No, risk is not something to be avoided, although capitalists are always trying to do it, and always fail, in a too-big-to-fail proportion, which is really not too bright because it demands destruction.
Promoting freedom and responsibility around the world means operationalizing the risk for consumption. We know it’s not a function of changing the way people think–what a person believes–but tolerating it. As soon as there is intolerance there is the “utility” of command authority, which is contrary to the freedom and responsibility of an on-demand existence. (It means that the commanders have to be held accountable but, like Randians say, that is an unrealistic, counter-identity. Commanders naturally give the orders and “We” naturally take them, consuming all the risk. The liability is, naturally, limited.)
The President gave a speech at Centcom today. He said “We” are naturally positioned to lead the world toward the object of self-determination. It is, however, difficult to self-determine without deconsolidating the risk.
Remember that in a global economic environment “We” are the common-collective collaborative. By means of consolidating risk in an economy-of-scale proportion (brought to “global” scale), “We” are being surplussed to near-zero marginal cost, which is supposed to control the risk. Instead, the risk is out of control (surplussed) and “the best and the brightest” are telling us that “the crowd” needs to be controlled utilizing military (command-and-control) assets on demand.
Without deconsolidation, the means to self-determine does not exist for “the great horde”–“The People” (the mob that needs to be ruled, self-determined) in priority. Instead, the priority is the immediate-threat assessment–an elite function that is, by no coincidence, for the most part, conducted in secret, which is described as “the intelligence community.”
Look at what we’ve got to demand the destruction: two powerful and highly exclusive domains of power (big business and big government) operating to determine the level of risk “We” must tolerate on command to protect us from “them” (the “big risk”). This is an organized psychopathy that can be operationalized for the public good if we deconsolidate the risk in priority.
Otherwise, controlling for the risk is but a mob-like racketeering scheme (intending harm to control the acceptable amount of risk) built-out on a global scale. It is an organized psychopathy, intending harm, dressed up in business suits, going to church on Sunday, praying to deliver “us” from evil.
If we are always using the surplus to fight the latest threat, we never get around to deconsolidating the risk, in priority, by design.
Understand that a surplus always results from a liquidity crisis, which financial engineers (controlling for risk) always attribute to a naturally occurring “big-risk” proportion. They do not cause it, they just manage it to keep us liquid, they say, confiscating property in default for resale (asset-backed securities, for example), and when you don’t have the money to buy it back at a profit, then it is necessary to destroy it (increasing capital reserves–the surplus value) to support the price on demand.
(The price support is the debt required–the price to be paid–to demand the supply. Existing in the form of rent, “The People”–the common collective–never really own property, which means it is never confiscated but “repossessed” on demand at near-zero marginal cost–which means you never have the money to really own any “things” except by common, virtual, interconnection–contractually obligated with limited liability).
While we are fighting the war on terror, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs are formulating the next liquidity crisis. No, “they” are not busy creating jobs. They are building-out the deflation monster that confiscates property, satisfying the debt obligation that keeps “us” liquid, protecting us from the threat of a growing, common-collective identity sure to confiscate your property and mine in the name of the public good, demanding the destruction.