Commoditizing risk turns it into a measurable thing. The way it is measured effectively gives it an interpretation. Market demand is then structured to transact business, conforming to the interpretation. This forms a confirmation bias (a risk tautology) that appears to be the natural ontology of free-market mechanics but, actually, deliberately derived (induced) to determine who really assumes the risk.
Delivering consumption of the risk (fully assumed in priority) is a timing mechanism, operating with a contractual obligation known as the due date. When the due date is missed, the credit extended to induce the demand for taking the risk is technically described as being in default. The contractual obligation determines who is at fault despite that the conditions for it can be induced in the form of “making markets more efficient.”
Credit protection is not for the purpose of protecting you from the risk of default. It is a struggle for consumers to have protection since they are obligated to take the risk. Senator Warren’s work to provide consumer financial protection, for example, is under siege, considered by conservatives to be a way to steal the wealth from people who work real hard to earn it by “making markets more efficient.” The efficiency they are referring to is the measurable amount of credit necessary to demand the supply without deflation. Without the swift and easy extension of credit, the risk of deflation will surely rise, yielding to a declining rate of profit.
Capitalists work real hard to defeat forces that operate to reduce the rate of profit, which is to control for price. They do that by defeating the free-market mechanism, which naturally acts to keep prices within a measurable range of efficiency measured by the demand for debt to consume the supply. If debt is high then the efficiency is actually low, adding debt to equity, like we have now. To actually gain the natural standard of efficiency–debt reduction–it is necessary to ensure free-market mechanics in priority, which is exactly what we are not doing in the name of “making markets more efficient.”
To induce the conditions for indentured servitude there needs to be a measurable amount of debt “intending to” default. Since default is pending, creditors need protection, and this comes in the form of the coerced value we know as bail-outs and bail-ins (which actually measures the natural inefficiency–the real risk–of so-called “making markets more efficient”).
The debt proportion (the risk dimension) is induced by the consolidation of industry and markets, not because people are naturally born into servitude, inherently undisciplined and demanding more things than they can measurably afford.
When Office Depot and Staples recently had the urge to merge, government regulators said no. Allowing it to happen means that capital is used–borrowed by private equity firms–to cause unemployment, and the effect just happens to be more demand for debt–rising debt to equity (lending into larceny).
Remember that capital was effectively used to reduce equity for the vast majority of Americans with the measurable result being the Great Recession. Now (in late order) consumer credit is about $1 trillion, again, and rising, and big banks are being paid interest on reserves held by the Fed, providing a $7 billion annual subsidy for the extension of that credit.
Notice that nine-tenths of the law is the possession of risk in the form of credit protection. The protection does not extend to you, though. It “intends” to protect the so-called “natural identity” of the capital by inducing the conditions for it, naturally intending to do the harm, structured to exist on demand, lending into larceny.
We normally think of risk as being a loosely measurable thing. Something that kinda-sorta happens if the conditions are right. In terms of the real, measurable risk, though, it is the measurable support for Bernie Sanders (and the interpretation of the little birdie), for example, that does not just happen, but is induced by conditions formed in the name of knowing the “natural identity.”
(See other articles by griffithlighton on risk dimension, emergent property, added identity, and disambiguation of the risk.)