Elits disagree over the direction, the control, of our economy, on the surface at least.
Ben Bernanke, federal reserve chief, a quasi-public bureaucrat who must choose the clientele he serves--the private financial sector that funds the agency or the general public, favors the Hamiltonian model.
The federal reserve now faces another potential bailout with a combine of public and private funds as another big investment bank flounders. It could be that Bernanke may let it fail to demonstrate the effects of not supporting the Hamiltonian model of political economy.
The public administration of a consolidated capital does not mean it is not misfeasant or malfeasant. No, it can be just as irresponsible, like most central planners of a consolidated power, because the central authority (the central bank) will not allow it to fail. If the federal reserve does allow an oversized horizontally and vertically integrated financial entity to fail, the integration of which should have been illegal and the scenario prevented in priority, the assets of this company will be consolidated, further centralized, into a command and control economy.
Berkshire Hathaway will be there to consolidate the assets, with Warren Buffet standing in opposition to the federal reserve's Hamiltonian modeling. It will be the pot calling the kettle black, but Buffet will claim it is not a taxpayer bailout, and "the public" will not be paying to keep a private institution of power solvent without sharing in the profits (shareholder class status), just the losses, to be shared by the class of "little people."
The "little people" are not the stupid masses to be taken advantage of by a more clever Hamiltonian elite. No. They are commanded to be the shareholders of detriment by the indirect means of the political-economic process of power, protected by the force and legitimacy of public authority. It is the product of a "command" economy, not free market economics.
The legitimacy must be by force of public authority because command and control by an elite is not Constitutional (publicly legitimate) and the command of the economy (organized consolidation of assets) is not, by definition, a free market mechanism (private legitimacy).
The model is entirely illegitimate.
The illegitimacy must not be managed with overt force in priority, but only as a consequence, like not allowing for consolidation of your assets as a result of the business cycle, which will earn you a forceful visit from the local constabulary.
Extending from the macro level, command and control is by a central planning authority of public/private means to form a bureaucratic model of power and political economy. The private sector operates with a false free-market legitimacy, and the public sector operates to adjust for the externalities, the consequences, mostly in the form of value in demand to be retributed as disposable income. That value, however, is accumulated as capital to deprive demand to increase the supply and maximize the profit on that limited supply.
Ensuring a true free-market legitimacy will cure this problem by organizing to produce the supply to produce the profit, and not its deprivation, or supply-side economics.
John McCain and his neo-conservative company are not supply-side, free marketeers. They are command and control Hamiltonians masquerading the mere mechanics of buying and selling as proof of free market economics. It is a fraud that must be managed and applied by central authority.
At the heart of this central authority is the means of finance through the treasury department and the federal reserve system (the bureaucratic model of power).
The federal reserve system largely functions to manage the volatility of the business cycle, and along with treasury operates to attenuate the negative externalities of illiquidity (an overaccumulation, consolidation, of wealth). The Economic Stimulus Package of 2008, for example, was distributed through treasury and financed by the federal reserve (the public debt).
The volatility we experience now manifests with shorter terms and less depth. Capital, however, becomes so consolidated it literally dictates the economy, but within the limits of fail-safe mechanisms, like limits on trage programme trading (the SEC). Both hedge-fund money and programme trading accounts for at least half the volume of the NYSE every day, more than enough to dictate the direction of prices with an inequity on the bid (a suboptimal distribution of capital wealth).
While the power of a consolidated capital is contrary to the legitimacy of free markets, the choice since the trauma of the Great Depression has been monetarism or socialism. The federal reserve maintains a system of monetarism with a consolidated capital. Socialism decidely does not obtain, but as the economy becomes evermore centralized and power consolidated, all it takes is a political decision to make the switch, but it may well be just a change of legitimacy that reinvents, revolutionizes, the inequity it purports to eliminate.
As many political economists have observed, the switch of legitimacy is just a tragicomedy of a change of elites. This is something to be avoided with insistence for a free and unconsolidated marketplace. Otherwise, despite whatever "ism" you brand it, it is still central authority, a consolidated power--the problem!
The complexity, the confusion, associated with identifying the problem is avoided not by identifying what it is, but by what it is not. If it is not the design of a free and unconsolidated market mechanism, then whatever "it" is, is not sufficient to pluralistically check the elements of power toward a peacefully and prosperous, verifiable legitimacy. Anything other than freedom is just an arbitration of what that is.
Discussions always philosophically reduce to legitimacies and attempts to identify or label the means to ends. It is entirely unresolvable and left to the arbitration and caprice of the powerful. It is much easier and effective to identify what freedom is not.
I can most assuredly identify John McCain and the neo-conservative coaltion as what freedom is not!
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a skilled pragmatist of a high moral intelligence capable of helping us realize what freedom really is.
Don't forge the chains that bind you. Forge the tools to break them.
Build the coaltion for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Can We Have a Depression?
Another Black Monday certainly can happen. It is a post-monetarist event.
Monetarism is a technology invented to stabilize, or predictably manage, the business cycle. It allows for cyclical oscillation without bringing the model of legitimacy--consolidated market capitalism--into question enough to throw it out for another model to be tested for legitimacy (the scientific method).
The current model of political economy in operation, the Hamiltonian model, maintains a hyopthetical legitimacy of regressive taxation (a trickle-down tax burden) to produce economic growth and the general welfare. This regressive tax structure is the fundament that guides and predicts the direction, the cyclical dimensions, of our economy, now in a command mode of stagflation to deflation. Thus, the hypothetical legitimacy of the model is strong-negative, meaning that the model (according to the scientific method) is to be thrown out for a model that will test positive for the general welfare.
The logical remedy is to reverse the fundament; that is, progress the tax code for a progressive tax burden, but that does not happen. Instead, we always have risk-management technologies in place to bureaucratically manage the demand, the need, for change into a cyclical technical correction of managing the supply of money.
Management of the money supply is a demand-side measure. It is adjusting the demand, not increasing supply. In fact, it is designed to reduce supply.
Supply is determined by organization of the markets to allow or disallow the investment to produce supply (economic growth). The added liquidity largely functions to reduce the perennial crisis of overproduction (a lack of disposable income, or demand--a regressive tax burden). This substitutes for the needed progressive tax code by adding liquidity from the central bank in the form of a public debt, to be paid for by a regressive code, and thus ensuring a predictably recurrent cycle of boom and bust (the crisis of overproduction, or insufficient demand).
The deflation we face now is an innovation to "the cycle" by peak-pricing commodities so that it looks like demand is exceeding supply, and so it looks like the crisis of overproduction is not a lack of disposable income due to the regressive tax code (the trickle-down economics), but a fundamental lack of supply.
The problem, however, is fundamentally the same: a Hamiltonian model of political economy in which markets are allowed to consolidate to limit supply on a monetized demand. The investment being made, public and private, is to increase demand, not add supply. The result are unaffordable prices, or a lack of disposable income which eventuates into deflation and an exponetiating public debt to perpetuate "the cycle."
Monetarism was invented to make the severity of the cyclical oscillation manageable; in other words, so that the retributive value does not overaccumulate enough to call for the rejection of the Hamiltonian model. The retributive value is borrowed and stored in the form of a public debt as government programs substitute for a lack of a free market legitimacy.
Hamiltonians falsely argue that government causes the public debt. That, in turn, effects remedies that just cause more debt to be regressively paid. The result is a gigantic accumulation of retributive value to be manifested in a deep cyclical compression.
At this point, the retributive value is demanding to be paid, but argued by Hamiltonians as just being a "natural" swing in the business cycle. It is the job of the monetarist to manage this accumulated debt so that it does not result in rejection of the falsely legitimate model.
Hamiltonians argue that rejection of their model is to reject the free market model of economics. Quit the contrary. Rejecting Hamiltonianism allows for acceptance of the free market model.
It is time to accept your freedom, your right to self-determination and stop being slave to a bunch of feudalistic, want-to-be overlords.
Join the coalition for Barack Obama and declare your natural right to be free from a continuously failed legitimacy of power.
Very best wishes.
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton.
Monetarism is a technology invented to stabilize, or predictably manage, the business cycle. It allows for cyclical oscillation without bringing the model of legitimacy--consolidated market capitalism--into question enough to throw it out for another model to be tested for legitimacy (the scientific method).
The current model of political economy in operation, the Hamiltonian model, maintains a hyopthetical legitimacy of regressive taxation (a trickle-down tax burden) to produce economic growth and the general welfare. This regressive tax structure is the fundament that guides and predicts the direction, the cyclical dimensions, of our economy, now in a command mode of stagflation to deflation. Thus, the hypothetical legitimacy of the model is strong-negative, meaning that the model (according to the scientific method) is to be thrown out for a model that will test positive for the general welfare.
The logical remedy is to reverse the fundament; that is, progress the tax code for a progressive tax burden, but that does not happen. Instead, we always have risk-management technologies in place to bureaucratically manage the demand, the need, for change into a cyclical technical correction of managing the supply of money.
Management of the money supply is a demand-side measure. It is adjusting the demand, not increasing supply. In fact, it is designed to reduce supply.
Supply is determined by organization of the markets to allow or disallow the investment to produce supply (economic growth). The added liquidity largely functions to reduce the perennial crisis of overproduction (a lack of disposable income, or demand--a regressive tax burden). This substitutes for the needed progressive tax code by adding liquidity from the central bank in the form of a public debt, to be paid for by a regressive code, and thus ensuring a predictably recurrent cycle of boom and bust (the crisis of overproduction, or insufficient demand).
The deflation we face now is an innovation to "the cycle" by peak-pricing commodities so that it looks like demand is exceeding supply, and so it looks like the crisis of overproduction is not a lack of disposable income due to the regressive tax code (the trickle-down economics), but a fundamental lack of supply.
The problem, however, is fundamentally the same: a Hamiltonian model of political economy in which markets are allowed to consolidate to limit supply on a monetized demand. The investment being made, public and private, is to increase demand, not add supply. The result are unaffordable prices, or a lack of disposable income which eventuates into deflation and an exponetiating public debt to perpetuate "the cycle."
Monetarism was invented to make the severity of the cyclical oscillation manageable; in other words, so that the retributive value does not overaccumulate enough to call for the rejection of the Hamiltonian model. The retributive value is borrowed and stored in the form of a public debt as government programs substitute for a lack of a free market legitimacy.
Hamiltonians falsely argue that government causes the public debt. That, in turn, effects remedies that just cause more debt to be regressively paid. The result is a gigantic accumulation of retributive value to be manifested in a deep cyclical compression.
At this point, the retributive value is demanding to be paid, but argued by Hamiltonians as just being a "natural" swing in the business cycle. It is the job of the monetarist to manage this accumulated debt so that it does not result in rejection of the falsely legitimate model.
Hamiltonians argue that rejection of their model is to reject the free market model of economics. Quit the contrary. Rejecting Hamiltonianism allows for acceptance of the free market model.
It is time to accept your freedom, your right to self-determination and stop being slave to a bunch of feudalistic, want-to-be overlords.
Join the coalition for Barack Obama and declare your natural right to be free from a continuously failed legitimacy of power.
Very best wishes.
Copyright 2008 by Griffith Lighton.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Iran Threatens Supply
Iran now says it will disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz if any military action is taken against its country.
The price per barrel has soared on this likely threat.
Iran had relucted to make this threat till now. It now is facing signs of escalating military preparations, the latest being the US joint chief of staff meeting with Israeli military officials.
The threat is largely just a threat because any attempted disruption in the strait will result in significant reduction of its military capability, something it wants to maintain in anticipation of US withdrawal from Iraq.
Iran has no intention of disrupting its oil revenue at over $100/bl, and threatening a disruption just increases the risk premium, making the mullahs that much richer and maximizes the value of its reserves toward the inevitable compression of the price and destruction of the value of substitution (the competition).
The threat of war is actually minimal. The stakes are too high for all parties. The risk premium, however, will be deliberately supported with threatening rhetoric and military demonstrations.
Contact griffithlighton@gmail.com for more consultation.
The price per barrel has soared on this likely threat.
Iran had relucted to make this threat till now. It now is facing signs of escalating military preparations, the latest being the US joint chief of staff meeting with Israeli military officials.
The threat is largely just a threat because any attempted disruption in the strait will result in significant reduction of its military capability, something it wants to maintain in anticipation of US withdrawal from Iraq.
Iran has no intention of disrupting its oil revenue at over $100/bl, and threatening a disruption just increases the risk premium, making the mullahs that much richer and maximizes the value of its reserves toward the inevitable compression of the price and destruction of the value of substitution (the competition).
The threat of war is actually minimal. The stakes are too high for all parties. The risk premium, however, will be deliberately supported with threatening rhetoric and military demonstrations.
Contact griffithlighton@gmail.com for more consultation.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Pay More Now or Pay a Lot More Later?
Pay more now or pay a lot more later is the latest argument to justify the excessive shock-price of oil.
The excessive price is being argued as the free-market function of profit indicating the need for added supply.
It is absolutely no such thing!
The shock-price is not a measure of fundamental value reflecting the long term demand-overshoots-supply dimension. Rather, it is a short term measure on the value of the power to command a price of an overconsolidated capital. It is a way to deflate the economy and empirically define class distinction--the haves and the have nots. The more you are made to suffer, the more you are deprived, the lower your demonstrated class. That is what the shock-price of oil is for; to consolidate wealth and demonstrate class.
Arguing you must pay an excessive price now to avoid an even higher price later is a fraud. The people making the argument fully intend for you to pay a higher price later by deflating the economy (deflating your income) even as the artificial peak-price of oil sells off in a technical correction of its real value. There is no intention to add supply because when the economy recovers (a retrace of the down-phase of the cycle falsely argued as economic growth), the cycle of speculative-demand, peak-oil valuation will be repeated as the latest means of cyclical oscillation in a neo-classical, post-monetarist environment.
People that are made to suffer the consequences of deliberate cyclical compression and decompression of the economy are not demonstrably lower class, you are victim of a fraud in the marketplace!
Deny the frauds, the criminals, the practitioners of the politics of deprivation, access to power. It is your legal right, it is your legal obligation.
If you want to grow your business, if you want sustainable economic growth, join the coalition for Barack Obama and start to command your own fate!
Very best wishes.
The excessive price is being argued as the free-market function of profit indicating the need for added supply.
It is absolutely no such thing!
The shock-price is not a measure of fundamental value reflecting the long term demand-overshoots-supply dimension. Rather, it is a short term measure on the value of the power to command a price of an overconsolidated capital. It is a way to deflate the economy and empirically define class distinction--the haves and the have nots. The more you are made to suffer, the more you are deprived, the lower your demonstrated class. That is what the shock-price of oil is for; to consolidate wealth and demonstrate class.
Arguing you must pay an excessive price now to avoid an even higher price later is a fraud. The people making the argument fully intend for you to pay a higher price later by deflating the economy (deflating your income) even as the artificial peak-price of oil sells off in a technical correction of its real value. There is no intention to add supply because when the economy recovers (a retrace of the down-phase of the cycle falsely argued as economic growth), the cycle of speculative-demand, peak-oil valuation will be repeated as the latest means of cyclical oscillation in a neo-classical, post-monetarist environment.
People that are made to suffer the consequences of deliberate cyclical compression and decompression of the economy are not demonstrably lower class, you are victim of a fraud in the marketplace!
Deny the frauds, the criminals, the practitioners of the politics of deprivation, access to power. It is your legal right, it is your legal obligation.
If you want to grow your business, if you want sustainable economic growth, join the coalition for Barack Obama and start to command your own fate!
Very best wishes.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Classic Problem (Perennialism)
There is a philosophical concept called perennialism.
Most philosophers describe a perennialism, grappling with current problems and perception of those problems. Many describe it as inevitable historic recurrence.
A determinism soft or hard, the command mode our economy is in now, the tendency to deflation, is the recurrent bugaboo of capitalism and classical economics--the crisis of overproduction.
All the classic and neo-classic indices are present to suggest a classic economic depression, or a perennial problem. It is a problem even for the beneficiaries of the business cycle (consolidation of wealth) because with each oscillation, within a recent memory especially, the legitimacy of the political-economic process is called into question.
Clearly, the global economy is determined to deflate. It is being commanded by a consolidated wealth. Even though there are differences in the form of the crisis, and the remedial measures available to stabilize it, like monetarism, are more efficient, the result will be the same--overproduction due to a reduction of demand, or deflation. It is a demand-side economics that benefits the consolidation of capital, which is the source of the problem. It is a "classical" economic problem that ALL the classical economists have described, explained, and all predict to be perennially persistent.
The antithesis to demand-side economics is obviously, rationally, in order. Supply-side economics is the solution nature is demanding, awaiting our command.
The solution is simple, it is direct: invest in the supply side, not the demand side like the speculative demand driving the global economy into depression now.
The solution is simple and easily applied. We just have to decide to do it.
Join the coalition for Obama and build the peacefully prosperous world of a self-determined pluralism we all "know" we can have.
Very best wishes.
Most philosophers describe a perennialism, grappling with current problems and perception of those problems. Many describe it as inevitable historic recurrence.
A determinism soft or hard, the command mode our economy is in now, the tendency to deflation, is the recurrent bugaboo of capitalism and classical economics--the crisis of overproduction.
All the classic and neo-classic indices are present to suggest a classic economic depression, or a perennial problem. It is a problem even for the beneficiaries of the business cycle (consolidation of wealth) because with each oscillation, within a recent memory especially, the legitimacy of the political-economic process is called into question.
Clearly, the global economy is determined to deflate. It is being commanded by a consolidated wealth. Even though there are differences in the form of the crisis, and the remedial measures available to stabilize it, like monetarism, are more efficient, the result will be the same--overproduction due to a reduction of demand, or deflation. It is a demand-side economics that benefits the consolidation of capital, which is the source of the problem. It is a "classical" economic problem that ALL the classical economists have described, explained, and all predict to be perennially persistent.
The antithesis to demand-side economics is obviously, rationally, in order. Supply-side economics is the solution nature is demanding, awaiting our command.
The solution is simple, it is direct: invest in the supply side, not the demand side like the speculative demand driving the global economy into depression now.
The solution is simple and easily applied. We just have to decide to do it.
Join the coalition for Obama and build the peacefully prosperous world of a self-determined pluralism we all "know" we can have.
Very best wishes.
Blaming Oil Speculation is a Distraction
According to Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the voice of business in government, blaming the price of oil on speculation "is a distraction" to focusing on demand reduction and adding supply.
It just happens to be that the overwhelming volume of a consolidated capital holding over 70% of oil futures contracts for non-delivery (for speculative purposes) is not being invested in adding supply.
The speculative investment is, however, reducing demand by deflating the economy. The official Republican administration policy, including John McCain, is that the trickle-down economics driving the demand reduction is supply-side economics.
That would be false by the most obvious measure of the evidence used to support their hypothesis: that the price of oil is due to a fundamental lack of supply.
You would think neo-conservatives are intelligent enough to come up with something that at least resembles a convincing argument.
Remove the consolidated capital from the speculative demand, reinvest it in adding supply (economic growth), and this "fundamental" problem of not properly organizing to add supply, but to restrict it, goes away.
If you want economic growth, if you want to grow your business, join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
It just happens to be that the overwhelming volume of a consolidated capital holding over 70% of oil futures contracts for non-delivery (for speculative purposes) is not being invested in adding supply.
The speculative investment is, however, reducing demand by deflating the economy. The official Republican administration policy, including John McCain, is that the trickle-down economics driving the demand reduction is supply-side economics.
That would be false by the most obvious measure of the evidence used to support their hypothesis: that the price of oil is due to a fundamental lack of supply.
You would think neo-conservatives are intelligent enough to come up with something that at least resembles a convincing argument.
Remove the consolidated capital from the speculative demand, reinvest it in adding supply (economic growth), and this "fundamental" problem of not properly organizing to add supply, but to restrict it, goes away.
If you want economic growth, if you want to grow your business, join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Weak Dollar Blamed for Record Oil Price?
The high price of oil is deflating, reducing demand (purchasing power), of the US economy. The result is a weakening dollar.
The option being offered to strengthen the dollar is raising the interest rate to reduce the demand for oil.
The option "commands" deflation of the economy. Not applying the option "commands" deflation of the economy.
I do believe deflation of the economy is in command.
Deflation is being offered as the only option. The other remedy, overwhelmed with the current evidence it does not work, and its advocacy making the advocate look like an absolute fool, is to "make the the tax cuts permanent and reduce government spending" as per John McCain and the neo-conservative coalition in power.
The trickle-down economic policy that causes a weak dollar with slow-to-no-growth and increases the demand for government--the problem--is otherwise being offered as the solution.
The effect, the weak dollar, is being attributed as the cause. It is a fundamental fraud.
It is a deliberate politics of deprivation.
It is fundamentally immoral.
It is the problem. Not the solution.
Advocates of commanding deflation need to be denied access to power.
Join the coalition for Senator Barack Obama!
The option being offered to strengthen the dollar is raising the interest rate to reduce the demand for oil.
The option "commands" deflation of the economy. Not applying the option "commands" deflation of the economy.
I do believe deflation of the economy is in command.
Deflation is being offered as the only option. The other remedy, overwhelmed with the current evidence it does not work, and its advocacy making the advocate look like an absolute fool, is to "make the the tax cuts permanent and reduce government spending" as per John McCain and the neo-conservative coalition in power.
The trickle-down economic policy that causes a weak dollar with slow-to-no-growth and increases the demand for government--the problem--is otherwise being offered as the solution.
The effect, the weak dollar, is being attributed as the cause. It is a fundamental fraud.
It is a deliberate politics of deprivation.
It is fundamentally immoral.
It is the problem. Not the solution.
Advocates of commanding deflation need to be denied access to power.
Join the coalition for Senator Barack Obama!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)