We often here that the so-called “makers”–people that conservatives identify as the “job creators”–don’t really make anything, but they really do. They consolidate risk and bundle it, creating, for example, securitized debt, which led to the Great Recession. They make “financial products” that Larry Summers said would lead to financial success, and if you are a capitalist looking to confiscate wealth (and consolidate power) by means of default (failure), these products are a roaring success.
These knowingly detrimental, financial products continue to produce income for the top, income class (“being” described as “the new normal”). The income (surplus value) is derivative. It derives from innovative methods, utilizing instruments that make financial markets more competitively productive in a global (commonly collective), financial marketplace.
Applied to the detriment of everybody else, financial products engineered by Wall Street Ivy Leaguers like Lawrence Summers, and promoted by political operatives, fellow travelers, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, create surplus value. Being surplussed (having intentionally aggregated value that derives from demand), the value must be legitimately managed as public property in an aggregated dimension while also being considered private property with an on-command identity.
Conservatives (“the makers”) contend the public-private identity (the attributive-risk value) is not conflicted but consonant with the utilitarian concept of the “general welfare.” (“What’s good for GM is good for America.) To avoid the tragedy of the commons (mob rule), conservatives contend, private property “naturally” has priority. Having the attribution of a natural existence, the surplus is, then, to be used as the owners see fit (in the pursuit of happiness–the cause, or purpose, which is the “utility” we all commonly share on demand)–essentially fitting their self-concept or attributive identity.
Conservatives say people who claim to be victims of aggregated risk (consolidation of industry and markets) simply don’t understand how markets work, but no, they really do. The only thing really wrong about understanding it is conservatives filling the information network with the notion that consolidation of industry and markets is the natural result of free markets, and the general welfare, by default.
According to conservatives (the political ambition of Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney), if it happens by default, that means “We” just have to “take it” and stop being, greedy, envious whiners looking to loot the wealth of the nation (the surplus) “the makers” so generously make for us.
While it is readily apparent that making something means you are responsible for intending its existence, conservatives want to ignore from what the intended value derives.
What derives from ignorance is “Rifkin’s paradox” in which the capitalist, being so well rehearsed at minimizing the risk, makes it more probable for himself as an act of self-determination.
What you make is what you take.