifiable legitimacy. The result is inherent instability that requires management of a highly centralized authority with a false legitimacy of protecting us from what we would naturally have without it--a peacefully prosperous pluralism.
Assuring a peaceful and prosperous pluralisitic market environment always holds the possibility for choosing to live a collectively moral life that is individually motivated. In the mean time, the struggle for survival and the ambition to power can occur as a productive competition within a peaceful context. Until we find utopia, or utopia finds us, a free and unconsolidated marketplace will make that progression a peaceful and prosperous one.
We do not have to suffer the conceits of power to realize the good life if we do not choose to. Our Constitution provides the means if we choose to go the way of what we are all naturally endowed: freedom.
The next step is to build a broad based coalition from the rubble of the failed legitimacy of a collapsed neo-conservative coalitional regime. Build a coalition for Mr. Obama to solicit his leadership skill. The function of the moral ends will properly and legitimately follow the form of the moral means to power.
Very best wishes.
Positing a theory of retributive value is crucial for understanding the physics of political-economic dynamics; of managing the natural relationships of cause and effect toward predictable, desireable consequences.
Two plus two equals four. Simple, universally understandable, logically positive. If somehow value is removed from the simple, natural equation without adding its value to the natural, necessary, balance of it, the universal balance of the eqation is unstable and naturally acts to correct itself, and will be corrected, without active intervention of the expropriator of the value.
Classical economists were well aware of retributive value. Adam Smith argued nature always equilibriates with the sanction of profit and loss toward continuous improvement much as Darwin observed in nature. Both thinkers posit the theory based on empirical, ontological observation. It was not to support any teleological belief or ideology, but just the pursuit of knowlege from the the particular to the general--the scientific method, a process of induction. It is an exercise in Logical Positivism.
Smith and Darwin are not devoid of moral value. Quite the contrary. They both observed the ontological result of natural forces was a continuous improvement to environmental conditions. It is naturally, teleologically, positive.
If someone removes value from the equation and declares that doing so has rendered the naturally stable and logically positive equation to now be 2+2=5, the eqation is now naturally unstable and illogical. The expropriator will constantly have to act to "conserve" the value removed from the equation to prevent it from returning to its natural condition.
While it is possible to expand the pie, transform nature into wealth, the physics--the logically positive attributes--are naturally conserved. Creating wealth does not create more matter or energy to be utilized: 2+2=5 can only be maintained by political proclamation and practice--by an abstraction of the sociological imagination.
There is a retributive value, a cost, that is accumulated over time as society suffers the unnatural equation of 2+2=3 and the political dissonance of a cognitively abstract 2+2=5 legitimacy. Conserving the removed value can be by brute force, legal proclamation, bureaucratic management. It can be theorized, systematized and monetized many times over, but still, something has got to give.
We are in a highly progressed phase of bureaucratic management. Without it, we regress to legal proclamation and then to brute force, much as our founding fathers observed and has characteristized much of the 20th Century, moving back and forth between the phases of managing the accumulated, surplused, retributive value.
The fundamental empirical measure of this surplused retributive value, always being mortgaged to the future, is the nominal value of the accumulating public debt. Progress will be the simple, fundamental function of a progressive tax code to surrender the retributive value to distributive justice. A simple calculus that is easily verified by the outcome, the evidence.
A simple, progressive tax code, with no exceptions, is clearly and verifiably fair and equitable. Rather than the subject of political parsing, fallacious rhetoric and pious frauds, the legitimacy of power is rendered simple, universally understandable, and scientifically unambiguous. The difference betweem belief and knowlege, validation and verification, is rendered an easy, naturally occuring operation of common life rather than the abstruse, safely impractical and accessibly limited domain of deliberate, scholarly pursuit.
Although the reactionary tendency to regress has been mitigated by improved organizational technologies, the natural tendency to correct the equation naturally, inexorably, persits and can be observed in persistent pluralistic tendencies that take the form of bureaucratic power and public authority as markets are allowed to consolidate and maintain an unstable equation.
The Federal Reserve argues its function is to organize, manage, chaos. It is not! What we see is the private sector preventing the organized efficiency of free markets to produce a stable social environment and a genuine, easily verifiable legitimacy. The result is inherent instability that requires management of a highly centralized authority with a false legitimacy of protecting us from what we would naturally have without it--a peacefully prosperous pluralism.
Assuring a peaceful and prosperous pluralisitic market environment always holds the possibility for choosing to live a collectively moral life that is individually motivated. In the mean time, the struggle for survival and the ambition to power can occur as a productive competition within a peaceful context. Until we find utopia, or utopia finds us, a free and unconsolidated marketplace will make that progression a peaceful and prosperous one.
We do not have to suffer the conceits of power to realize the good life if we do not choose to. Our Constitution provides the means if we choose to go the way of what we are all naturally endowed: freedom.
The next step is to build a broad based coalition from the rubble of the failed legitimacy of a collapsed neo-conservative coalitional regime. Build a coalition for Mr. Obama to solicit his leadership skill. The function of the moral ends will properly and legitimately follow the form of the moral means to power.
Very best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)