Yielding to Arbitration

Dealing With the Temporal Argument

Commanding a standard measure, like a minimum wage, hosts the risk, conservatives tell us. It demands deflation because it is not an objective, free-market determination of the risk.

Immediately there is a temporal fallacy to deal with. This complicates the argument. The more complicated the argument, the more likely to win it without a confirming conformity that clearly arbitrates the assessment of risk.

Since risk has an inherently probable value, depending on the conditions that predict (or host) it, its derivative, late-order value is always arbitrary now. The differential yields to the arbitrage argument, which financiers use to describe and explain “now” in terms of future expectations that naturally yield to a conforming confirmation. So, for example, when Senator Levin suggests commercial and investment banking should be separated, deconsolidated, like Glass-Steagill, the problem to be solved, or controlled, is the late-order value derived and justified with all manner of prepaid pettifoggery designed to beat the argument into submission.

Foggy arguments are forcefully submitted, emerging from the misty world of secret knowledge, by citing, of course, positive law, being hosted by (derived from) natural law.

Derivative value is a temporal argument. Like Newton said, we can know natural law with predictive utility, existing measure, calculated over time, but what causes “IT” (everything) is a secret (existing without any particular attribution or derivative value). It’s pretty much arbitrary, hosted by, Objectivists tell us, absolutely nothing.

The value of nothing is inherently arbitrary. Thus it is inherently additive, naturally existing on demand, yielding to the conditions, the standards, that force the argument.

Natural law is inherently coercive. It has a commanding presence. It sets the standard (the “natural identity”) of existence, but that does not mean we cannot demand when things happen temporally, which explains how things happen, Senator Levin, for example, insists, to infer why.

De-Keynesians explain that firms like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America naturally form monopoly interests because it resists limited supply against unlimited demand (wants and needs). By limiting wants and needs (which is something we can control for on demand) we naturally delimit the supply (which can suddenly change by an act of God, or force majeure). How “they” do it is highly technical and, in many cases, a secret.

A lot of what big-bank broker-dealers do is proprietary. They have the secret knowledge about the way, or “how” things work. So, much of what we know about “why” is inferential, which has exculpatory value.

If objective reality is pretty much arbitrary, then there is always a shadow of a doubt, which relieves the burden of a criminal liability. Thus we have the standard of limited liability by major force (command) of the argument. This forms a principle (a standard) that naturally supercedes wants and needs (demand) in the marketplace.

By natural design, demand (what people are paid to be productive) conforms to the utility (the affordable protection) of monopoly interests. The so-called “natural monopoly” protects us from “the risk” by utilizing proprietary means, which is private property protected by the force (the rule) law.

Monopolies naturally drive down costs and drive up prices. That is the formula for success. Without it there is failure, so it is too risky to do it any other way.

Firms are TBTF for a reason–because that is what measures success. Being in business to make money not only measures efficiency (the marginal profit) but naturally sets the minimum standard of existence (demand deflation) by default (the existing formula “of” success).

“Greed is good” because it finds the limit (it discovers the real price to be paid). It delimits demand, which yields to the marginal profit. The margin then measures the amount of supply available to be demanded with a surplus, which is big enough to protect us from “the risk” by default. Thus the term, “too big to fail.”

Deconsolidating the risk exposes us to failure. That is why (as Hillary Clinton recently explained, for example) we should not try to command the commanders of industry and markets by fiat.

Setting a minimum wage is not positive law, conservatives explain, because it is unnatural. The minimum standard is set (it exists in priority, with the risk of loss fully assumed) by default.

The default condition (like Dodd-Frank says) is a temporal reality. Yielding to the standard is not a matter of if, but when, demanding the resistance, “making money” by adding to its supply, inflating the monster till it gets so big (“systemically influential”) it is an “institution” that cannot fail, making money on demand by default.

Assuming deflation is the default condition, however, is a temporal fallacy designed to win the game (the status quo) by force of the argument. The de-Keynesian argument that deflation is by default the expected value that discovers the natural price of goods and services to meet demand is perfect nonsense.

Deflation reduces income before it reduces prices. That means the price determines demand. Demand, then, IS NOT discovering the price–it does not have the value of a conforming confirmation like in a free market. Instead of income properly demanding prices, prices determine income.

Utilizing “natural monopolies” to make money, prices demand income (deflation, which “makes” money). In a deflationary environment, income does not demand prices (disinflation, which conserves the value of money, if not increasing its value without inflating its supply) like in a free market.

A “secular” (cyclical) correction deflates income. Prices then adjust to income (not “on demand” but with “no demand”), deflating the minimum standard. Instead of being generally beneficial, the adjustment “makes” the vast majority worse off, confirming the formula “for” success–driving up prices at near-zero marginal cost. The price to be paid (demanding the resistance) is in command of the risk, being determined like private property (fully culpable).

MSE is a function of private property. Its value (the risk it presents) is proprietary (private property) and government (the king) exists not to arbitrate but to execute the rule of law, conforming to the consent (yielding to the propriety) of the governed.

Non-conforming terms naturally demand the resistance that yields to the propriety of the risk.


About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Political-Economy and Philosophy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s