When the ACA (“Obamacare”) was passed, there was no provision to control costs. Why not! What was the objective?
It just happens to be that costs continue to rise well beyond the ability of most Americans to pay it, with the result being record consumer debt.
It appears that record equity prices and record consumer debt don’t go together, but the two values correlate to form an emergent value (the property of “risk value”).
Due to the natural law of supply and demand, a mandate to buy something forces the price up. Discretionary spending (what is measurably left over) is reduced. This is deflationary. It is a natural condition since, apparently, it is natural to increase prices (which supports rising equity prices); but it is unnatural to reduce prices, which is described as deflation (falling equity prices) despite that it measurably increases discretionary income.
Wages and salaries are rising some. Overall, however, given the level of inflated prices, like health care and premiums, the capacity to pay the debt is declining. This “naturally” results in a credit-default crisis, like in 08-09.
Since it is necessary to fill the gap, and avoid deflation, with debt, Senator Warren has been working to support the effectiveness of the CFPB. Nevertheless, when a credit crisis occurs you cannot wipe your credit-card debt in bankruptcy, which is now at a record level.
Congress passed a law during the Obama era that does not allow discharge of credit-card or student-loan debt.
So, you see how this all shapes up to form an existential property described as “financial risk.”
The people responsible for passing the ACA did not intend to form the basis for massive, systemic, financial risk, right?
The risk seems to just suddenly appear out of nowhere. It seems to “just happen” — but no, it was deliberately derived from the notion of doing the public good.
Doing the public good apparently “intends” to mean whatever actually enriches record accumulation of income at the top (which drives up equity prices on demand), otherwise there is no natural incentive to provide it. It tends to be what we have now, by default — naturally intending to a credit-default crisis that no one actually intended, right?
An existential ontology forms to rationalize the emergent property, or self-assembly, of what measurably exists. In the aggregate dimension, existing without intention, the actual result is like a law of nature (force majeure), isn’t it?
Like Objectivists say, it is not a function of evil motives or being mean spirited. Even with the best intentions, the rich get richer, having a zero-hedge effect, by force of nature (by default), right?
The value (which I describe as “the risk value”) emerges from obscurity. It is like the existential work of art, “spostando la forma nell’oscurità” (grifgrafx), below. No, it is not black or white. If you look closely it is multi-colored and multi-faceted to form a deliberate color and shape… but it’s dark! The “image” of “objective reality” is barely perceptible… it is a weak force, with an emergent property (naturally existing in the futures now). It is almost non-existent, but it forms the existence, which is then described as having the efficient cause (and the effect) of a natural existence.