Revealed Preference and the Probability of Now

Risk can be shifted to the future, but the more it is displaced from the present the more probable it becomes now. Look at Hobbes’ philosophy. Essentially he is saying that existence on demand is always present. He referred to it as the natural right to revolt. Economists refer to this as “revealed preference” and statisticians, “the law of large numbers and inevitability,” which are the patterns technical analysts detect to describe possible futures discounted, with intendency, at a rate that reduces to the probability of now.

Occupying space over time, capitalism destroys itself on demand. (You would think it destroys itself with demand destruction, but no, capitalism creates the demand for its own destruction by trying to limit the probability of it now. It is a negative ontology. If the demand did not exist in priority there would be the need to create it.) Destruction occurs by means of self-determination, which the capitalist works harder than everybody else to conserve in priority.

By ratio (what exactly is being measured), reducing debt requires more equity. A more equal distribution of income is required, but if that is considered to be irrational despite the imperative value of the ratio, catastrophic accumulation of risk must be the intended result (contained within, as Yellen described it, “normal historical ranges”). What capitalism says we cannot be, and so we should not try to be, naturally yields to the intendency.

Since the risk of loss is fully assumed in priority, risk is accumulated in the futures, discounted to the present, and managed at the margin. It exists with an on-demand attribution, being put to call, so it has the appearance of full autonomy, beyond good and evil, yielding to a riskless return, without liability.

Dominated by consolidation of the risk to reduce it (and remember, risk cannot be reduced but avoided), cyclical oscillations over time and space are expected to lose the legitimate value of an existential ontology. Technically derived with intendency, being put to call, whether we like it or not, the “objective reality” and “natural identity” Randians always argue guides us into the future is being, naturally, put at risk and on call.

With the ontology having been revealed, the preference is now to change the rules.

Macro-risk management realizes that risk is an exactly measurable value. Always shifting it to the future does not work because although space is naturally indefinite (an infinitely large number in which the risk will not probably occur but will occur eventually) a contractual obligation to be paid on time on demand is not at all indefinite. The discrepancy (the crisis proportion accumulated into a large number with an exact, definite existence) is “the risk” that cannot be avoided. Existing indefinitely over space and time the risk cannot be contained, but we’re going to try anyway.

Arguing that nature selects who wins and loses–and, in the aggregate, that is what pulls the rising tide that lifts all boats–does not float anymore. It’s sinking fast. To bail it out the rules have changed to contain the risk and keep the ship sailing on course within “normal historical ranges.”

The risk is now contained using Special Drawing Rights (SDR).

Clinton’s Presidential Working Group, composed exclusively of Ivy Leaguers and former Goldman Sachs employees, deregulated financials so that we now have global debt way out of proportion to equity. If the debt is to be paid on time, on demand, without being monetized, “the capital” collapses. To contain “the risk” it will be paid with SDRs since central banks, like the Fed, are already loaded with “assets” that are so loaded with liability they are considered to be “toxic” waste.

“We are wasted!”

So it’s time to change the rules.

The rules shape the container. The container is shaped to exactly fit the objective–limiting the liability by exculpating the risk, rationalized as an ontology, existing within “normal historical ranges.”


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