The Party of Independence

Declare your independence!

Demand your state be the practical model of the commonwealth.

The commonwealth is not a pie-in-the-sky idealism that promises everything and accomplishes nothing.

A policy process that provides plenty of diagnoses but changes nothing needs the effectiveness of an independent variable. Inertial forces can be countered with a more pluralistic process, vectoring prognoses toward a more optimal distributive value that avoids, if not prevents, crises rather than ensuring its extension.

Binomialism is a pathogenic mechanism. It inhibits optimal organizational health, resulting in political dyskinesis. Cognitive capacity is limited to the binary variation, limiting the capacity for needed change.

Ineffectiveness of a party platform that promises change we really need predictably yields a conservation of the values to be determined when a binomial model is applied. Back testing that model indicates a future value that is limited to the practical extension of the risk--distribution of the values that support the problem to be solved (demand deflation and credit inflation).

Supporting the problem as the solution is pathological.

Testing the current value of policy alternatives against the practical, binomial model in operation yields a second economic stimulus with the same results as the first.

Policy alternatives binomially (ideologically) determined will not cure what ails us. If anything, it extends the problem into the future, which defines the future value of the risk and delimits the value of taking the risk to means that test a high score on the value of creditworthiness (the problem).

Recycling the debt (extending the credit risk) into crisis proportions does not solve the problem. The only way to achieve a distributive probability of the values that infers a commonwealth modeling of the risk is the deliberate intervention of third-party political risk.

If you have not been much affected by the current cycle, do not be deluded. The risk recycles and extends at progressively higher frequencies. It will eventually extend to you in forevever innovative ways to test the means of risk tolerance.

Innovative means of extending the risk far outpaces the means to avoid it. So, we always end up mitigating the value of the risk which, binomially determined in the public policy space, is arbitraged into a beta valuation and re-extended (re-novated) into the current, useful value of the capital required to make the wealth more common.

Theoretically, the commonwealth will eventually converge with the analytics. Instead of perpetually recycled in the form of beta and gamma risk (authoritative management of volatility), capital eventually gains the value of a common requirement. That revaluation would not, however, occur without taking a considerable political risk associated with the fear of change (like losing your freedom) that tends to pathological expression, like a binomial determinism.

Requiring the capital to fully assume the risk of a free-and-unconsolidated marketplace does not present the political risk of lost liberty. Instead, it represents the economic means of attaining it.

By allowing for an economic test of political hypotheses (limiting the role of government to allow for that test), the risk is "freely" innovated by The People to produce the stable and predictably useful value of the capital for the commonwealth.

Expected Value of the Risk

Going forward, what is the expected value of the risk?

With the Great Recession empirically defining social class by income (the ability to increase net worth), for any investor that is not in the top two quintiles, trying to increase your income is largely a function of protecting it from the "systemic risk."

The strategy will be defensive for all income classes. We all have to protect ourselves from the high accumulation of gamma risk. We are all looking to government to protect us from its overaccumulation.

The more value accumulated (the higher your net worth), the more able to protect yourself from the gamma risk exposure (the ability to "cover" your losses and stay solvent). Too-big-to-fail banks should be insolvent, but the government defended their creditworthiness at the expense of millions of people.

By what standard are The People legitimately deprived of adequate income and housing?

The ontology of the business cycle--the process of free-market mechanics--is argued to be the objective determinant of distributive value (who takes the risk, who accumulates the reward, and why).

So, then, it is absolutely critical to objectively (non-ideologically) answer the question: are we operating with a free market?

Risk that is fully valued in a gamma proportion (relying on government protection) indicates the opposite of a free market.

If the market is not free, what do we have to do to make it free?

If there is one thing we should rely on government to protect and defend in priority, as our founders envisioned and we still regard with both an idealistic and Constitutional measure, is to ensure freedom. That especially includes ensuring a free-and-unconsolidated marketplace in priority--exactly what defending and protecting consolidated, too-big-to-fail, economy-of-scale firms is not.

An economy-of-scale deprivation is not to be politically, legitimately, protected and defended, but that is exactly what We The People have. All that does is consolidate the gamma risk, causing the instability that our founders sought to avoid--causing the need for government (the king, or that is, the consolidation of sovereign power and the consolidation of risk).

The expected value of "the risk" is reduced to a political evaluation--a critique--that formulates a confirmable hypothesis despite all attempts not to. "The risk" of a confirmable hypothesis is improvement, something the socio-economic elite will politically avoid at all cost, including a more progressive tax code.

It is not the progression of the tax code that is the determining variable, but what We expect to do with the value accumulated.