Regulating the Regulators
A free-market philosophy of risk relies on an on-demand existence.
If making demands in the marketplace requires income, then people who have more income have more capacity to apply risk.
Industry and markets consolidate to have more income. Consolidation increases pricing power from the top down. The more consolidated the market, the less legitimacy on-demand. Demand then occurs without having the income to apply the risk because it has been consolidated.
To mitigate the effect of a diminished on-demand legitimacy, instead of deconsolidating, we have regulators.
Regulators exist not to be a nuisance but to regulate the nuisance–the ambivalence of existing on command mitigating against an on-demand legitimacy.
The FCC, for example, says it does not exist to support an internet marketplace of “have and have nots.” For the majority of users, that would be a nuisance. While the proposal for a “fast lane” has been approved by the commission, public comment shows resistance. There is significant support for a neutral marketplace that exists on demand.
If capitalists want to conserve the legitimacy of an on-demand existence, it might be wise not to resist it, but confirm it, on demand.
If R&D is applied to bring the “have nots” up to speed without, of course, having the income to demand it, that process will be slow, if non-existent, without regulatory resistance. (Yielding to an aristocratic identity, everything tends to be priced to pull down income consolidated at the top–i.e., trickle-down economics. The result is less demand and more debt to equity. Innovation slows if the consumer progressively can’t pay for it. Rendering a model of market efficiency that models income class is the model of inefficiency because it tends to a command dimension, concentration of power, and a rising regulatory authority to resist it.) However, if the incentive is to better utilize the bandwidth to please all the customers, commonly carried, on demand, we fully utilize the free-market mechanism. We yield to the highest quality product and service at the lowest possible price rather than the inefficiency of a consolidated, on-command model now being used to allocate capital in the name of “making markets more efficient.”
Without maintaining the highest measure of an on-demand existence (commonly carried) there is no comparable difference. There is no way of yielding to a comparative advantage. “The existence” can only be argued counterfactually, yielding to the negative ontology of never being confirmed now, always existing in the futures but conserved in the past, arbitraged by argument, in late order, on demand, yielding to command authority.