Cost Control (Instead of Crowd Control) On Demand
Kick the risk out the front door and it just comes in the back.
Being sure each citizen has enough income to demand supply controls costs. Without subsidies, or price supports (like a mandate to buy health care insurance), to sell goods and services it is necessary to adjust prices to income. Capitalists, however, want to adjust income to prices.
Ideally, capitalism wants to support prices and resist distributing the income to demand it. Americans, for example, are mandated to buy health care insurance to control the cost.
Since being required to buy anything supports the price, existing without on-demand attribution, unlike a free market, income adjusts to the price; but then, whether you like it or not, you discover it’s a free market after all. Kick the risk (the capacity to sanction on demand with adequate income) out the front, it just comes in the back.
Like Thomas Hobbes observed centuries ago when capitalism was emerging as a new paradigm, risk naturally yields to an on-demand identity.
Adjusting income to rising prices by mandate is deflationary. It is not a free-market mechanism. It is a command identity that accumulates risk instead of spreading it like, for example, Howard Dean says the ACA does.
When risk accumulates it must be managed to control its catastrophic tendencies. The ACA, for example, is looking at the prospect of bailing out the insurance provider because a mandate to buy its product is deflationary. What this means for doctors, nurses, and a whole array of healthcare-support enterprises, is unemployment. (Yes, like I’ve been saying, the deflation monster WILL come for you!)
Just because everybody needs health care does not mean everybody has the money to demand it, especially if the price keeps going up, along with everything else everybody needs, at near-zero marginal cost (which is the deflation monster devouring your income “on demand”).
As the marginal cost gets closer to zero (as the monster gets bigger), there is a deflationary spiral. This is the opportunity for the capitalist (like freedom medalist, Warren Buffet) to confiscate your property and sell it back to you at a profit in late order. The act of confiscation appears to be disconnected, but it’s not.
Buffet, for example, buys “distressed property” from speculators. While he claims he does not speculate with derivatives that cause financial panic, he is sure to benefit from the detriment, which consolidates assets–value you need to control the cost of health care, for example, on demand.
Capitalists intend for income to adjust to prices. Berkshire Hathaway is not going to sell distressed property at a loss. If you don’t yield to uncle Warren’s demands, then you don’t buy a house. Instead, you rent it without gaining equity, which is “the” equity value to Buffet (the commonly divisible, “big-risk” detriment to you) at near-zero marginal cost.
When income adjusts to the capitalists’ demands–or you don’t get what you need (like food, water, heat, health care…)–capitalists falsely claim that “supply meets demand.” This is a fraud! Fraud is a crime…it is what gangsters do. It requires police action, not inviting them to the White House, entertaining their demands, and yielding to them “or else!”
Instead of prices adjusting to the supply of money, the supply of money meets the demand of the capitalists. This is quite different from “supply meets demand” in which risk flows from the consumer to the producer, which controls costs to the consumers’ benefit.
Adjusting the money supply to meet the demands of capitalists (having consolidated so much money the risk is near full value at zero marginal cost), there is inflation, which reduces purchasing power. That “power” (measure of applied risk on demand) does not just vanish, it is conserved in the form of equity valuation, which is at a record (coercive) level.
For capitalists, supply meets demand, or else! Existing with the threat of unacceptable harm, what are the choices. The free-market attribution still exists here (you see) but it has been organized to fit a criminally coercive intent (the organized psychopathy I’ve been telling you about that exists with a mechanical, on-demand, free-market legitimacy).
Instead of prices yielding to demand, capitalists want demand to yield higher prices. Since yielding to the demands of capitalism reduces income, the method that yields the reward is self-destructive.
Yielding to a zero-marginal-cost society, capitalism yields to the risk it intends to avoid–collective-common identity.
The risk-identity presented by collective commonality is naturally “big.” Capitalism, unparadoxically, intends to avoid “the big risk” by sanctioning everybody with its “natural identity”–its inevitable occurrence whether you like it or not.
What it isn’t is paradoxical, what it is, is not too bright.