digital image created by griffith lighton

According to Republicans, the formula for economic growth, which creates jobs and forms the tax base, is for rich people to not pay taxes.

Josh Bivens, an analyst with the Economic Policy Institute, says that tax reform will be tax cuts for wealthy households and corporations, “sweetened with middle-class tax cuts.”

Most households simply want to hear they will pay less taxes. The reason Obamacare (the ACA) survived judicial review, however, is because the mandate means it is really a tax, which just happens to make the rich richer and the poor poorer in the name of doing the public good.

Relying on Democrats to reformulate the risk associated with making the rich richer, because it just happens, results in a counter-identity game. The natural result is a strong, deflationary trend, and reformulating the tax code so that the rich get richer (because, like Objectivists say, it is unnatural to tax “the fountainhead”) makes it worse.

Democrats have got middle-class households believing that their biggest expense (the ACA mandate) is not a tax. It is a game perpetrated to cultivate the appearance of being opposed to their counter-identity — Republicans.

These opposing identities are really working together (forming an unavoidable “natural identity,” Objectivists say) to force most Americans into growing economic desperation.

Instead of “busting the binome” (which I also refer to as an “organized psychopathy” deliberately designed to make the same mistake over and over again, due to attribution error) we will be busily reformulating the risk in the form of a coded, natural existence — the tax code.

Naturally, Objectivists tell us, the code (the way it just happens to be) formulates the risk (fully assumed) by default. The tax code naturally favors the rich because, objectively, they say, if it doesn’t, capital is hoarded and the natural result is the growing economic desperation we have now. Why, they ask, do we want to keep making the same mistake over and over again. That’s just stupid, right?

(See other articles on formulation and reformulation of the risk, by griffithlighton, published on WordPress and, going way back, on

digital image created by griffith lighton


About griffithlighton

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

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.