Now that managing the futures has been “modernized,” markets are made to be broken, and what is broken needs to be fixed.
The cycle of boom and bust is the natural cycle of creative-destruction, isn’t it? Being destructive has the advantage of building something newer and better. For the capitalist, it is the opportunity to consolidate the assets of people who are “broke.”
If we just let it be, Shlaes tells us, we see how capitalism creates value from the destructive forces of nature, which includes (as Hobbes argues) human nature.
Capitalism exists to make what is broken whole again. Having the value of an emergent property, with lessons learned, one crisis at a time, we naturally build out an economy-of-scale efficiency to form the capital, which protects us from the ever-impending risk of loss.
At the same time, to be reasonable, you know the old saying, “if it’s not broken don’t fix it.” Forgiving debt, for example, is a moral hazard. For the capitalist, default is a much better value. It teaches us the “real value” of money, and that true identity shows up on your credit score, empirically valued as being a high risk. Being at risk means you have to pay more rent and, thus, more likely to go broke depending, of course, on how the futures are managed, which always reveals the lesson to be learned.
Student loan debt is $1 trillion, but for the capitalist it’s not broken. The empirical value ($1 trillion) is a subordinated identity. At the same time, this identity indicates we’re fixed into a “modernized,” recessionary trend, “being” described as “the new normal.”
Like Amity Shlaes says, it’s irrational to fix what is normal. All that does is make it to break it, right? (Notice here the “negative ontologic” existentialist Jean-Paul Galibert writes about.)
Conflicting indicators are due to price fixing against plentiful supply, which is not supposed to happen because it is unnatural. The conflict, however, can be used for a positive yield–we can break it to make it!
(Remember that the only way capitalism can keep from destroying itself is to destroy and horde the supply to support prices. While it is obscene to destroy homes with an increasingly homeless population, nevertheless, some communities actually did that to support property values. For the most part, private equity has been buying distressed properties to gain capital. The more property they can horde, the more capital can be gained occupying as much space as possible over time. The use value of these homes is not for living in. No, that value is wasted, destroyed to create a capital gain–an unnatural identity to occupy the space, which will not survive the test of time.)
It would do a lot of good to break up the housing horders. We could then capitalize on low housing prices and low interest rates at the same time for the greater good, and not in late order, but now, on demand.
By means of deconsolidation, at this point, low interest rates and low home prices, which are not supposed to happen together, is the opportunity to provide affordable housing. Literally, it is the opportunity to occupy available space, plentifully supplied, but that would fix the problem, not make it to break it.