Resisting the Demand for Debt
To counter the argument that capitalism tends to turn people into peons by default, lawyers argue that property is not expropriated but legally acquired by consenting parties.
Capitalism induces the acquisition of debt. If it didn’t, economic growth would be reduced to next to nothing by default.
Since peonage is neither legal or proper, financial interests give it some other identity. They call it economic growth.
Economic growth is induced with the extension of credit. Capital is rented at a rate that measures the risk to the capital described as the “market rate” existing on demand. Since the market rate derives from perception of the risk, it’s pretty abstract.
Abstraction of the risk is highly ambiguous. How often do arbitrage analysts say that the bulls or the bears didn’t see “it” coming. The difference between the object and its abstraction constructs an argument, being reduced to analytical variables that induce the risk.
Economists readily admit that the inducement is a systematic, self-fulfilled prophecy, which suggests there is really no risk if you create it. The argument is made, nevertheless, that the market price derives from the invisible hand, which accounts for the financial trouble people experience, being induced into peonage, obliged to economic growth, creating the demand that adds the supply to be acquired (and destroyed) by contractual obligation (on demand by default).
(Is it just me, or does this look like “the wrong way to measure doing it right!” Consider that in order to support prices, the supply ends up being destroyed. This destructive behavior is hard to describe as being functionally efficient. Nevertheless, capitalism is described as being the most efficient means of production. Describing the contractual obligation as dysfunctional is not what’s wrong with it, but if you do, it’s an act of sedition that threatens “The American Dream?”)
Remember that a valid contract requires the legal capacity of consenting parties. If you lack capacity to pay the debt because, by default, you are the “taker” that by derivative devices takes all the risk, then the contracts that govern (derive) your circumstances are not valid. You are being forced into peonage, on demand?
Acquisition of property by derivative devices–touted to be the “best and the brightest” way to do things–is a false, on-demand attribution. It is a fraud! It is a crime–no, not the color of crime, a crime that deliberately intends to do harm by default.
Being reduced to a default attribution is why we keep doing the detriment over and over again. It’s not crazy…it’s just the natural law. That’s life…just accept it, right?
Instead of inducing the demand for debt we should be reducing the demand for debt.
Simply paying off government debt (paying the rent on command) with “austerity” (deflation), like we are doing now, does not confirm the conformity that builds the consensus to legitimately govern. The latest midterm election results confirm that!
The path to prosperity requires a minimum standard of visual acuity–a quotient of moral intelligence (existing on demand)–that half say is managed by an invisible hand that only halfway exists, and the other half says is an imperative value destined to be delivered on time if only they could see it clearly.
If only things existed without ambiguity.
If only there was a standard measure of existence from which derives “objective reality,” revealing our “natural identity,” properly leading us down “The Path to Prosperity,” like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul say is possible, without existing the menace of conflicting moral measures.