Skip to main content

Counter-Cycle Theory of Exchange


The brilliance of the current political structure is found in its constructive conning of lower-income individuals into paying for the salaries and benefits of persons who claim to possess the acumen and authoritative leverage to administer such positive change as to avail them overnight of their lot in life, all while perniciously extinguishing those opportunities by systematically monopolizing the funds which might otherwise be available to incentivize their creation. This is all part of the soft despotism which has palatably replaced the more blatant and physical form of slavery which is indelibly etched into the minds and texts of nearly every student of history. Let it be known that this form of slavery, more conspicuous and systematic, will surely become the next subject of great scrutiny in the annals of future texts covering this history.

The counter-cycle theory of exchange proposes that the systemic means by which purchasing power, here defined as the relative average value at which goods and services are exchanged with money, is either overtly transferred through taxation, forfeitures, or subsidization, or covertly dispersed through inflation or its counterparts of quantitative easing and artificially-low rates of interest, consequently causes antithetical resistance to and disproportionate, transformative advantages within already-imbedded market expectations and schemes of incentivization. 

In the case of government interference in the market, whereby measurably-ambiguous, dubious depths of social “good” are channeled by heartwarming campaigns in the zero-to-negative-sum social forum, private investment is then crowded out to pave the way for phases of consumption-focused public policy, the totality of which obstructs the progressive cycle of profits chasing and incentivizing market advantages, which have historically materialized through auditable, market-sensitive modes of production to satisfy effective demand which spawns from the credit, ultimately from savings, generated by consistently-productive counterparts within the cycle: the consistency of this production generates a standard for purchasing power from which basis all transactions may be predictably priced, and through which dimension of expectations transactions may be predictably encouraged. Government work, subsidies, and cash transfers disrupt this inter-cyclical advancement of personally-defined wants, effectively unilaterally redefining the objectives not only of the marketplace but of human existence. 

The eventual tide of incentives will overwhelmingly justify the distribution of both physical and human capital to unsustainable, regressive ends, matching the former with an ever-unproductive, relatively unmotivated — toward the pursuit of value-added commerce, that is — latter. These phenomena are reproduced and reinforced over time to further institutionalize these regressive expectations of counterparty responsibility. 

The systemic redistribution of purchasing power to unimaginative ends of consumption, or to inherently (based upon the calculated, replicated reluctance of individual persons to pay for or to be incentivized by these abstracts, i.e. by homeless people they do not know) unwanted ends in and of themselves, will across time deplete the market of real savings, leading to the incidental decline in the real value of money, effectively completing the counter-cycle phenomenon of exchange. This counter-cyclical intervention, which resists the inherent propensity of market appreciation, requires time to purge misallocations of invested efforts, skills, and resources, and the foregone cycle of advancement leaves only to the imagination an unknown quality of progress, a unique quantity of time in space the world will never again possess, and the palpable consequences of negative payout attending the pursuit of the unscientific, unpredictable ends of an abstract political agenda.      

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes