Instead of deconsolidation of the risk (instead of ensuring a free-market “eco-nomia” in priority) we have the CFPB (the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) empowered by the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The “nominal ecology” of the system (to control for the risk flow or the “convection of the risk”) is a bureaucratic model.
The model is structured (in-tending) to manage (induce) systemic risk in the form of expecting it to happen, intending it to have a natural causal-identity. Since, however, the causal identity derives from the risk, it is not actually the cause, it is the effect (a hysteron proteron).
Get all the in-tending arguments in a court of law or equity and there is a whole lot more than a shadow of a doubt. The intending liability is completely ambiguous; or as Objectivists say–arbitrary!
The measurable liability (the fully assumed risk of loss) is then, reactionaries argue, derived from nature. Being an act of nature, the loss is therefore free of a disambiguated attribution, but it is, nevertheless possible to measure, and compensate for, the harm done. The result is a penalty (which conforms to playing “the game”) paid without admitting to the liability, thus keeping it effectively limited (reactionary) and subjected to regulatory authority, which Mosca and Michels (the Elite School) argued naturally reflects the self-image of the elite and its ruling-class identity or authority.
The authority the Elite School refers to is the stable, routine task (the organized psychopathy) of the TBTF proportion. It seems impossible to change it since, ultimately, it has a rigid, bureaucratic design, yielding to administrative power and authority that does not make a bid on your behalf but is always sitting on the ask, always occupying your space and mine in the name of public authority.
What’s your bid?