Managing the Natural Resistance
After the Great Depression, managing macro trends transformed into monetary policy supported by fiscal stimulus. This was an emergent property, born of crises, operating to manage political risk.
Instead of the long-wave distribution being economic depression, monetary-fiscal stimulus reduces the risk to a recessionary dimension. Without the minimum required stimulus (income distribution conservatives refer to as theft), political risk accumulates into a populist proportion. (The risk goes gamma.)
Monetarism is a debt-management mechanism (which has inherent political risk). It has market dynamics because it operates by regulating the supply of money (on command). It fits the top-down (trickle-down) model Alexander Hamilton favored because, with consolidated wealth (which he said is only natural), economic growth is a function of debt.
(Remember that at the time of Hamilton, Republicans were the liberals. Democrats feared the mob who would confiscate private property in the name of majority rule, or popular sovereignty. Hamilton knew that the people could be subjected–or bonded–to financial power by means of private authority considered to be sovereign power measured on demand, which has a pluralistic attribution, by dollar votes. So, today we say that we need to get money out of politics, but for Hamiltonians it is only natural.)
Monetarism keeps capitalism from destroying itself (going gamma). Naturally, if the creditor does not pay the debtor enough to pay the debt there is a crisis, and classical economists referred to it as a liquidity crisis with the result being “overproduction.”
Currently, for example, capitalists say the “inventory build” is the opportunity to make markets more efficient. Naturally, using the liquidity “market makers” provide (derived from not paying the mob enough to demand GDP), industry and markets consolidate. Since debt is the only way, then, to demand the supply (and create jobs), the Federal Reserve is the job creator (causing demand). Without the command (the coercive value) of the regulatory authority, the surplus value is so politically toxic that capitalism would die without it.
Without the Fed, capitalism naturally dies a deflationary death.
To use the surplus value to its benefit, using the law of large numbers, capitalists keep extending the debt. Eventually, the debt structure is so big and complicated it cannot be allowed to fail without a catastrophic EFFECT–not caused by the Fed, however, but because capitalists intend to exercise power by doing harm, which is easily misattributed to the Fed.
There was monetary policy before fiscal stimulus (so it looks like monetarism is the problem by causing the risk to be avoided). Keynesian manipulation of the money supply was well established before the Depression to accommodate the expansion of debt. When there was a “Great” deflationary trend that questioned the utility of capitalism (and the great expansion of debt that caused it), then there was the New Deal.
Fiscal stimulus was not enough to resist the political, populist trend that was, for example, the rise of Fascism in Europe and WWII. At that point, we had not emerged out of using warfare to distribute the accumulation of wealth, which was a demonstration of political power, sending the great horde off to war, fighting for the right of a few to naturally hoard wealth, and power, for the sake of the many. We see this tendency for distribution in the Middle East, using consolidated wealth to distribute the weapons of war for political purposes. We still have not completely emerged from hoarding wealth and waging war to distribute its Equivalent Coercive Value (ECV) in the form of its resistance.
ECV exists on demand in priority but depends on the level of pluralism that allows it to actually happen.
Capitalists are good at resisting the ECV-symmetry. Power is consolidated, taking priority (post hoc) to protect us all from the big risk (deflation), in the name of pluralizing it. Distribution of the risk (without the reward) is the complexity of how markets are made to work so it seems we naturally have these crises of distressed assets “to make markets more efficient.”
Look at Bernanke’s new book. (He essentially describes the gangster capitalism I keep referring to.) He says big bankers should have been prosecuted, not their corporate bodies, for causing the Great Recession.
Bernanke essentially describes a racketeering scheme (a protection racket) designed to make it look like deliberate actions are caused by the ontology (the design) of markets being naturally made more efficient on command (by default). It is no coincidence that the actors Bernanke refers to as the criminal element operate with the self-concept of Ayn Rand’s “natural identity.”
It is important to understand here, we are not just dealing with mechanical, political-economic devices. We are dealing with a philosophy of what “the risk” is considered to be.
The Randian concept of the probable risk emerged from the existentialism of marching off to war in great hordes, having the effect (the natural purpose) of validating the way things are, rather than the way they should be–which Randians say is pathologically delusional, selfish, and criminally coercive, referring to the attributes of being “the takers” who “confiscate” private property in the name of public authority like the king.
The so-called “makers” say they are the real victims. We should really be concerned with their welfare, in priority, because they are the job creators. They make jobs, so it is really in everybody’s self-interest to not violate their “natural identity”–which formulates their concept of “the risk.”
What “the risk” really is, however, in priority, is showing up in “big crowds” at Sanders rallies ON DEMAND. Nobody is coercing these people to show up at Sanders rallies except capitalists who are sure it is a mass conspiracy to unnaturally confiscate private property and create the tragedy of the commons.
Again, consider what big, spontaneous crowds at Sanders rallies really measure. Is it really a criminal intent, like right-wing reactionaries actually see it, or is it the actuality of a natural identity, emerging to right the wrong of intending an unnatural existence.
How natural is it, really (like Ayn Rand said), to march off to war and defend the means of one’s own subjection. Objectively (like Kant said) the imperative categorically exists now, in priority, in the form of its own resistance.
Laboring the art of war, for example, is never far away from actually changing the objective, realizing its use to break the chains of what we assume the risk to actually be, which binds us to the concept of objective reality.
griffithlighton 