Consolidating the Wealth
If a mature capitalist economy entrepreneurs profit without growth, then where does the profit come from?
Before the emergence of capitalism, in the age of feudalism, profit (economic gain) was a non-inflationary, zero-sum, no-growth endeavor of despoiling your competition--the wealth of the other overlords and their subjects. The accumulated wealth became capital to be invested to expand the pie and cause, create, a "capital" gain that, still, was not inflationary because it increased the supply, or caused economic growth.
Capitalism emerged as a peacefully prosperous means of using the wealth consolidated by royal monarchists to organize an expansion of the pie, or to produce economic growth with the result being the profit (the measure of economic growth).
As capitalism matured, wealth and power has again become a moyenage, no-growth endeavor in which the competition for profit is not to innovate productivity as much to innovate the means of despoiling consolidated fiefdoms of economic power--of acquiring profit before growth which effectively minimizes growth and effectively minimizes the competitive free-market mechanism of price competition that controls inflation.
It is a game of monopoly in which winning the game is to bankrupt the competition and subjugate all the other players to your power; not expanding the pie, but consolidating it.
The result is profit without growth and liquidity crisis--consolidation of the capital that we are now experiencing and that congressman Franks has misattributed to a lack of government regulation on a consolidated capital.
No! The cause of this crisis is a fundamental lack of the self-regulating mechanism of a free market economics due to consolidation of wealth largely caused by a regressive tax code and a lack of government regulatory authority to properly act to ensure it in priority as Adam Smith prescribed.
The problem is that capital has been allowed to consolidate and revert to a passe' state of feudalism--of profit without growth. It is an illgetimate operation and organization of capital without ensuring the free market mechanism to control it.
Socialism is an indicator that the free market mechanism (pluralism) is not ALLOWED to work, not that it does not work. Franks is wrong and this bail-out bill is wrong. It should be defeated because it is based on a fundamentally flawed analytic.
Very best wishes.
Monday, September 29, 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.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Your Self-Interest and the General Welfare
Pluralistic processes produce a social interaction of legitimate outcomes that is the application of an individual's choice, preference, that is the General Welfare.
If power is allowed to consolidate, to become non-pluralistic, but the legitimacy of the outcome is maintained to be pluralistic, there must be a mechanism in place to achieve this fraud.
The latest application is the current economic rescue plan being deliberated and soon to be legislated as the General Welfare.
Remember that the regressive tax policy of the Bush administration--the tax cuts for the wealthy that McCain says we NEED to make permanent--was argued to be everyone's self-interest, or the General Welfare.
The policy was decidedly not the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans, and management of this inequitable outcome--the rescue plan--is being sold as the General Welfare. Bush has, again with very certain terms, stated that not passing the rescue plan will mean a fate even worse than rewarding the corrupt and incompetent for an inequitable outcome that his administration argued with absolute confidence would not occur.
Yes, a crisis worse than we have now, that we were told would not occur to begin with, is definitely not in the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans. Notice how the self-interest of the vast majority has been sacrificed to preserve the self-interest of the rich all the way and is being called your self-interest.
This is how the Hamiltonian model of political-economy operates: exploitation of your self-interest is in your best interest. Slick, huh?
You should be ever-lov'n, hopp'n mad!
Let's try pluralism for a change!
If power is allowed to consolidate, to become non-pluralistic, but the legitimacy of the outcome is maintained to be pluralistic, there must be a mechanism in place to achieve this fraud.
The latest application is the current economic rescue plan being deliberated and soon to be legislated as the General Welfare.
Remember that the regressive tax policy of the Bush administration--the tax cuts for the wealthy that McCain says we NEED to make permanent--was argued to be everyone's self-interest, or the General Welfare.
The policy was decidedly not the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans, and management of this inequitable outcome--the rescue plan--is being sold as the General Welfare. Bush has, again with very certain terms, stated that not passing the rescue plan will mean a fate even worse than rewarding the corrupt and incompetent for an inequitable outcome that his administration argued with absolute confidence would not occur.
Yes, a crisis worse than we have now, that we were told would not occur to begin with, is definitely not in the self-interest of the vast majority of Americans. Notice how the self-interest of the vast majority has been sacrificed to preserve the self-interest of the rich all the way and is being called your self-interest.
This is how the Hamiltonian model of political-economy operates: exploitation of your self-interest is in your best interest. Slick, huh?
You should be ever-lov'n, hopp'n mad!
Let's try pluralism for a change!
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 23, 2008
Why the Big Corporate Executive Compensation?
First of all, the corporates that offer the big executive pay are big. They can afford to pay it. The size of the executive pay, and the perverse incentive for risk-prone business practices--the perverse business practices that are now threatening the world economy, are entirely a function of the perverse size, the oversize, of the organization.
The ridiculously oversized compensation is largely an organizational problem that demands an organizational solution--deconsolidation of the capital, industries and markets. The result will be a more reasonably equitable executive pay and alleviation of the perverse incentive for risk-prone practices and compensation that is otherwise nothing but conscience money for the administration of perversely abusive practices that minimizes the cognitive dissonance of the perpetrators by buying it off.
Just as significant is the historical origin of a managerial elite, the business person, being at the top of the power structure to command the administration of power with the ability to render maximum economic value from nature (economic growth), and that power being empirically measured, indicated, by the level of income, or compensation.
The power of the entrepreneur has become the ability to consolidate and limit growth where it had been to expand it. As the modern industrial state matured, the financial elite realized that power is more easily acquired, maintained and controlled if consolidated--not allowed to pluralize, or grow. This, of course, however, is antithetical to the legitimacy of the business elit's power.
Instead of the philosophy of be frugal and provide, to be "fruitful and multiply," the philosophy has become be frugal, consolidate, subjugate and deprive. The "credit economy" is but a vast majority of citizens that are indebted subjects of the creditors. The big executive compensation removes these subjects from the burden of the debt, and given that they have been receiving little or no tax burden on the compensation in many cases, hedge fund managers in particular, that includes the debtor assignment on the public debt which is to be used to compensate them with this proposed government bail out of their work. It looks like nothing but an artful scam to me!
It is a scam of bilking the public treasury that is not limited to Wall Street. Medical doctors, for example, operate with the same sort of scam, setting up the tax base, including monetizing a debt burden, to raid with oversized billing practices, pressuring both prices and tax rates up. Hardly the model of altruistic public service! They are just a bunch of no-good gangsters that cushion, position and close on the victims in the name of public service. Didn't Dante identify a special place for these people?
These people are not public servants. Thay are the enemies of a civil society! Their just reward is nothing that ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace can and will justly decide if it is allowed to organize and operate in priority of a regulatory authority.
The ridiculously oversized compensation is largely an organizational problem that demands an organizational solution--deconsolidation of the capital, industries and markets. The result will be a more reasonably equitable executive pay and alleviation of the perverse incentive for risk-prone practices and compensation that is otherwise nothing but conscience money for the administration of perversely abusive practices that minimizes the cognitive dissonance of the perpetrators by buying it off.
Just as significant is the historical origin of a managerial elite, the business person, being at the top of the power structure to command the administration of power with the ability to render maximum economic value from nature (economic growth), and that power being empirically measured, indicated, by the level of income, or compensation.
The power of the entrepreneur has become the ability to consolidate and limit growth where it had been to expand it. As the modern industrial state matured, the financial elite realized that power is more easily acquired, maintained and controlled if consolidated--not allowed to pluralize, or grow. This, of course, however, is antithetical to the legitimacy of the business elit's power.
Instead of the philosophy of be frugal and provide, to be "fruitful and multiply," the philosophy has become be frugal, consolidate, subjugate and deprive. The "credit economy" is but a vast majority of citizens that are indebted subjects of the creditors. The big executive compensation removes these subjects from the burden of the debt, and given that they have been receiving little or no tax burden on the compensation in many cases, hedge fund managers in particular, that includes the debtor assignment on the public debt which is to be used to compensate them with this proposed government bail out of their work. It looks like nothing but an artful scam to me!
It is a scam of bilking the public treasury that is not limited to Wall Street. Medical doctors, for example, operate with the same sort of scam, setting up the tax base, including monetizing a debt burden, to raid with oversized billing practices, pressuring both prices and tax rates up. Hardly the model of altruistic public service! They are just a bunch of no-good gangsters that cushion, position and close on the victims in the name of public service. Didn't Dante identify a special place for these people?
These people are not public servants. Thay are the enemies of a civil society! Their just reward is nothing that ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace can and will justly decide if it is allowed to organize and operate in priority of a regulatory authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)