Knowing the Natural Limit

The speed of light, for example, is supposed to be the natural limit to acceleration. Maybe things can actually accelerate beyond the speed of light and the real limit is simply not being able to measure it, which is Aristotle’s thesis of independence.

Here, we have the unknowable knowable. Mathematically, using pure reason, we can calculate acceleration beyond the speed of light, and the practical application is to go beyond the current limitation of traveling astronomical distances.

Political economy is the same way. Capitalists argue there is a natural limit to economic growth and stability, depending on proper incentives. The corporate tax inversion issue is an example of this so-called natural limitation, arguing a zero-hedge effect.

TBTF corporates argue there is a free-market incentive that naturally correlates with the tax-inversion scheme, which is really more a tax-aversion scheme. Big corporations can afford to pay the larger part of the tax burden but don’t because they say it is perverse. Unnatural. However, it certainly is not any more unnatural than having people who are the least able pay most of the tax burden, if not all of it, like capitalists say they naturally should, and so effectively do, one way or another, because it is a free market, after all!

Mathematically, a regressive tax burden is deflationary. Capitalists, however, perversely say it is pro-growth. The scheme is intended to avoid paying taxes, not promote growth. Saying the effective corporate tax rate is inverse to the rate of job creation is pure and practical nonsense. It fails the test every time. It is not the product of ignorance and stupidity. It is a knowing and willing fraud!

Accelerating the rate of change means busting the so-called natural limit, yielding to the free-market economia used by capitalists to argue the inversion perversion.

Notice that what capitalists describe as an inefficiency–competitive deconsolidation of the marketplace–is described as an efficiency in the case of yielding to a competitive tax rate.

Deconsolidation (more diversity) naturally reduces prices. If prices naturally fall in a competitive environment (effectively increasing your income and naturally adding jobs to meet the increased demand), then the imperative is to ensure it in priority, busting-up the TBTF risk proportion, just like Sanders says, naturally resisting the perversity with a more natural diversity that effectively yields to the zero hedge (knowing the natural limit, on demand, in priority).

Like Sanders says, even though there is a measurable TBTF dimension, it does not mean that TBTF banks, for example, can’t fail. It is that they cannot be allowed to fail, which is what TBTF actually means in practice. (Remember that Dodd and Frank admitted that failure will happen, and so we need a way to resolve it, which is referred to as “the resolution authority.”) It is a racketeering scheme, something that criminals intend to do, coercing economic value (a protection payment) derived from always threatening an unacceptable amount of harm (having “unanticipated triggers” or causes unknown). If that is not what you think a legitimate business looks like–vote for Bernie Sanders!

Advertisements

About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s