Technicians say we naturally experience a seven-year economic cycle. After about seven years, there is a recessionary trend. It has a natural identity because it seems to happen no matter what. (It has symmetry under transformation: Whether a Democratic or Republican program, the seven-year cycle has an unqualified, categorical dimension, which I contend is technical nonsense.)
Controlling the price at the margin is the determining variable. It depends on how consolidated the wealth of the nation is.
If income distributes more equally, then there is a bid to the ask, which effectively controls the price without doing massive harm in a TBTF proportion–which is the big ugly monster called “deflation” that we need to pay the gangsters big bonuses (a risk premium) to protect us from.
In a free and unconsolidated marketplace, deflationary risk is marginal. It has a discretely measurable dimension easily accounted for, on demand (bid-to-ask), without government intervention. We hear a lot from conservatives about not needing government, but nothing about the virtue of deconsolidating industry and markets to actually have it!
Instead, conservatives are apt to blame liberals for “giving it away”–which is a game being “played” to build-out the protection racket (the TBTF dimension) that both Democrats and Republicans say is necessary when the seven-year cycle gets way out of proportion (i.e., when the risk goes gamma).
(Articles on the gamma-risk dimension by griffithlighton are on the World Wide Web.)
It is imperative to keep the risk proportion in a marginal dimension so that it has a positive affect.
Without deconsolidation of the risk proportion, which reactionaries (both Democrat and Republican) resist because they say it is inefficient, there is an affective disorder. It builds-out an organized psychopathy.
“We” (in the aggregate dimension) pathologically make the same mistakes over and over again on a regular basis. Not because we have to, however, but because the model of success (being TBTF) is considered to be the best practice to the point of measurable, recurrent failure in a way-too-big proportion.
Catastrophic economic risk is not technically inevitable. The fully assumed risk of loss can be effectively marginalized to produce a positive outcome that IS NOT defined by causing the risk to be avoided.
Causing the risk to be avoided is pathologically nihilistic. Sure, it has a natural identity alright–it is insanely self-destructive; and what inevitably emerges from the psychopathy is a natural identity. (Kant described it as the categorical imperative.) We come to realize that it is possible to keep “failure” in a positive proportion.
The reason capitalists like to operate in a TBTF proportion is because it shifts all the risk to you! The risk dimension is the determining variable.
In a free market, greedy, wannabe capitalists are subjected to the bid. It is not all about conforming to “what they ask for” (with large-scale failure every seven years). Instead, the price to be paid (probable failure!) is directly determined on demand by The People, effectively reversing the rents so that the risk has the positive, additive identity of a marginal existence, naturally deriving from the probable risk of loss, which is the liability fully assumed (categorically imperative) in priority.
The two primary parties draw from the margin to measure an imperative value, referred to as a political mandate. What the mandate is, however, is not exactly clear. To reduce the arguable ambivalence it is then necessary to compromise, and Objectivists don’t like that because there is no winner of the argument. To conservatives, it’s the tragedy of the commons–if everybody wins nobody wins, which is what nihilism looks like.
Sanders tends to a one-issue campaign–the economic issue of TBTF. If he wins (drawing from independents at the measurable margin of the non-partisan, majority vote) then the argument has been definitely won and the mandate clearly determined (imperative!), which is just exactly what the two primary parties don’t want.
Ambiguity and arguable ambivalence is the identity politics being played-out to conserve the otherwise distributive value of the risk. “The game” is to consolidate the value (the on-demand attribution) that naturally aggresses a passive resistance, “acting” with the legitimate (commonly understood) value of self-determination.
Utilizing the added identity (busting the party binome), change is inevitable (aggressing the passive resistance).
All you have to do is get out and vote!