The Pathology to Prosperity
How is it the Great Recession yields record profits and dividends?
Massive misfortune yields to a massive fortune, doesn’t it!
Profiting from the misfortunes of others, organized to yield to the “natural identity” of the profiteer (people that naturally “make money”), and then blaming the victims (people that unnaturally “take money”) for causing it, is psychopathological, isn’t it?
Remember, risk yields reward and the probability of detriment (the misfortune of “others” who–as a discreet, class identity–end up “taking” the risk). There are people who naturally make money, Objectivist philosophy tells us, and people who naturally take all the risk (the unfortunate who, as a class, “will always be with us”).
People looking to buy-in to a record-level bull market are, according to Objectivist philosophy, naturally destined to “take the risk” at a record level. (Articles on “risk flow” and “conservation of risk” by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.) What is described as “the free market” (you see) does not naturally “intend” to evenly distribute the risk (and like Ayn Rand says, it never will, no matter how hard we try to be “equitable,” because it is not a natural identity, so why fight it). “The risk,” accordingly, always consolidates–it gets so “big” that it has overwhelming, uncontrollable power–it goes gamma.
Now, we can say that the current bull market is due to record profits and dividends; if so, then what is the status of “the risk?”
(Keep in mind that the Fed is the big–commonly collaborative–risk manager. It is currently keeping the funds rate low–leveraged–to “accommodate” profits without risk. So, where is the risk that goes with the reward? Maybe it’s contained–leveraged–into the zero marginal cost Rifkin says paradoxically destroys the legitimate-utility of free-market mechanics.)
Is the risk evenly distributed in a non-catastrophic proportion (like in a free market), or is it unevenly detrimental (like Objectivists say it naturally is) by default?
The time is now to decide whether the organized psychopathy of trying to contain the risk is the path to prosperity or the dysfunctional psychopathy of an irrational (and thus unnatural) identity that is risk prone in the name of being risk averse.