When Sanders talks about a “rigged economy and political system” he is referring to predictive modeling (utilized on demand).
If we, for example, look at current data, GDP is nearly negative, and inflation is projected to remain negative for the rest of the quarter. That’s bad news for Wall Street, right?
For the “top one percent” it is the perfect model. There is profit without any adjustment to real income because GDP is flat (slow demand for labor) and inflation is negative (deflation). In the financial world, this is called “value over growth.”
Value over growth indicates there are bad fundamentals (buying equity back) in the futures.
(You may have noticed that the Dow gets resistance over 17k. It can get close to 18k, but it’s a false positive. The trend, really, is lower, and likely to show up near term, which is the opportunity to buy into “the buyback” and then sell at resistance.)
For the most part, still using the supply-side Reaganomics of the GW Bush administration, we should be experiencing high growth with a rising rate of labor participation. Even though it never worked for GW, we are still supposed to believe it will, anyway, (have faith brothers and sisters) if we just let it be.
Remember, now, buying equity shares back consolidates “labor value” in late order. This is what “value” over growth (securitizing the debt and then buying it back to the futures) actually means. Now, understand, if you are not a member of the top-one-percent class, the probability the deflation monster won’t come for you is zero. None! Your income will be declining, producing “value” over time, described as having predictable but unintended consequences that just naturally happen over time. The difference (the spread, you see) is the risk premium that occupies your space over time, modeled with predictive utility, on demand.
Saying that it is a predictable model with “unforeseen triggers” is a fraud! It’s a predictive model–a way to do business–that Sanders says he will change if president, and which Clinton says should be maintained to avoid the unintended consequences that trigger the risk Dodd-Frank states will surely happen, yielding to, by implication, a natural model that has the fundamental utility of being the greatest good, operating with natural authority.
Is it, really?
What happens if we actually change the working model, and what’s the real risk if you are modeled to lose income, anyway?
It’s time to vote for Bernie Sanders (and actualize real utility on demand).