(Why Reactionaries Say We Work More For Less)
With Senator Bernie Sanders running for president, there is a lot of time spent on how to organize to control for “the risk.”
Free to enterprise, businesses do whatever they can to minimize risk, but what is “the risk” exactly?
Keep in mind that a free market is inherently coercive. When negotiating a price, one party goes high, the other low. Even when both parties agree not to try and get the best of each other, the result is a coercive value. Avoiding the process effectively yields the same result. The risk-value can’t be eliminated but it can be avoided–but that does not mean the risk-value is rendered inoperant. No, the condition for it still exists, passively, aggressed on demand.
Although conditions may be operationalized to control for the probable risk, it still exists–it is a probability, and then some. The operation could produce a retributive value, for example, which is not an added value, really, but integral to the means employed (which can transform over time) to accomplish the ends on demand. Although it is not exactly an added identity (being imperative yet transformative), we tend to see it that way because when the risk detriment is not realized we think the risk does not exist.
If we’re not gods that can just abrogate the risk, we tend to ignore it, especially if we organize to make it less likely, as we are apt to do. It is kind of like a factorial sequence (which has an imperative but seemingly random, irrational value): we organize to occupy a certain number of places, which may then extend a cyclical trend, like we are doing now with a long-tail recovery (transforming what used to be a short wave into a long wave). If what signals the risk is thought to depend on a shorter wave sequence, then the indicators are no longer imperative. It seems like anything can happen and that can cause panic–referred to by econometricians as “the BIG risk.”
It used to be, money supply numbers were religiously published in the business news, but the Fed stopped publishing those numbers after the 2008 financial crisis. At the time, there were a lot of derivative-timing devices in operation (trillions of dollars in derived value–which is added identity that does not add risk but triggers its distribution, effectively adding to the money supply).
Operationalizing the risk is an alphabet soup of arcane financial instruments that do not create risk but transfer it. Generally referred to as risk-transfer vehicles, these instruments effectively converted mortgage debt, deflated in crisis mode, into record earnings (equity) without liability. (See the article, “Dodging Dodd-Frank,” for example, published on this site.) An imperative value (an added identity) is, understandably, “Sanders Draws Big Crowds!”
The Fed stopped publishing money-supply numbers for the same reason Senator Sanders and Rand Paul demand the Fed open its books for public accounting; but remember, the Fed is a private enterprise, doing business for its member banks who operate to consolidate wealth and power into a crisis proportion (what there is to see in the books), causing Sanders to draw big crowds.
Capitalists say the sentiment for Sanders is delusional. It is mass hysteria (“the BIG risk”) organized by “the takers” who intend to take their private property and convert it by means of public authority; and so (like Ayn Rand said), capitalists simply hoard capital and force everybody to work more for less.
Slavery ended a long time ago, didn’t it?