For example, in mathematics, there is “the inverse-additive identity.” It’s really the same identity; but no, actually, it’s different. What, then, is the measurable difference?

Consider the function of economic scale.

Mrs. Clinton, Wall-Street experts, and many economists, support efficient-markets theory. They say letting financials network into a too-complex-to-fail structure, that resulted in the TBTF risk-dimension that caused the Great Recession, is only natural.

Advocates of “natural monopolies” (like Summers, Volker, Greenspan, Rubin, Bernanke, Geithner, Krugman…Clinton!…and many others in the mainstream) say firms naturally network to reduce the probable risk of loss (and remember, reducing the probability does not really reduce the risk, but the probability of actualizing it over time). The financial experts and economists Mrs. Clinton refers to have mathematical proofs to demonstrate the efficiency of remodeling markets to “reduce the risk” but, really, it proves to do no such thing because, actually, the risk cannot be reduced.

The actuarial associated with managing risk in a TBTF dimension is pretty arcane. (Maybe it’s too arcane for Mrs. Clinton to understand.)

Mathematical proofs naturally inhabit the world of arcanium; for most of us, the truth is an article of faith. Nevertheless, there is plenty of “proof” that for all the women Mrs. Clinton cites as her constituency, supporting her understanding of the risk proportion (using efficient-markets theory to network a too-complex-to-fail proportion, naturally yielding to a probable detriment Glass-Steagall effectively worked to reduce) is highly detrimental; and when the harm is done there will be every means to treat the symptoms while the malefactors gallop away with the booty (the risk-value, which cannot be reduced but can be redistributed).

Even with Dodd-Frank (especially without Glass-Steagall), there is the probability the harm will be done. (The top of the top 1% is literally banking on it!) “When it does” (described as “naturally occurring”) the distributive value it is expected to produce (that “derives” from the risk proportion) is then attributed to the fate of a natural existence. Once the dirty deed is done then phony progressives will be busy building out budget deficits to reduce the probable, big risk associated with doing the massive harm because (you see!) the risk cannot really be reduced.

The theory of building-out efficient markets (consolidation of industry and markets) to naturally network the externalities and attain synergies (the spoils of doing the harm) in the name of the public good is a big fat fraud!

Knowing the difference between a natural and unnatural risk proportion is to measure the relative strength of the values. Again, remember, the value of the risk is a function of force–coercive power. (I know that seems harsh–but that’s what it is!) The force associated with it is the product of reason.

When, for example, we can’t negotiate with big pharma (consolidating to network the probable risk of loss) by law (all of which measures up to coercive value that consumers don’t have–equivalently networked to reduce the “probable” risk), who in the world made that the law of the land! (Don’t look far and there are the phony progressives, busily getting into our business to protect us–from them!–in the name of public welfare. Vote them out!)

What really happens when Mrs. Clinton becomes president?

Sanders and O’Malley are really the better choice. Better to network the weakness of the individual, on demand, into the logic, the relative strength, of collective action that capitalists “work harder than everybody else” to network, always trying, real hard, to reduce the probability (the coercive value) of its natural occurrence.