Treasury secretary, Geithner describes the "new normal" of the business environment after last year's liquidity crisis to indicate where we go from here. The implication is that the well-trodden path is to somehow be different.
With unemployment continuing to rise, more foreclosures in the offing, and continued consolidation of net worth, the "new normal" is the old Keynesian reinvention of the old classical model and dynamics of capitalism. Nor is the global economy anything all that new.
The type of modeling predicts future trends.
Capital, industries and markets will continue to consolidate into the business model of "too big to fail" which bodes well for earnings and explains the steep rise in equities despite the prospect for economic recovery being very bleak by the same measure.
It used to be, classically, that earnings will not improve unless there is a distribution on the accumulation, causing employment. The gamma risk was virtually non-existent. Now, however, neo-classically, the money supply is maintained to allow for profits to lead employment (refered to as "capital formation") in a stagflationary trend. It is largely the result of managing a burgeoning gamma risk that is the "demand" for government action, substituting for the lack of demand (a deflationary accumulation) in the marketplace.
Geithner is indicating that, despite the rhetoric for a high gamma risk, the classic macro model will be the predictor for micro trends.
Since the classic model calls for continued accumulation, a double dip is highly probable. The gain in equities will retrace by at least half.
A macro distribution will not occur and pull the economy out of recession until commodities reflect the fundamentals with another sharp dip that will sustain a disinflationary trend and bring the consumer's dollar back in to support a secular, macro recovery instead of supporting the accumulation phase of a classic cycle.
What is new, or neo-classical, is the size of the money supply. It is so large that its consolidation allows just a few large entities (too big to fail) to manipulate, if not command, critical global markets, like energy, and cause the length and breadth of trends (and if you can cause it, you can certainly predict it).
M&A activity will increase in the second dip, indicating the end of the accumulation phase of the business cycle and a secular bull market to give the mergers and acquisitions value.
When the retributive value on so much value accumulated gets so high that the gamma risk becomes critical to profitability, commodities will lose support and a macro distribution will occur. Maintenance of the organizational model, and the big earnings, of being too big to fail gets support. The support will be the "ethic" of the marketplace despite Geithner's call for a "new business ethic" to guide us forward.
Ethics is mere rhetorical legitimacy if the economy is organized for command manipulation. The ethical reality, the legitimacy, is just whatever the outcome is (a false ontological legitimacy of the ends justifies the means as opposed to a true free-market ontology in which the means justifies the ends). The outcome is mitigated by rhetorical artifice and lengthy political processes resulting in apathy and anomie, reducing the gamma risk without reducing the retributive, economic value, which would defeat the value--the purpose--of the practical (predictive) dynamic model.
A distribution phase that reduces the gamma without retributing the value puts tension in the system to be managed. The result will be stagflation into the next crisis as the Fed and Treasury manipulate the neo-classical, Keynesian money supply to accommodate (resolve) low inflation and high employment within a deflationary (accumulative) organizational model of too big to fail.
What ultimately fails, and is resolved, is employment, accumulating the retributive value, strengthening support for the gamma risk, bringing the preferred organizational model into question. The risk is not likely for at least the next four years, and the market trends will be very similar to the last four. Hardly a "new" normal, just new gamma-risk rhetoric to support the norm.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Market Demand and Collective Action
A dynamic logic occurs when market participants seek to control costs.
Mancur Olson describes "The Logic of Collective Action." When, for example, the cost of health care becomes unaffordable, due to inelasticity, and incomes are accumulated into the hands of the providers, the reduction of demand (the ability to pay) logically prompts providers to seek another source of income to achieve the moral imperative of providing health care for everyone. The imperative is categorical (universal) because the demand (the need) is relatively inelastic.
President Obama, acting on that categorical, moral imperative is set to provide universal insurance coverage (thus demonizing insurers) while providers of care are seeking to source the funds that increase the ability to pay without redistributing the accumulated income (the retributive value). That source is government, providing in the name of the moral imperative.
Objecting to this system of finance is characterized as being anti-imperative (illogical), despite that it perpetuates what is wrong with it--burgeoning costs--which is the call for the reform. The public very clearly detects the "illogic" of this action being made in the spirit of collective action toward the public good.
Offering the problem as the solution is illogical in spite of the logical imperative of providing liquidity (the ability to pay in the form of government mandate and public finance) as soon as possible.
While the "public option" may be a point of departure for actually achieving the distribution of income necessary for health care to be universally affordable, the very striking lack of measure to control the cost suggests a willingness to design policy that keeps the income in a mode of continued consolidation that does not fit the imperative.
The consumer's imperative is to control the cost; $900 billion to start does not exactly fit the imperative.
The consumer's logic is to co-op, or organize, to collectively bargain to trust bust the power of the AMA. A doctor or hospital will have to disclose prices and be subjected to a free-market legitimacy to be economically successful, as opposed to the government being co-opted to pay undisclosed prices on command, if not now, sometime in the future (perhaps after everyone goes to the public option--the Wal Mart model of doing business).
The logic of collective action to counter organized monopolistic entities, like the AMA, for a fair and equitable price is a market mechanism concommittant with the "freedom" to act. The public option defies this logic. Once the option makes collective economic sense, the incentive to merge it with the provider to command, and collect, the price that caused the option will be overwhelming.
The probability the public option will not be corrupted is very low. The logic will then be to pluralize the system for a more direct and easily verifiable democracy to control the cost. The demand, without any encumberances to the logic of this action, will then be for a free-market system.
Mancur Olson describes "The Logic of Collective Action." When, for example, the cost of health care becomes unaffordable, due to inelasticity, and incomes are accumulated into the hands of the providers, the reduction of demand (the ability to pay) logically prompts providers to seek another source of income to achieve the moral imperative of providing health care for everyone. The imperative is categorical (universal) because the demand (the need) is relatively inelastic.
President Obama, acting on that categorical, moral imperative is set to provide universal insurance coverage (thus demonizing insurers) while providers of care are seeking to source the funds that increase the ability to pay without redistributing the accumulated income (the retributive value). That source is government, providing in the name of the moral imperative.
Objecting to this system of finance is characterized as being anti-imperative (illogical), despite that it perpetuates what is wrong with it--burgeoning costs--which is the call for the reform. The public very clearly detects the "illogic" of this action being made in the spirit of collective action toward the public good.
Offering the problem as the solution is illogical in spite of the logical imperative of providing liquidity (the ability to pay in the form of government mandate and public finance) as soon as possible.
While the "public option" may be a point of departure for actually achieving the distribution of income necessary for health care to be universally affordable, the very striking lack of measure to control the cost suggests a willingness to design policy that keeps the income in a mode of continued consolidation that does not fit the imperative.
The consumer's imperative is to control the cost; $900 billion to start does not exactly fit the imperative.
The consumer's logic is to co-op, or organize, to collectively bargain to trust bust the power of the AMA. A doctor or hospital will have to disclose prices and be subjected to a free-market legitimacy to be economically successful, as opposed to the government being co-opted to pay undisclosed prices on command, if not now, sometime in the future (perhaps after everyone goes to the public option--the Wal Mart model of doing business).
The logic of collective action to counter organized monopolistic entities, like the AMA, for a fair and equitable price is a market mechanism concommittant with the "freedom" to act. The public option defies this logic. Once the option makes collective economic sense, the incentive to merge it with the provider to command, and collect, the price that caused the option will be overwhelming.
The probability the public option will not be corrupted is very low. The logic will then be to pluralize the system for a more direct and easily verifiable democracy to control the cost. The demand, without any encumberances to the logic of this action, will then be for a free-market system.
No Demand for the Moral Imperative
Forty-six million Americans are currently without health care insurance. They do not have the income to demand it, yet the cost continues to rise in a deflationary trend. Just exactly how is that?
The SCHIP, for example, provided funds for price increases. It pulls up the cost without providing the income necessary to demand the cost come down. Rather, the tax funding provides for unconditional payment of the price; that is, without any demands. The income that is being provided is to command the price up, and that distribution deprives the income necessary to demand the price come down.
A market demand of 46 million is surely enough to demand the price come down if they have the income to demand it. Government providing the income by tax and subsidy does not, very clearly, demand the cost control needed to reform the system.
Paying the price on command is being masqueraded as a moral imperative.
Every American deserves health care, and every American deserves the income necessary to demand it at a an affordable price determined by the logic of collective action in a free and unconsolidated, competitive marketplace.
Ensuring a free-market mechanism in priority includes the pricing and organized practices of health care professionals and the AMA, as well as insurers. That will be the reform that both controls costs and satisfies the moral imperative.
The SCHIP, for example, provided funds for price increases. It pulls up the cost without providing the income necessary to demand the cost come down. Rather, the tax funding provides for unconditional payment of the price; that is, without any demands. The income that is being provided is to command the price up, and that distribution deprives the income necessary to demand the price come down.
A market demand of 46 million is surely enough to demand the price come down if they have the income to demand it. Government providing the income by tax and subsidy does not, very clearly, demand the cost control needed to reform the system.
Paying the price on command is being masqueraded as a moral imperative.
Every American deserves health care, and every American deserves the income necessary to demand it at a an affordable price determined by the logic of collective action in a free and unconsolidated, competitive marketplace.
Ensuring a free-market mechanism in priority includes the pricing and organized practices of health care professionals and the AMA, as well as insurers. That will be the reform that both controls costs and satisfies the moral imperative.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Healthcare: Innovation or Reform?
In a free-market system, rising costs demands innovation, reversing the trend of declining incomes, minimizing the probable effect of liquidity crisis.
In a non-free-market system, the consolidation of liquidity is added on command (Keynesian economics). The declining income, consolidated by the rising cost, is leveraged with a budget deficit, spread out over time, to be paid by the tax burden, maintaining the command price and the increasing cost.
The proposed reform is really an innovation to maintain the rising cost (and the illiquid distribution of income) without depriving the population of healthcare, which has a relatively inelastic demand (we need to have enough health to serve up the consolidated wealth and demonstrate power, as well as verify the noble beneficence of its accumulation).
The lack of elasticity is reasoned to be the cause of the persistently rising cost. The free market is reasoned to be an ineffective means of controlling the cost, otherwise it would, which begs the question.
What is to be reformed is this: a professional class and a business sector increases the cost, the government pays whatever is commanded, and the taxpayer with the highest tax burden, after all the exemptions and deductions, pays most the cost. The result, of course, is liquidity crisis, and a persistently overleveraged system.
The innovation occurring here, government-provided healthcare, is the means of maintaining the rising cost. It is a reinvention of the problem offered as the solution; just exactly what Obama supporters "hoped" would be pragmatically passe'.
The first thing the Obama administration and the Democratic delegation did was pass a regressive tax burden to finance expansion of healthcare insurance (SCHIP). It is a not-too-bright deflationary tax policy in the midst of recession, supporting illiquidity. That support is likely to continue. The current congress and administration simply does not have the will, or the understanding, to deter, but to innovatively abet, rising costs.
In a non-free-market system, the consolidation of liquidity is added on command (Keynesian economics). The declining income, consolidated by the rising cost, is leveraged with a budget deficit, spread out over time, to be paid by the tax burden, maintaining the command price and the increasing cost.
The proposed reform is really an innovation to maintain the rising cost (and the illiquid distribution of income) without depriving the population of healthcare, which has a relatively inelastic demand (we need to have enough health to serve up the consolidated wealth and demonstrate power, as well as verify the noble beneficence of its accumulation).
The lack of elasticity is reasoned to be the cause of the persistently rising cost. The free market is reasoned to be an ineffective means of controlling the cost, otherwise it would, which begs the question.
What is to be reformed is this: a professional class and a business sector increases the cost, the government pays whatever is commanded, and the taxpayer with the highest tax burden, after all the exemptions and deductions, pays most the cost. The result, of course, is liquidity crisis, and a persistently overleveraged system.
The innovation occurring here, government-provided healthcare, is the means of maintaining the rising cost. It is a reinvention of the problem offered as the solution; just exactly what Obama supporters "hoped" would be pragmatically passe'.
The first thing the Obama administration and the Democratic delegation did was pass a regressive tax burden to finance expansion of healthcare insurance (SCHIP). It is a not-too-bright deflationary tax policy in the midst of recession, supporting illiquidity. That support is likely to continue. The current congress and administration simply does not have the will, or the understanding, to deter, but to innovatively abet, rising costs.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Mandating Healthcare Insurance
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.
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.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Income and Capital Formation: Paying for Healthcare
The call for healthcare reform is a call for choice and affordability, and the objection to the proposed reform is the lack of it.
Americans are not clueless. Once healthcare is in the sector of public authority, where choice is "subjected" to the force and legitimacy of that authority, the supremacy of choice (democracy) is subordinated.
Voting with dollars in the marketplace is a direct and immediate democracy with direct and immediate authority that is directly and immediately verifiable. The choice is not "subjected" but objectively applied to fit the liberal taste and preferences of the individual. That is called freedom. That's why we want it!
The proposed consolidation to make healthcare universally accessible because it is fundamental to human existence is in fact a declaration that liberty and freedom must be diminished to attain the greatest good.
Soundly rejected!
The consumer knows that public sector consolidation of the system is as much to conserve the accumulation of wealth that makes healthcare unaffordable as to universally provide it.
Whether public, private, or public and private, organized consolidation rigs the price and concentrates income, which is argued to be the efficiency of capital formation for investment.
Does the cure for rising costs have to be the formation of concentrated capital (demand reduction)? We certainly have plenty of that (recession).
Controlling costs is a demand-side factor as well as a supply-side factor.
Cost control also comes in the form of ensuring adequate distribution of income (dollar votes) in order to demand it.
Public policy is needed that ensures adequacy of income to participate in the marketplace, not a system that ensures an accumulation of that income in the name of an efficient capital formation.
Consolidation of wealth and power is not a necessary condition for provision of the public good.
The current administration and congress seems to prefer, however, ensuring financial adequacy from the top down, a system that has failed "We The People," preventing the full and stable operation of democratic economic means, for over 200 years.
Conservatives argue that ensuring consolidation of wealth and power (low-to-no taxation for the wealthy--the regressive tax burden of the Hamiltonian model) is the stability we all want and need.
Is it?
If a lack of income prices Americans out of the healthcare market, how does ensuring the lack of income price them in?
The income that has been accumulated needs to be distributed to allow for participation in the marketplace. That will provide the demand that not only pushes the price up, but can be applied to "demand" the price come down.
Where healthcare does not rely on public finance in which the industry is paid whatever price it commands, consumers are more able to demand what is considered a fair price if they have the dollar votes to demand it.
In order for the healthcare industry to increase its income, it will be necessary to lower the price and allow for maximum participation (completely different from the budget-busting public option of assuring the highest participation at the highest possible price).
Even in the case of a life-saving medical procedure (a relatively inelastic demand), being held hostage to the price is a function of spreading the risk which, again, is mitigated by exposure to the ability to demand affordable insurance premiums to spread that risk.
A lower price increases income. Increased income increases the capacity to participate, and the need for more providers (employment and a share of the income), which spreads the risk to demand an affordable price (on a limited supply of available funds) rather than just paying what a limited number of providers command (on an unlimited supply of public funds).
A budget deficit to finance whatever the provider commands concentrates an accumulation of wealth. The redistribution of income reduces the amount of money available to spread the risk and demand the price without progressive taxation.
We are being told the free-market model of "demand" economics is impossible. It is a rhetoric applied to rig the price--to command the price rather than demand it.
What is impossible is to continue allowing for an overaccumulation of income if we want a healthy economy, and affordable healthcare.
Americans are not clueless. Once healthcare is in the sector of public authority, where choice is "subjected" to the force and legitimacy of that authority, the supremacy of choice (democracy) is subordinated.
Voting with dollars in the marketplace is a direct and immediate democracy with direct and immediate authority that is directly and immediately verifiable. The choice is not "subjected" but objectively applied to fit the liberal taste and preferences of the individual. That is called freedom. That's why we want it!
The proposed consolidation to make healthcare universally accessible because it is fundamental to human existence is in fact a declaration that liberty and freedom must be diminished to attain the greatest good.
Soundly rejected!
The consumer knows that public sector consolidation of the system is as much to conserve the accumulation of wealth that makes healthcare unaffordable as to universally provide it.
Whether public, private, or public and private, organized consolidation rigs the price and concentrates income, which is argued to be the efficiency of capital formation for investment.
Does the cure for rising costs have to be the formation of concentrated capital (demand reduction)? We certainly have plenty of that (recession).
Controlling costs is a demand-side factor as well as a supply-side factor.
Cost control also comes in the form of ensuring adequate distribution of income (dollar votes) in order to demand it.
Public policy is needed that ensures adequacy of income to participate in the marketplace, not a system that ensures an accumulation of that income in the name of an efficient capital formation.
Consolidation of wealth and power is not a necessary condition for provision of the public good.
The current administration and congress seems to prefer, however, ensuring financial adequacy from the top down, a system that has failed "We The People," preventing the full and stable operation of democratic economic means, for over 200 years.
Conservatives argue that ensuring consolidation of wealth and power (low-to-no taxation for the wealthy--the regressive tax burden of the Hamiltonian model) is the stability we all want and need.
Is it?
If a lack of income prices Americans out of the healthcare market, how does ensuring the lack of income price them in?
The income that has been accumulated needs to be distributed to allow for participation in the marketplace. That will provide the demand that not only pushes the price up, but can be applied to "demand" the price come down.
Where healthcare does not rely on public finance in which the industry is paid whatever price it commands, consumers are more able to demand what is considered a fair price if they have the dollar votes to demand it.
In order for the healthcare industry to increase its income, it will be necessary to lower the price and allow for maximum participation (completely different from the budget-busting public option of assuring the highest participation at the highest possible price).
Even in the case of a life-saving medical procedure (a relatively inelastic demand), being held hostage to the price is a function of spreading the risk which, again, is mitigated by exposure to the ability to demand affordable insurance premiums to spread that risk.
A lower price increases income. Increased income increases the capacity to participate, and the need for more providers (employment and a share of the income), which spreads the risk to demand an affordable price (on a limited supply of available funds) rather than just paying what a limited number of providers command (on an unlimited supply of public funds).
A budget deficit to finance whatever the provider commands concentrates an accumulation of wealth. The redistribution of income reduces the amount of money available to spread the risk and demand the price without progressive taxation.
We are being told the free-market model of "demand" economics is impossible. It is a rhetoric applied to rig the price--to command the price rather than demand it.
What is impossible is to continue allowing for an overaccumulation of income if we want a healthy economy, and affordable healthcare.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Energy Markets: Gauging the Risk
Let's say you are a prince sitting on a giant pool of oil marketed by cartel. The accumulation of capital that resulted from manipulation of the commodity into an inflated, non-free-market price has deflated the demand, which also "puts" deflationary pressure on the price. What are you going to do to support the price and hedge the risk against the rate of subsitution?
The prince sees a whipsaw in the making: high prices, largely the result of speculative demand of a consolidated capital (the great recession), are reducing the fundamental demand with a concommittant deflationary trend that will not be fundamentally reversed without a deconsolidation of the capital--not likely to happen--and support of the rate of substitution at the same time.
The prince's predicament, the result of a non-free-market organizational technology, is the result of incurring (creating) a gamma risk.
The risk to be managed is rendered political. It is not the alpha and beta risk that occurs with the organization of economic fundamentals in a free-market system.
Organizing to command the price has externalities to be managed politically, so the prince is likely to say... political policies designed to support the long-term rate of substitution (despite the deflationary pressure on the price) is inimical to the short-term self-interest of consumers because it hacks me off.
The threat here, of course, is purely political (organizational), and the risk to both consumers and producers is gamma.
Ironically, the prince makes the case for organizing a free-market economy, and ensuring it, in priority, obviating the probability for gamma-risk distortions that make markets fundamentally unpredictable, resulting in maximum probability for conflict resolution instead of the peaceful, stabilizing process of a free-market legitimacy.
(more at griffithlighton.blogspot.com)
The gamma risk demands management of equal measure. (The type of risk-management is "demanded," as opposed to commanded, because there is still a "choice" that can be made.)
The cartel can be dismantled to operate without gamma risk (free market economics), but that requires a deconsolidation of the capital and giving up the ability to command the price despite economic fundamentals.
Since being in command not only controls the determinants of the fundamentals, but also makes you lots of money by command (by hedging, or magnifying the profit margin) within speculative, derivative markets, the detriment of organized deconsolidation would be equally magnified.
The only choice is to maintain the gamma risk. The alternative is to effectively pluralize the system and allow the price to increase on the fundamental demand (not on command). The rate of substitution (and the profit margin) will "freely" emerge as a measure of fundamental economic reality, not the unpredictable trends of arbitrary command and control that consolidates the capital into the hands of a few players that predict the trends, and profit, by causing them.
There is no better way to effectively gauge the risk to you if you are organized to cause it and, thereby, effectively manage it.
The prince sees a whipsaw in the making: high prices, largely the result of speculative demand of a consolidated capital (the great recession), are reducing the fundamental demand with a concommittant deflationary trend that will not be fundamentally reversed without a deconsolidation of the capital--not likely to happen--and support of the rate of substitution at the same time.
The prince's predicament, the result of a non-free-market organizational technology, is the result of incurring (creating) a gamma risk.
The risk to be managed is rendered political. It is not the alpha and beta risk that occurs with the organization of economic fundamentals in a free-market system.
Organizing to command the price has externalities to be managed politically, so the prince is likely to say... political policies designed to support the long-term rate of substitution (despite the deflationary pressure on the price) is inimical to the short-term self-interest of consumers because it hacks me off.
The threat here, of course, is purely political (organizational), and the risk to both consumers and producers is gamma.
Ironically, the prince makes the case for organizing a free-market economy, and ensuring it, in priority, obviating the probability for gamma-risk distortions that make markets fundamentally unpredictable, resulting in maximum probability for conflict resolution instead of the peaceful, stabilizing process of a free-market legitimacy.
(more at griffithlighton.blogspot.com)
The gamma risk demands management of equal measure. (The type of risk-management is "demanded," as opposed to commanded, because there is still a "choice" that can be made.)
The cartel can be dismantled to operate without gamma risk (free market economics), but that requires a deconsolidation of the capital and giving up the ability to command the price despite economic fundamentals.
Since being in command not only controls the determinants of the fundamentals, but also makes you lots of money by command (by hedging, or magnifying the profit margin) within speculative, derivative markets, the detriment of organized deconsolidation would be equally magnified.
The only choice is to maintain the gamma risk. The alternative is to effectively pluralize the system and allow the price to increase on the fundamental demand (not on command). The rate of substitution (and the profit margin) will "freely" emerge as a measure of fundamental economic reality, not the unpredictable trends of arbitrary command and control that consolidates the capital into the hands of a few players that predict the trends, and profit, by causing them.
There is no better way to effectively gauge the risk to you if you are organized to cause it and, thereby, effectively manage it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)