"Buy the greed, sell the fear," so the saying goes, but as we emerge from a period of our economic history in which this philosophy has been practiced to the nines, and the result has been to cultivate a culture of corruption and crisis, the small number of beneficiaries and their huksters now need to sell the greed and persuade The People to buy the fear.
"Greed is good," so the argument goes, and we must now manage the crisis component of this practical, utilitarian philosophy with the neo-conservative element, like the McCain camp, arguing that The People must buy into the fear of socialism in order to preserve what motivates the creation of wealth and, therefore, the privilege of determining its distribution.
Wealth shared is wealth squandered by not making the scarifice necessary to create it, so they argue, but The People are not seeing an empirical verification of that hypothesis. The utility is not verified, but disconfirmed by the clearly observable evidence.
Yet, we still have the aspiring non-elits that cling to the absurd belief that if we share the wealth, the wealthy will no longer be wealthy and the poor will still be poor. The result is a Non-Pareto Optimal, dead-weight loss in which everyone loses.
The argument is irrational because it is the product of greed, an emotion accepted, bought, as a practical philosophy instead of an indicator for behavior modification that avoids an impending crisis of a few that have too much at the expense of everyone else having too little--what we have now.
Conservatives argue that the criticism of the utility of greed is overly academic. We are thinking about it too much. That a sacrifice has to be made for the production of wealth, savings, is obvious, and the elite, they argue, are best suited to own and manage that sacrifice, the savings, so that we can have more savings by it being deprived of The People. It is, of course, illogical to claim the deprivation of value adds value. No, it redistributes the value to cause an easily avoidable crisis--a cyclical liquidity crisis characteristic of a debtor economy.
Since the elite are best suited for managing the capital (the savings, the sacrifice), they must be rewarded with the "privilege" of not having to share in that sacrifice, conservatives argue, because they will not, then, take the risk to organize the production of wealth we all enjoy. The privilege is the reward for successfully providing The People with what they want, and that is motivated by the emotion of greed with the result being an accumulation of wealth that indicates the value added in the form of the capital.
The problem with the conservative argument is that the value was not added, it was accumulated. The result is a debtor economy (a leverage economy in which more value is added than produced) that is always being managed, organized, to buy the greed and sell the fear even when it is illogical and empirically not beneficial for The People that give it both the value and the legitimacy of its power.
Conservatives argue recognition of the problem as socialism. The logic required to solve the problem is reduced to the fear, the emotion of it, which otherwise serves to indicate danger to protect and promote the welfare of the species. Conservatives are utilizing this primordial survival instinct to destroy its utility for The People. Reversing that would be to, as they say, think about it too much. Providing for their welfare, I dare say, is what The People want, and providing for recurrent crisis does not, then, fit the reward of privilege.
The privilege of accumulating value by leveraging it into an artificially added value is supported by the innovation of productive capacity. The more per-unit production added per dollar invested, the more value can be added, or accumulated, to be greedily reinvested for more accumulation through innovation. The problem is that the accumulation does not allow for a competitive reinvestment based on the profit margin. The result is to greedily innovate ways to add value without growth, which leads to the crisis of overproduction in which demand is overburdened with debt, like we have now.
The growth that occurred was largely in the real estate development sector, where you can get rich quick, but because the wealth is greedily accumulated, instruments of finance were innovated to allow the demand to be driven by debt that could not be paid. The result is the crisis of overproduction, or the inability to pay--the foreclosure crisis.
According to conservatives, the capital is greedily invested to innovate production which adds wealth. If the reward of greed is denied by sharing the wealth, it will not create it. If we do not allow the reward to be fully enjoyed by the risk taker, the risk will not be taken, and the reward will not be had to be unduly redistributed with a socialist model, or reinvested to cause competition and disinflation with full employment and maximum consumer choice provided by a free-market model.
Greed drives the incentive to risk the capital. Without it, risk, or innovation, will not occur. This equates risk of loss with productivity and innovation. If you are not productive and innovative--greedy, you lose.
So, the argument goes, we were much better off before we started flirting with spreading the wealth around. That has made the capital not willing to take the risk of growth and innovation. It becomes illiquid. If we do not allow greed to operate, we will self-determine, choose by operation of our intellect, an extreme deprivation. We are all better off if we all embrace the reality of our greedy impulses and ignore the latest fashion of intellect.
Never mind that greed is likely to result in the indifferent deprivation of others, which brought us to the crisis of illiquidity. It was the greed--the overwhelming, irrational, fearless passion for risk and reward, the supreme confidence in its virtue without thinking about it too much, not the lack of it--that caused the illiquidity. If greed is the problem, how is it the solution?
Now that the greed has been overbought into a major crisis, the fear is now oversold. The People are not buying it. It is illogical. It is unreasonable to accpet the problem as the solution.
Where The People once accepted the business cycle as a naturally recurrent event of undirected determinism, like the weather, We now know it can be the directed product of our self-determination, not driven by greed and fear, but the virtue of our intellect.
Obama/Biden!
Showing posts with label logic and rhetoric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic and rhetoric. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Too Small to Survive
McCain, in a continued attempt to give a populist tone to neo-conservative policies and programs that ALWAYS lead to crisis, is now saying that his economic plan, despite that it will make the rich richer and the poor poorer (the formula for crisis economics and politics) will not be to merely support businesses too big to fail, but too small to survive.
This is to validate a classic elitist argument that can be found in the discipline of organization theory in the area of organizing to manage risk. McCain is using it to support a populist sentiment. Is he really that incompetent that he does not realize that it is a pro-elitist, not a pro-populist argument?
Elite-model organization theorists advocate that the bigger the firm, the more capable of surviving risk, like running the economy into the ground with the least capable to survive beimg, of course, the smaller firms.
The classic illustration of the argument is this: since a small firm is more likely to drown in shallow water, it is at a higher risk, and so it is also unlikely to take risk. The implication is that economic growth is more likely to occur if firms are more able to survive risk and, therefore, take it.
Adhering to the elitist model of risk managememt was applied by hiring quantum physicists to fashion imploding models of debt-structured finance (high return, no growth). The model is just the classic pyramid scheme where the first in, at the top, are highly profitable which lures others into the business model. The result, of course, is classic economic crisis--deflation--and the pyramid comes tumbling down threatening the entire economy if it is not bailed out; an outcome that has been verified, once again, in a very up close and personal way.
Understand, despite what the Ivy League experts tell us, that the model eventually imploding and collapsing, taking small firms down because they are too small to survive, is fully anticipated and intended. That eliminates the competition and consolidates power. Despite the neo-classical innovation of means (algorythms of quantum physics and computer programing), the result is entirely classic.
While it appears to be counter to the pro-elitist model and argument for hedging risk, the effect of McCain's plan is to keep the causal factors of the crisis intact to require the need for government in the future (to socialize the loss-=the risk--by preserving the element "too big to fail"). So much for his stance on limited need for government...very similar to Ronald Reagan's nonsense.
McCain's attempt to give the Hamiltonian (elitist) model of political economy a populist face is just another laughable attempt to put lipstick on the pig. It is just another deceit.
I prefer to go with a genuine intelligence and conscientiousness that can be trusted.
Obama and Biden for President, and David Boswell (D-KY) US House.
This is to validate a classic elitist argument that can be found in the discipline of organization theory in the area of organizing to manage risk. McCain is using it to support a populist sentiment. Is he really that incompetent that he does not realize that it is a pro-elitist, not a pro-populist argument?
Elite-model organization theorists advocate that the bigger the firm, the more capable of surviving risk, like running the economy into the ground with the least capable to survive beimg, of course, the smaller firms.
The classic illustration of the argument is this: since a small firm is more likely to drown in shallow water, it is at a higher risk, and so it is also unlikely to take risk. The implication is that economic growth is more likely to occur if firms are more able to survive risk and, therefore, take it.
Adhering to the elitist model of risk managememt was applied by hiring quantum physicists to fashion imploding models of debt-structured finance (high return, no growth). The model is just the classic pyramid scheme where the first in, at the top, are highly profitable which lures others into the business model. The result, of course, is classic economic crisis--deflation--and the pyramid comes tumbling down threatening the entire economy if it is not bailed out; an outcome that has been verified, once again, in a very up close and personal way.
Understand, despite what the Ivy League experts tell us, that the model eventually imploding and collapsing, taking small firms down because they are too small to survive, is fully anticipated and intended. That eliminates the competition and consolidates power. Despite the neo-classical innovation of means (algorythms of quantum physics and computer programing), the result is entirely classic.
While it appears to be counter to the pro-elitist model and argument for hedging risk, the effect of McCain's plan is to keep the causal factors of the crisis intact to require the need for government in the future (to socialize the loss-=the risk--by preserving the element "too big to fail"). So much for his stance on limited need for government...very similar to Ronald Reagan's nonsense.
McCain's attempt to give the Hamiltonian (elitist) model of political economy a populist face is just another laughable attempt to put lipstick on the pig. It is just another deceit.
I prefer to go with a genuine intelligence and conscientiousness that can be trusted.
Obama and Biden for President, and David Boswell (D-KY) US House.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Intended Consequences
Modeling for Stability
Notice how volatile markets are. Hardly the model of stability.
If you are managing your savings, your capital, for the highest return based on, as we are told, that the highest return is in equities, then there is likely to be a high volume of savings in equities.
While stocks have the highest return on investment, it is volatile. The hedge fund manager--the person that angles to leverage a 30+ percent return--hedges the risk on the return by causing volatility--by market manipulation with volume. Since a 30+ percent return cannot be had through economic growth without causing competition (pluralism of the marketplace) which would diminish the power of consolidating (use of volume to manipulate prices), the return is leveraged from your savings, about 40 percent so far.
If you want to "share" in the wealth, you MUST deconsolidate the capital.
The current political-economic model in operation, the Hamiltonian model, promises to ensure stability. Its legitimacy is that by always providing for the welfare of the highest income class in priority causes stability.
For the highest imcome class, the elite, the model very reliably provides the means of gaining power and keeping it. It is verifiably stable. It always produces the intended consequence--the highest return on the investment with reliable efficiency (falsely referred to as the efficiency of markets).
This model is called, the elitist model of power.
For non-elits, it is the model of instability. The volatility--the micro/macro stochastic oscillation that is naturally predictable--is the business cycle you are "subjected" to, and because the cycle has this "natural" characteristic of predictability, the subjugation, the exploitation, is a natural determinism. The subjugation of the ruled to the rulers is a "dictate" of nature that persists despite whatever imaginary, Jeffersonian notion there may be for The Natural Rights of Humanity.
We cannot escape our natural condition. It exists independently of our imaginary ideals. If we foolishly try to transcend what subjects us to reality, the consequences are reliably determined to be instability, and according to the neo-conservative elements of our global society, the cause of our current instability can be nothing but the foolish attempt to defy conservative principles and values, the laws of nature, the proper and efficient elitist model of power.
The elitist model is, of course, verifiable nonsense, right up there with the flat earth at the center of the universe.
That we continue with this idiocy is a complete tragicomedy.
The McCain/Palin ticket is laughable! Combined with the current economic crisis, a complete tragedy!
Let's get real for much, much needed change.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Notice how volatile markets are. Hardly the model of stability.
If you are managing your savings, your capital, for the highest return based on, as we are told, that the highest return is in equities, then there is likely to be a high volume of savings in equities.
While stocks have the highest return on investment, it is volatile. The hedge fund manager--the person that angles to leverage a 30+ percent return--hedges the risk on the return by causing volatility--by market manipulation with volume. Since a 30+ percent return cannot be had through economic growth without causing competition (pluralism of the marketplace) which would diminish the power of consolidating (use of volume to manipulate prices), the return is leveraged from your savings, about 40 percent so far.
If you want to "share" in the wealth, you MUST deconsolidate the capital.
The current political-economic model in operation, the Hamiltonian model, promises to ensure stability. Its legitimacy is that by always providing for the welfare of the highest income class in priority causes stability.
For the highest imcome class, the elite, the model very reliably provides the means of gaining power and keeping it. It is verifiably stable. It always produces the intended consequence--the highest return on the investment with reliable efficiency (falsely referred to as the efficiency of markets).
This model is called, the elitist model of power.
For non-elits, it is the model of instability. The volatility--the micro/macro stochastic oscillation that is naturally predictable--is the business cycle you are "subjected" to, and because the cycle has this "natural" characteristic of predictability, the subjugation, the exploitation, is a natural determinism. The subjugation of the ruled to the rulers is a "dictate" of nature that persists despite whatever imaginary, Jeffersonian notion there may be for The Natural Rights of Humanity.
We cannot escape our natural condition. It exists independently of our imaginary ideals. If we foolishly try to transcend what subjects us to reality, the consequences are reliably determined to be instability, and according to the neo-conservative elements of our global society, the cause of our current instability can be nothing but the foolish attempt to defy conservative principles and values, the laws of nature, the proper and efficient elitist model of power.
The elitist model is, of course, verifiable nonsense, right up there with the flat earth at the center of the universe.
That we continue with this idiocy is a complete tragicomedy.
The McCain/Palin ticket is laughable! Combined with the current economic crisis, a complete tragedy!
Let's get real for much, much needed change.
Obama/Biden 2008!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Avoiding the Principles of Economics
The year 2000. Neo-conservatives control the legislative and, with the questionably constitutional assistance of the judiciary, the executive branch of the federal government. It was immediately declared that the fundamental principles of classical economics would be applied: a highly regressive tax policy in which the use of capital and the gains would be minimally taxed with the result being economic growth, the General Welfare.
The year 2008. The government announces the need for a massive economic stimulus package. Congress passes the stimulus package. John McCain is campaigning for president to make the tax cuts permanent so that we may enjoy the benefits of the fundamental principles of economics and the government is preparing to legislate an economic rescue plan.
We went from the promise of robust economic growth to a massive stimulus package to the need for an economic rescue. I do believe that neo-conservative economic principles have proven to be a complete failure. Unfortunately, principles are something to be believed in despite the verifiable evidence because they are fundamental, enduring, disprovable ideals. Not believing is just un-American.
While the results of applying the classic conservative principles of economics was easily predictable, critics were deemed socialists and fearmongers, and despite the principles resulting in measures needed described by conservatives as socialism and the need to alleviate the fear of economic collapse, these critics are still deemed wrongheaded disbelievers, implying that the principles have not been disconfirmed, just temporarily out of political favor at worst.
The stimulus package, despite its massive size, was no match for the detriment built into the regressive tax policy being argued as the solution to the problem. Conservatives argue to make the tax cuts, the problem, permanent. Nobody can possibly be that stupid?
The reason the stimulus package did not work is because the lack of consumer demand is an effect of illiquidity caused by a regressive tax burden and its magnified, leveraged, effect--consolidation of the capital. The remedy was a symptomatic treatment that could not overcome a massive consolidation of wealth not seen since just before the Great Depression.
Despite the overwhelming evidence against it, the "principles" of the classic economic model are, by their very rhetorical nature, fundamentally sound. Foremost, conservatives argue, is the principle of welfare for the rich in priority because without it, the economy will collapse (a testable hypothesis).
We have entered a realm of complete absurdity where we are to believe in principles that lead to economic collapse if we do not adhere in theory, and economic collapse if we do in practice.
Are we to "believe" that the impending rescue plan will be the General Welfare because Republicans are being sure it includes the fundamental principles of classical economic theory?
We are going to have a legislative validation of a disconfirmed hypothesis; a complete methodological and practical absurdity!
Disbelief, a complete reversal of the regressive tax code, and deconsolidation of the capital is fully in order toward an economy that is not only fundamentally believable, but verifiably sound.
The year 2008. The government announces the need for a massive economic stimulus package. Congress passes the stimulus package. John McCain is campaigning for president to make the tax cuts permanent so that we may enjoy the benefits of the fundamental principles of economics and the government is preparing to legislate an economic rescue plan.
We went from the promise of robust economic growth to a massive stimulus package to the need for an economic rescue. I do believe that neo-conservative economic principles have proven to be a complete failure. Unfortunately, principles are something to be believed in despite the verifiable evidence because they are fundamental, enduring, disprovable ideals. Not believing is just un-American.
While the results of applying the classic conservative principles of economics was easily predictable, critics were deemed socialists and fearmongers, and despite the principles resulting in measures needed described by conservatives as socialism and the need to alleviate the fear of economic collapse, these critics are still deemed wrongheaded disbelievers, implying that the principles have not been disconfirmed, just temporarily out of political favor at worst.
The stimulus package, despite its massive size, was no match for the detriment built into the regressive tax policy being argued as the solution to the problem. Conservatives argue to make the tax cuts, the problem, permanent. Nobody can possibly be that stupid?
The reason the stimulus package did not work is because the lack of consumer demand is an effect of illiquidity caused by a regressive tax burden and its magnified, leveraged, effect--consolidation of the capital. The remedy was a symptomatic treatment that could not overcome a massive consolidation of wealth not seen since just before the Great Depression.
Despite the overwhelming evidence against it, the "principles" of the classic economic model are, by their very rhetorical nature, fundamentally sound. Foremost, conservatives argue, is the principle of welfare for the rich in priority because without it, the economy will collapse (a testable hypothesis).
We have entered a realm of complete absurdity where we are to believe in principles that lead to economic collapse if we do not adhere in theory, and economic collapse if we do in practice.
Are we to "believe" that the impending rescue plan will be the General Welfare because Republicans are being sure it includes the fundamental principles of classical economic theory?
We are going to have a legislative validation of a disconfirmed hypothesis; a complete methodological and practical absurdity!
Disbelief, a complete reversal of the regressive tax code, and deconsolidation of the capital is fully in order toward an economy that is not only fundamentally believable, but verifiably sound.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Political-Economic Curiosities
Senator Obama visits Berlin soon. Pundits speculate how he will compare with other high profile visits to the previous vertex of capitalism and communism.
It is curious that Reagan's visit was a critique of communism's failure as an economic system.
Is it not curious that he was proffering an alternative system of monumental failure--a system that always promises full employment and low inflation through "freedom" of the marketplace, and always fails?
Not only has capitalism been a complete failure of providing full employment with low inflation, always trading the two off, but produces perennial tragic failure with one of the very best examples of the failure being Reaganomics, Senator McCain now its chief proponent following the Bush administration.
Even though it cyclically proves itself a failure, over and over again, requiring socialist policies and programs to maintain a false free-market legitimacy (a mixed economy), Reagan, in a demonstration of fundamental illogic emblematic of his entire administration, confidently declared a system that virtually achieves full employment and NO inflation with sustainable success as a failure.
Reagan did not recognize the tyranny of oligarchs in a command economy (the political system) as a failure. That would be an indictment of his own subscribed model of power (elitism).
Instead of advocating political assurance of free market economics (pluralism), Reagan effectively argued as virtue unconstrained profiteering which results in inflation and deflation at the same time with perennial deprivation and suffering through consolidation and command of markets, and providing for the general welfare as vice.
Both systems are a command economy operationalized with an elitist model of power (the bureaucratic model of power and political economy). They both lack the critical element of freedom that provides the virtue of a stable legitimacy operationalized with a pluralist model of power, politically and economically congruent, and with both the means and ends of power, in the same way, convergent and not illegitimately divergent which requires a command and control to stabilize it.
Reagan's rhetoric in Berlin is a curiosity of reason, a freak of logic, not the experience of a historical political-economic irony. It is the experience of a corrupt incompetence that we should learn very well not to allow access to power.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
It is curious that Reagan's visit was a critique of communism's failure as an economic system.
Is it not curious that he was proffering an alternative system of monumental failure--a system that always promises full employment and low inflation through "freedom" of the marketplace, and always fails?
Not only has capitalism been a complete failure of providing full employment with low inflation, always trading the two off, but produces perennial tragic failure with one of the very best examples of the failure being Reaganomics, Senator McCain now its chief proponent following the Bush administration.
Even though it cyclically proves itself a failure, over and over again, requiring socialist policies and programs to maintain a false free-market legitimacy (a mixed economy), Reagan, in a demonstration of fundamental illogic emblematic of his entire administration, confidently declared a system that virtually achieves full employment and NO inflation with sustainable success as a failure.
Reagan did not recognize the tyranny of oligarchs in a command economy (the political system) as a failure. That would be an indictment of his own subscribed model of power (elitism).
Instead of advocating political assurance of free market economics (pluralism), Reagan effectively argued as virtue unconstrained profiteering which results in inflation and deflation at the same time with perennial deprivation and suffering through consolidation and command of markets, and providing for the general welfare as vice.
Both systems are a command economy operationalized with an elitist model of power (the bureaucratic model of power and political economy). They both lack the critical element of freedom that provides the virtue of a stable legitimacy operationalized with a pluralist model of power, politically and economically congruent, and with both the means and ends of power, in the same way, convergent and not illegitimately divergent which requires a command and control to stabilize it.
Reagan's rhetoric in Berlin is a curiosity of reason, a freak of logic, not the experience of a historical political-economic irony. It is the experience of a corrupt incompetence that we should learn very well not to allow access to power.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)