When scientists observe something, they describe it with having random utility. It just happens to be that the internetworking of things yields to results that can be described as having a particular utility, post hoc, but existing without any particular purpose or intention in priority. While the results may be materialistically determined, the existence occurs without any prior intendency, yielding to a Descriptive Random Utility (DRU).
Accordingly, conservatives explain, it is improper to give intention to materialistically determined values of existence. Objectively, reality is not inherently meaningful. There is measurable being but there is no measure of its propriety.
No one owns any thing until it is derived with purpose, which gives it utility. It’s a free market in priority until we effectively make it do what we want it to properly do. Like anything else in nature, the value is derivative, described with random utility.
DRU is a free market. It also explains the value of derivative, financial devices that give free interaction predictable utility and, more important, a naturally limited liability. As we discover what objective reality is, we discover the secret knowledge. We understand, Objectivists argue, that Marx was right. We are materialistically determined, and like Hobbes said, nature determines its propriety, randomly accessed on demand and described with utility (confirming, or not, the pursuit of happiness), strictly constructed (empirically derived) by the numbers, limiting the liability to just whatever happens.
DRU is true. An implied empirical value of existence is being fully assumed as legal doctrine. When the DOJ does not prosecute fraud by big financials, resulting in massive economic detriment, which is turned into huge capital gains at the top, there is a doctrinal, descriptive utility at work.
Operating with the random aspect of fate, which occurs when things “just happen” in the aggregate-risk dimension, nature (what is true about DRU) is the final, legal authority. (If something is too big to fail, well, that’s it. It’s too big to fail. What’s the alternative?) Operating with the objective truth of natural identity annihilates any notion of whether what happens is proper or not.
By natural design (having Descriptive Random Utility), economists tell us, “natural monopolies” emerge from the free market to control for the risk. The numbers verify it. However, the trickle-down hypothesis does not verify.
After 14 years of trickle-down economic policy, we have the greatest amount of income inequality in economic history.
(Keep in mind that taxing the rich to redistribute, or transfer, income is trickle-down economics. According to conservatives, redistribution naturally reduces capital investment to a trickle, which only serves to bring us all down. The natural alternative is to not let the risk consolidate–get so big that it is a commonly divisible, existential threat.)
Strictly constructed, empirically powered by the numbers, the natural utility of capitalism is a failure.
Forming “natural monopolies” to control for the risk only supports what capitalists want to resist–nationalization. The more natural the monopoly, the more natural the probable risk of realizing that everybody owns the capital.
Existing with the propriety (the self-regulated power) of common divisibility, characteristic of a free market, the fate of capitalism is naturally determined by the rate of its own nihilistic tendencies.
Like everything else, capitalism naturally exists with Descriptive Random Utility.