The less the more…makes sense doesn’t it?
Less demand yields more supply.
Gaining less to have more is not exactly an additive identity. It is more nihilistic than additive, but that does not mean the reality is any less addjective.
Getting more for less requires a coercive method-yield. Slave masters can beat their slaves to force compliance without liability because they own them. Capitalism is much more sophisticated. Abhorrent to the crude methods of slavery, capitalism rents to own, by default, with bonding authority.
When the treasury issues bonds, it is a public debt privately enterprised on demand. If the burden (the rent) is regressive, then the probability of default (austerity) is all but uncertain. To avoid default (and a declining rate of profit), more debt is added by the treasury (on demand), which is an additive identity at the margin until the margin is called to collect the rent on demand. The result is a coercive, method-yield that does not resemble slavery. Instead, it is the object of self-determination, privately enterprised, uncoerced, existing on demand, dependent on the bonding authority.
Since we are all masters of our own devices, nature selects success.
Success is naturally endowed. It is an ontological existence rewarded to those who avoid risk (the risk of default) in a TBTF proportion. Being incorporated with limited liability in that conglomerated proportion, we are all naturally bonded to that authority. We exist on demand but with a social contract designed to meet that demand without failure of success.
The American Revolution intended to avoid the indefinite terms of an indivisible, contractual liability. Not operating with a social contract, but existing with the specific terms of privately contracted obligations, allows us to all be self-determined. Fully empowered with divisible determination, existing on demand, we are ALL (together) not bound by methods that yield the measures (the austerity) of a controlling authority existing with the means of consolidated power.
Consolidation of power is counter-Revolutionary, which is what the Tea Party is arguing, isn’t it!
If nature selects the winners, then it is a matter of creating an environment that selects the winner, post hoc. If the selection is legitimately ontological (on demand, pleasing the laborer and the consumer, like in a free-market environment) then rigging the market to win, in a TBTF proportion, for example, is not legitimate. It is a temporal fallacy that Objectivists argue is a part of the ontology, which is used as a legal defense when prosecuted for rigging the market (or regulated because you are “too big” to fail), “making” yourself the controlling authority, illegitimately existing on command, “making markets” to manage the risk.
The result of the post-hoc legitimacy is an organized psychopathy (an existential fallacy) that over-advantages the risk in a TBTF proportion, but an over-advantaged accumulation of risk is naturally prone to failure. (It’s the arrogant stupidity of the rich-man that knows everything about taking advantage of the probable risk but nothing about dealing with the negative consequences because, frankly, he doesn’t care. He’s too busy–“working harder than everybody else”–to manage the risk and add surplus value by engineering the probable futures. It’s all about getting what you ask for–engineering the existence–and, simply put, everybody gets what they ask for, engineered on demand, right?) A locust swarm, for example, feeds to an over-advantage. When the advantage is over (taken), relying on the surplus the host renews the probable advantage. Forming a circular argument (a synergy), the locusts depend on the austerity of the host to yield a surplus (the value “added” to be taken) and survive the over-taken advantage.
Risk-prone management of the risk creates the measure of austerity that capitalists say requires “making the market.” The “makers” say they avoid the risk, which is a circular argument (a risk tautology) that reactionaries, notice, use to deliver social welfare (a risk-transfer vehicle) and then deny it (balancing the budget with “much needed austerity”) on command.
The on-command existence (the argued ontology of yielding to a “natural” aristocratic “identity”) must be “made” to look legitimate. This is mostly what “the makers” are doing to add identity. Risk is not being added but it is being accumulated (the less the more), which must be managed. The best way to command the risk with an on-demand legitimacy is through the bonding authority and, currently, with inflation, that identity is yielding negative–the measure of austerity.
The only people that can afford to buy a bond (and enjoy the value of a riskless return) are people that can afford to pay the debt but don’t because that would be irrational. It does not make sense to pay (more of) the rent if you are the one that collects (less of) it.
Yielding to an aristocratic identity, “the less the more” makes perfect sense. It is an additive identity–the measure of success.