Ivy-League business school graduates, like Donald Trump, work really hard. They are likely to become billionaires. They have a lot of cash, and cash is king.
Sanders is not railing against billionaires, he is opposed to the detrimental effects, and the list is really long!
What happens when YOU complain about the detrimental effects? You are “delusional.” You are “a taker”–a selfish, thieving, slacker, getting what you want by taking it from people that work real hard to be richer than everybody else, having the cash to be king.
With cash being king, existing on demand, by legitimate market means, like Mr. Trump says, everything reduces to the art of the deal, which is a contractual obligation.
First and foremost, “the contract” (the natural obligation that Lloyd Blankfein has described as “the fabric of society”) is a promise–the promise to pay on time.
The promise to pay on time is pretty straight forward. It is not ambiguous. (There is a due date with a sum certain.) Having the means to actually pay it, however, is ambiguous. In fact, it is so fraught with ambiguity that it trends in waves, which political-economists describe in terms of risk proportion.
The available ambiguity becomes apparent when, for example, considering the method of payment.
If you don’t happen to be king (because you don’t work hard enough) then, cash being king, you probably don’t have the cash to pay the debt associated with having a job. The debt, like it always was (having ECV-symmetry), pays tribute to the king–the value “identified” with measurable success, which is a contractual obligation, existing on demand.
Instead of eliminating the social contract, capitalism has reinvented it. It is cleverly designed, existing on demand, to look like it is not what it really is, which leads to business models that are (as Kant said) “obligated” to perpetuating the fraud. It is not, then, that you don’t work hard enough! Instead, it is (like Sanders says) that you are not paid enough to meet the obligation (what Kant described as the inherent moral value of the “categorical imperative”). The question then becomes: what is the real value (the “objective identity”) of the imperative?
Since the social contract has been reinvented, you can say that it has symmetry (equivalent value) in transformation, or what Ayn Rand, for example, describes as “objective identity.”
Reactionaries tend to agree with Rand’s description. Instead of “change we really need” we got a reinvention of the same thing in the form of, “It’s Obama’s economy now!”
(See other articles by griffithlighton on novation of the risk, published on the World Wide Web.)
The moral intelligence (the redistribution of income) that conservatives say does not really exist (being a common delusion of “the takers”) is actually a measurable value Ivy-League business people call “the risk.” Like Kant said, it is a “categorical” quantity, and the ambiguity associated with it will resolve, being expressed as a measurable quantity, in the aggregate dimension.
Currently, for example, the accumulated risk-value (extreme income inequality) is being correlated with long-wave analyses. The K-Wave, for example.
That the extreme pattern of income distribution is somehow an existing quantity of moral dimension is delusional, isn’t it? Nevertheless, conservatives argue that the populist demand for “redistribution of income” is a real “moral hazard.” The quantity of “risk” they are referring to is in fact “the debt proportion.”
Currently, the debt proportion is so huge it has gained the ambiguity of a transcendental number. Even though the debt has a nominal value, the ambiguity is so available, its real meaning is not a rational number. (It’s the picture of The Scream!)
To reduce the ambiguity (not the risk!), capitalists need to have an effective interpretation of objective reality that exists (transacts) without a quantifiable, moral dimension. The accumulative coercive value of “the debt proportion” is then described as a necessary economic incentive. Without it, there is no incentive to be productive, which is a perfectly rational explanation, supported by the numbers.
Currently, for example, we have a massive surplus of crude oil. What does that measure, exactly. Is there a moral dimension to it, really, or is that just a delusion?
Capitalists, especially now, need to build confidence that the “inventory build” (overproduction) is the glaring success of capitalism. There is ample supply, just like the incentive is supposed to provide; but then, how does capitalism prevent the profit margin from declining by default?
Current crude prices are being explained as being the product of a long-wave distribution. It’s not big banks and hedge funds manipulating futures and options. The crude price is by force of nature–by default, which does not really care if it is good or bad because nature is “beyond good and evil”–just like existentialists say it crudely is.
Remember now (like I was telling you a while back), Goldman Sachs came up with a new, innovative, financial product to resist the naturally occurring, declining rate of profit.
Naturally, if you can’t sell the product, because you did not pay people enough to buy it, the inventory builds and the profit margin falls by default. Since, according to capitalism, a rising margin correlates with employment, not maintaining the margin with innovative financial products is a moral imperative because redistributing it to buy the product–and avoid the crisis proportion, which is to avoid the incentive (the economic desperation) to be productive–is a moral hazard. Notice the available ambiguity and arguable ambivalence associated with knowing what the moral imperative actually is. Knowing it, then, is a comparative dialectic.
What is the coercive value of $4 trillion on the Fed’s books?
Whether the coercive value (forcing a particular action) is measurable moral value depends on whether we think it is something we can actually control, or if it is really something that just happens by default. Attributing the value to a long-wave distribution pattern suggests, like big-bankers say, the stored-up coercive value (the surplus value) is a risk ontology, and fooling with it is a moral hazard. This, of course, admits that the number (its nominal value) has real moral value: consequences always ready to express as current value (actualized) on demand (which is consistent with Kant’s expression of the categorical imperative).
Notice the available ambiguity and arguable ambivalence currently trending with whether the falling price of crude oil is good or bad. What is the moral equivalence, here?
Keep in mind that if you don’t actually have the cash (the equivalent value) to buy something, it doesn’t matter what the price really is–except being relative to the debt proportion (the coercive value), which is a promise to pay on time. (The Equivalent Coercive Value has a quantifiable, moral dimension!)
Relative to the debt proportion, Ted Cruz, for example, says raising the ceiling on the Federal debt is a moral hazard. According to Cruz, and many other Republicans of current account, default is better.
For the vast majority of people that support Cruz, and Republicans who generally think wholesale reduction of the Federal debt is the right thing to do, the measurable consequence would be devastating. It would be catastrophic for both the constituency and capitalism!
What, here, is the measurable moral hazard?
It is not readily apparent, but the measurable value directly correlates with the perception of how, for example, the price of crude oil has been set.
OTC derivative markets have been used to “fix” the price of oil. Without arguing that the crude price has an ontological determination there is no confidence in how the price is being “fixed” to “in-tend” a detrimental effect. The “intending” value (the risk-value) is described as actually “tending to” a public good, effectively trending the ambiguity to transact an interpretation described as objective reality, naturally existing beyond good and evil, intending to actualize the riskless return, which has the value of an approximal (ambiguous) existence like an irrational, transcendental number.