Yielding to the Interpretation

Reports are that Wall Street is lobbying to weaken consumer financial protection. Consumers get protection from rules contained in Dodd-Frank and the regulatory authority of the CFPB.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the warhorse of Senator Warren. Since Warren does not conform to the natural identity of Wall Street mechanics (the ritual), she has been publicly branded as a communist.

Wall Street agrees that Main Street needs protection. Naturally, we look to the best and the brightest among us (conforming Ivy Leaguers) to divine the “big risk” and protect us from it, using best practices.

The best practice is a regulatory function, and the ritual is for capitalists to cause the risk to be controlled. What better way to regulate something than to cause it to happen when you say so (existing on command), which then defines the natural identity (the objective reality) of its purpose. Yielding to this interpretation of controlling for the risk is considered to be free-market economics.

Not yielding to Wall Street’s self-regulatory authority (the best practice) is communism because the risk (effectively modeled) is authored by the free market with propriety (on demand). Anything else offends the natural identity of the job creators, and offending the creators always causes bad things to happen. Thus, like Reagan said, government is the problem and not the solution…thus yielding to the problem as the only effective solution, which maintains the mechanics (the established ritual) that interprets how the risk transacts (technically referred to as “risk flow”) in the futures.

Risk is ritually managed by big financiers. When “the big risk” naturally happens (accidentally on purpose, because there never really is cause without purpose), financiers bail us out. They buy everything and sell it back at a profit, loaning us money from the wealth accumulated, confiscated by inducing the risk (caused) to be avoided.

Confiscation of wealth is communism, isn’t it? Or is this just a matter of proper, transactional interpretation that, by the way, can be changed (caused) to satisfy a more fitting (natural) purpose (existing on demand).

What is the probability of a more natural fit, given the law of large numbers, that just sort of spontaneously happens to intend a more emergent property accidentally on purpose?

If wealth is distributed by the numbers so the marketplace actually operates like a real free-market economy (the more effective model), being opposed to that would be communism (yielding to the social contract), right?

Advertisements

About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s