Buying back equity has slowed the momentum of economic expansion. Analysts tend to say flat to negative growth is due to a slow capital investment pattern but, for the most part, do not attribute the pattern to the buy back.
Capitalists describe slow growth as too much regulation, high taxes, and minimum wages.
Patterns emerge in nature, and we tend to describe it with a purpose. Plants, for example, magically form useful geometric patterns. Since the result has a measurable benefit associated with it, it does not appear logical that randomness properly associates with recognition of the pattern.
In the world of political-economy, random attribution has an exculpatory effect. This has to do with perceived order from chaos, which we naturally attribute to an active participation, caused by a creative force. In the realm of economic production there are, then, patterns of capital investment that cause production, attributed to incentives, existing what you want when you want it, which does not otherwise exist.
Objectivists say that inherited wealth and power is really a random attribute of nature, like scientists see, and we naturally describe it with a purpose. The purpose is to expand the quality of life for everybody, “lifting all boats on the rising tide.” When we then try and regulate the randomness we lose the incentive that actualizes the purpose–economic growth.
Intuitively, then, it is logical to say that the pattern of capital investment, and the distribution of income, should not be regulated, thus yielding to its random interpretation (its natural, objective utility, or “natural identity”) that naturally distributes to everyone who participates “on demand.”
Capitalists naturally own everything because they are to whom the value can be attributed, and changing that, Objectivists argue, is unnatural.
If the effective interpretation of the random attribution is not in error, then why simulate testing it under stress except to support the disorder of its affective interpretation.
What’s the objective purpose of an indirect, simulated, application of the risk except to reduce the random attribution, which is delusional, right?