Economists tell us that monopolies are the natural result of a free-market ontology. The free market “therefore” (just like the kid in the bathtub) pre-exists the technical pattern we call a monopoly.
This structural tendency to monopolize the probable risk is readily apparent with America’s systematic party structure.
America’s binomial, two-party structure is a predictable pattern that exists predictable measures over time to occupy policy space. The space is empty (like the bathtub) until it is filled on demand (with a dirty kid that needs a bath).
The “Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act” (HR 992) and the “Retail Investor Protection Act” (HR 2374) are measures to restore a predictable pattern of financial programming that causes massive economic detriment. These bills passed the House and are now in the Senate.
What happens if the Senate gains a Republican majority based on, for example, Christian-conservative demands to overturn Roe v. Wade?
We get HR 992 and 2374.
The winner takes it all!
What’s the predictable pattern here?
(I had a dog once–Frosty Fritz was his name–that hated to take a bath. A gleaming-white shepherd–thus the name–demands to be cleaned. In the tub, he was sure to have that “I’m being abused” look on his face. As soon as I let him go he’d find the nearest compost pile and roll around in it. He’d have nary one clean spot! To be sure, there was that “See! All you did was make it worse!” aspect to it, but he always got a bath, anyway.)
Now you just watch, HR 992 and 2374, despite what party is the majority, will pass the Senate in some form to “improve” the swaps market and retail-investor protection.
Dodd-Frank is supposed to regulate the risk these financial “issues” present (the “big risk” regulators are concerned with, referred to as “prudential regulation” of financial markets). These are the dirty deeds that maculate the free market, perpetrated by hustling hounds sure to claim being abused when they find themselves ceremoniously washed in the tub of congressional oversight and regulatory authority, on demand, binomially determined.
Notice that Hank Greenburg, former AIG CEO, is suing over AIG’s bailout. He says the terms are abusive. He claims being victimized despite having escaped a multi-millionaire after having financed a massive, economic detriment. AIG’s financial terrorism–consolidating industry and markets in a TBTF proportion, which Glass-Steagill was designed to prevent–should have been degraded and destroyed on demand, but it survives.
What’s the probability a business stays in business knowing it has done extreme harm?
If we allow it to survive, doesn’t that say we measure the harm to be acceptable!
What’s the measure here to be applied?
Where is the fundamental, free-market alpha risk!
No, existing in a TBTF proportion does not annihilate the alpha risk. (The dirty dog always gets washed, anyway.)