Money I borrow is the bill tomorrow. It is a credit risk. The amount of risk I score is a commodity to be bought and sold as a credit-risk derivative in financial markets.
Whether I can pay or not is also a derivative value. It is a fully funded liability but there are a lot of ways to make it so I can’t pay it, which then has an attributive value.
If I lose my job, derived from global competition, I can’t pay the rent required to participate in the economy. The rent goes up. In order to participate, I have to work more for less. That means the capacity to pay the rent is declining, which means the creditor needs protection. Protecting the debtor in priority would also benefit the creditor, but that does not fit the intending identity of the risk to derive value.
The derivative value is economic desperation. Working more for less (which exports into current accounts) forms a surplus. Capitalists then bid on the value of the surplus, essentially based on when the credit risk is realised, yielding to the risk-default premium. Although this is referred to as speculative demand, it is a command structure (verstehen), directing systemic risk, interlocked to derive the intended value. It looks like gambling, which then limits the liability to a random-walk identity (a Markov chain), but it’s really not.
Intending to do harm is considered a criminal act, but not if it just sort of happens as we randomly walk through life, trying to avoid the risk that really can’t be avoided, “naturally selecting” winners and losers, having “attributes” endowed by nature.
When bad things happen to good people, TBTF corporates make the random-attribution argument. This is the working model (the TI) and it has a predictable yield (the attributive value).
By no accident, working more for less forces good people into financial default by deliberate design (verstehen), benefiting a small number of people who argue they do not intend to benefit from doing the harm. It just happens, creating the distinction between “us and them” (the chauvinism of the commodity fetish) by default.
Like Weber (and Thomas Hobbes) said, large bureaucratic structures take on a life of their own. This is what TBTF CEOs mean when they say, “we don’t really know what’s going on half the time.”
So, then, what is the imperative value?
Mrs. Clinton has been busy arguing the progressive identity. She is determined that when bad things happen, continuing the Obama legacy, she will be there with monetary stimulus to fund the liability.
(I don’t really know, but if you look at the lecture transcripts Sanders says Mrs. Clinton should publish, they probably agree with maintaining the TBTF identity, monetizing the risk in a TBTF proportion, which like Weber said puts the bureaucracy in control. This is a counter-identity argument, which just happens to agree with the way derivative contracts work to manage the default risk.)
In other words, the default risk is expected to happen.
It’s time to try something else!
Monetizing the debt is really easy. Paying the liability is easy, too, but that means it has to come from the top 1%.
If you want to make the garden grow you have to go where the liquidity is–today, and not tomorrow.
Fully funding the liability in priority is the best practice. It lets us see what the random risk really is, and the real rent to actually be paid on demand.
We discover that the real random walk has an actual pattern, just like capitalists say it does, to be paid on demand. There is a predictable probability, with a fully charged liability, existing in priority. Then, instead of trying to reduce the risk, it is fully charged. It is applied, actualized in priority, acting to resist the detriment instead of reacting to it, foolishly surplussing its value (commoditized) to cause the risk to be managed in a TBTF proportion that catastrophically accumulates to keep it from failing, which is insanity!
Sanders says it is time to stop the insanity.
It’s time for “real change.” Today, and not tomorrow, waiting for it to “just happen.”