Senator Warren’s new book (all of her books, actually) describe the limitation of hedging the risk indefinitely. Having trillions of dollars in student loans, for example, is a form of slavery using the instruments of capitalism.
Fixing his subjects to rising rents is what the king did to conserve sovereign power in a too-big-to-fail proportion, but the entrepreneur turned it against him. Existing on his demand, to expand the margin, the king himself was subjected to rising rents, and now it is being wielded by Wall Street to subject sovereign power in the same proportion. It is a vestige of being too big to fail (a false attribution of power) that Hobbes argued must be regulated by the sovereign, existing on demand, or it will, in fact, fail.
Failure is going to happen, but it does not have to be in a too-big-to-fail proportion. In fact, in the form of concentrated power, like we have now, we are prone to failure, suffering from the instruments that measure the success of our own creative-destructive devices.
Senator Warren describes the problem of “concentrated wealth and power.” The solution (which is the Ivy League solution) is to regulate it, not deconsolidate it.
It is important to understand that consolidation results in concentration of wealth and power. Consolidation of industry and markets is the means to concentrate (focus) power into a too-big-to-fail proportion. The result is being held hostage to a massive economic detriment.
Regulating (rationalizing) when and if the Leviathan can pull the trigger and blow its brains out to satisfy the object of self-determination from the top down is not a reasonable solution. By means of deconsolidation (not allowing for concentration) we all have a fighting chance. We remove the threat of self-destruction, managing the menace at the margin, on demand.
Deconsolidation not only prevents capitalism from being a public menace, but a menace to itself. The common divisible measure includes the people who focus on accumulating capital on demand–they don’t just “poof” disappear but are rationalized (regulated) with an on-demand existence. We still need productive efficiency but concentration of power never has and never will get us there without putting a gun to our head and threaten us all with inexistence in a pathological fit of self-determination.
We don’t have a fighting chance maintaining the means to concentrate power. There is no way to be “what we want to be” with catastrophic risk privately yielding to a final call at the margin of existence where, on demand, the fight is not left to chance but by imperative beyond good and evil.
High-frequency trading, for example, demonstrates how complexity makes markets more risk prone, not less. Being enterprised in private beyond the means of on-demand accountability, relying on regulatory authority at the margin, the wealth HFTs accumulate concentrates power. Regulating its concentration begs the question–it conserves the problem to be solved in the form of a solution. It allows the menace to exist as a measure of success, being managed at the margin, prone to failure.