The Neutral-Value Identity
Kraft-Heinz merged, remember, saying that it adds value to the marketplace. It produces synergies, the factors say, which means it yields more pricing power at less cost.
The merger of Kraft and Heinz is a Warren Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway venture.
Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company. It holds a conglomeration of food companies called Mondoleze. The price of all its products has gone up against falling wages and salaries, which gives the “synergies” actual, measurable identity–aggressing the rents.
Today’s employment numbers and compensation rates are, when factoring in participation rates, neutral. Keep in mind that Kraft-Heinz just announced it cut its workforce by 10% to realize the synergies, which decreases the participation rate going forward, which means it has a late-order effect. The effect then gains an attribution, which yields to the objective and adds descriptive identity (i.e., the attribution yield).
The effect is described by financiers as a function of measuring government intervention in the marketplace. Consolidation of industry and markets does not describe a deflationary affect on employment and compensation, reactionaries say, but government regulation does. It is an affective disorder called “liberalism.”
Liberalism is an ideological identity. Creating synergies is positive, both factions agree, but dealing with the measurable effect, conservatives argue, is a measurable, affective disorder. The argument then reduces to an ideological battle over the practical means-to-ends, but it is full of attribution error, which results in affective disorder.
The disorder effectively neutralizes the liberal-conservative identity (having the effect of conflict resolution but maintaining the appearance of an unresolved work in progress), reducing the argument to whether government is naturally reactionary or should do nothing but ensure the survival of the fittest. The neutral-value identity is, then, what Pareto described as optimality: nobody wins or loses; the stakes effectively stay the same, and we see that played out politically when Congress is described as being “deadlocked.” (Psychologists call this “the anchoring effect.”)
Notice that the argument reduces to Equivalent Coercive Value (ECV-symmetry).
Yes, government should ensure survival of the fittest. When want-to-be kings “act” in a free and unconsolidated marketplace, they must work real hard “to win” market share. Winning then has a “natural identity”–it means full and immediate accountability, with limited government intervention. It means an elite identity being measurably subjected to the people, neutralized (to effectively add productive incentive) so that “they must serve” on demand.
Adding the productive incentive to elite identity reverses the economic desperation that otherwise confirms status with unequal command of the risk. Instead of doing measurable harm (which defines measurable status), productive incentive is operationalized (utilized) so that everybody benefits.
In a free and unconsolidated marketplace, the power to coerce is equivalent–just exactly what capitalists don’t want, and work real hard to neutralize, ensuring survival of the fittest (conserving the stakes–the distribution of risk-value) by creating “synergies” on command.
Neutralizing the command dimension is what a free-market economia is all about. It naturally reverses the rents so that the elite naturally aggress the objective reality (the geometric proof) of serving the non-elite on demand (which is its empirical confirmation). The result is a passive resolution of conflict aggressively pursuing happiness (the utility of common divisibility) in a purely on-demand, risk dimension.
If a more common divisibility is what you want, vote for Bernie Sanders!