Capitalism intends to annihilate the probable risk of the social contract–the need for government protection. Existing typically in the form of regulatory authority, the sovereign power of state effectively authors the risk, defining the limits of liability.
In a recent article on his website, Robert Reich, for example, said high pharmaceutical prices can be attributed to the right to private property (patent law), which is a government protection. Since, as he notes, the sovereign is the final arbiter, it regulates the marketplace, supporting the cost of pharmaceuticals. Notice that the hypothetical price (to be positively determined on demand) conforms to the natural right of big pharma to own its market space by extension of “government authority” (positive law), which is “you and me” on demand. Like Mr. Reich says, big pharma has big pricing power because “we let it.”
By extension (having a so-called “natural monopoly”), by being profitable, big pharma earns the right to manage the king’s pharmaceutical space (remembering that it exists because “We” demand it, but that requires money to spend, which means there is a huge and growing debt to support the price being demanded not by “you and me” but the king’s natural monopoly). “Given” the distribution of the values from the top down, what’s the proper attribution here?
Isn’t it curious that “product hopping” is allowed to support the price but not resist it. Since it is improper to marginally change a pharmaceutical and apply a competing patent to share in the profit (gaining market share and controlling the price, like in a free market, thus being able to demand the product without debt), demand is effectively destroyed to create the “natural monopoly.” (Frankly, I find this to be quite unnatural, but economists like Lawrence Summers and Robert Reich don’t think so!)
When do we ever hear economists like Reich and Summers recommend a free-market model? What they do recommend is trickle-down economics: taxing the excess at the top to be redistributed, effectively supporting the risk to be avoided by acting like it is being resisted. (It’s just a hoax!)
Let’s not forget that economists are apt to separate politics from economics. Often economists say that political action distorts proper attribution of economic values. No! It doesn’t!
The free-market model, for example, models the
“natural risk” that effectively resists the so-called “natural monopoly.” When the price becomes abusive (having the power to stupidly destroy the demand that supports your existence, which is the retributive value), the offending firm “naturally” fails on demand! The on-demand attribution is a political act. It genuinely authors the risk that kills the social contract with legitimate propriety, having the natural attributes of a Descriptive Random Utility.
Utilizing the free-market model, instead of trying to annihilate the risk, want-to-be kings fully utilize it in priority. They must comply with market conditions (established but fluid economic incentives) to survive.
In a free-and-unconsolidated marketplace (where monopolies are unnatural, driven by the economic incentive to share in the profit and increase the margin by means of product innovation) the economic aspirations of elite power and authority naturally complies with market conditions (established but fully liquid terms of the social contract–“you and me”–naturally existing in priority on demand).
The on-demand political dimension (the alpha risk in the economic dimension) descriptively exists the attributes of a functional psychopathy. The random probability of the risk is organized to access the freedom (the power) to self-determine.
Free market self-determination is a free-forming, functional psychopathy. Organized in priority, its free form reveals testable hypotheses. The utility of tastes and preferences are revealed, operationalized with the pursuit of economic gain to satisfy the self.
Existing with economic measures, legitimate political value is strictly constructed by the numbers. Being empowered by the numbers forms legal and proper authority (THE LAW), fully integrated to empirically confirm political and economic values, delimited by the value (the psychology) of prior consent, which legitimizes “the risk” with no retributive (coercive) value but the fully assumed risk of loss in priority.
Notice that a free-market model does not try to contain the risk. It is free! The market is free to select conforming hypotheses with success, measured (and empowered) by the numbers. Freedom is not a menace to be contained but a risk to be retained, random and probable, existing measure and resisting nothing with descriptive utility.
(Articles on attributive and retributive value and risk dimension, by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.)