With the Age of Reason emerged natural philosophy. Truth is a measurable thing, verified with predictive utility.
(Again, remember, utility is by the numbers. When something happens every time, it is legitimate truth by the numbers and we say it has a natural existence.)
Pro-cyclical policies and programs occupy political space. When the deflation risk comes around to you, pro-cyclical advocates say it is a verifiable truth–a natural condition having predictive utility. People who have more money than everyone else (which is a naturally small number) naturally capitalize on the default condition (exploiting harm to “the others” in large numbers). No one is really at fault because (objectively) it happens by de-fault. The result is a normal distribution of the wealth, and the power associated with it.
(Truth speaks to power, conservatives contend, verified by the numbers–having more money than everybody else, which is what promotes, or determines, the cycle and the distribution of risk-reward associated with it.)
The logic of a normal distribution derives a philosophy of natural possession–a sense of entitlement that conforms to most of the wealth and power (which exists on demand in large numbers) distributing to a small number of people, described as the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
However, with the extension of credit, we realize that the distribution (on demand) is not normal at all. What then is the natural condition by default?
Science (the convergence of pure and practical reason that naturally possesses the truth) says we are obliged to nature. It possesses us. We have a duty to comply, and if we do not conform we encounter the measurable risk and know (like Kant said) the moral imperative.
When the UAW endorses a pro-cyclical candidate, for example, what is the imperative value? The union’s leader says it is party unity, but what good is solidarity if it promotes a pro-cyclical policy program?
Mrs. Clinton does not promote a political position that will reduce the conditions for cyclical financial risk. The space she occupies is pro-cyclical. Apparently, the space is considered to be pre-occupied by natural condition, which is the conservative position, arguing that when union members lose their jobs, the value it produces (the yield) is a natural imperative.
Does the UAW’s rank and file naturally conform to that? Does this conformation of the risk really aggress the passive resistance?
Apparently, having been bailed out the last time around, the UAW’s too-big-to-fail status derives a sense of entitlement that does not naturally possess the attributes of being upper class. The title (naturally existing in small numbers) is nothing but delusional.
Vote for Sanders, anyway!