Since structural incentives are likely determinants, analyses tend to model the structure. However, ideologically, there are various interpretations to abstract objective reality and transact how the risk (the fully assumed loss) plays out. This transactional interpretation forms a macro structure of determination that is both intended and unintended.
The extent of determinism is the realm of philosophical discussion. It is especially salient when considering the proportion of intended and unintended risk, the liability associated with the bad things that will surely happen, and when (and if) it just happens by default.
The acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, for example, encounters the discussion of what motivates the action being taken.
Parties to the Fox-Disney transaction want us to believe that M&A occurs, naturally, to benefit consumers; but the more likely determinant is that it “naturally intends” to benefit shareholders at the expense of consumers. (See other articles by griffithlighton on “the intendency.”)
The bottom 90% of US households hold a small fraction of equity shares and only about 28% of aggregate net worth. Doing the math, and empirically experiencing the macro dimension of real net worth, the measurable difference naturally transacts an interpretation of the outcome. Typically, the color of the interpretation takes the shape of natural-risk modeling, using abstract terms like “natural identity” and “objective reality.”
Since capitalists argue that the self-interest of consumers and shareholders are naturally aligned and mutually beneficial, the discussion is over until all the bad things happen. The bad that derives from intending to do the good typically takes the form of inflation and unemployment, which is then blamed on too much government regulation and the over-reach of the “deep state” — forming the color and shape of a transactional interpretation.
The motive to regulate the probability of doing harm to the greater good then enters the argument. It is the realm of bureaucratic authority, and conservatives argue that it ends the reign of liberalism, bringing back the notion of sovereign power (intending the king, empowered with the Social Contract) to arbitrarily decide what everybody’s best interest is.
The so-called “deep-state” Leviathan is modeled to mitigate the probable risk. Not to protect the public, really, however, but to protect capitalists from themselves.
Thus we have the “in-tending” bureaucratic model of power and political economy. It is an analytical model to predict probable motives that affect the intended probability of the fully assumed risk; and for financiers it is all about knowing how the incentives are structured (by buiding-out an economy of scale, or “organizing the externalities”) to predict (i.e., predetermine) when it will occur.
If you can determine when bad things “just happen” and not if they happen by default, what is the liability? This is a point of intense philosophical discussion and much of what I write about involves the random self-assembly of structural determination, crossed with the notion of self-determination (or “the intendency”).
If “We The People” are naturally Sovereign, instead of intending the end of liberalism, “We” naturally tend to make it “just happen” by default. The formation of the bureaucratic model intends to verify that, with a deepening geometric progression, by natural design.
Key to its determination is the color of the interpretation, which shapes the motive, and forms the abstract, of “objective reality.”