There is a story that pre-tends to the risk-reward ratio. The story being told is a method yield.
For the capitalist, making markets, tending to the probable risk, is a timing function. Probability is reduced to market mechanics, structured to predict when it occurs.
Discovering predictable patterns in nature and using it beneficially is no crime, and since risk is a definite quantity that occupies a limited space (an asset class, for example), deliberately attended to over time, it is possible to make markets yield reward by pretending to take risk. According to the market model, risk yields legitimate profits and losses, fully accountable in priority. Happening in real time, the liability is always pre-tended, but if the risk-reward is disintegrated (yielding by assignment according to asset class) then real-time settlement of accountability is only being pretended. Disintegration of the values renders an arbitrage argument to be settled, pre-tending in the futures.
Predicting the outcome has a pre-tending story. If it is the result of pluralistic forces, like a free market, then we can say that the outcome has an existential ontology that, over time, tends to be predictable. The method used to yield the reward (the means) is rationalized to limit the liability at the end. No, this is not “the means justifies the ends.” The story told that attends the risk-reward ratio rationalizes the price being paid, which yields to the reward–an asset class that pre-tends to an on-demand existence.
Like in Ayn Rand’s novels, the story being told identifies fundamental, integral values from which all other values derive identity. She calls this “natural identity.” The masses (the takers), for example, naturally derive economic identity from the elite (“the makers”). Objectively measured, the value they take is equal to the value the makers make and so the liability is naturally limited. Just as soon as the great horde of people try and take more than they deserve, the price to be paid (the conservative philosopher Thomas Hobbes said, for example) is self-destruction. So (like Hobbes said) it is only natural that the masses are dependent, yielding to an aristocratic identity.
Integrally valued (like Hobbes and Rand argue) it is unnatural to resist the king’s collective (corporate) sovereign identity (which after the Revolution is the great horde, but not without lords). The social contract pre-tends whether “We” like it or not.
(Although Hobbes said it is only natural for the people to revolt, he advocated conserving the monarchy.
It is easy for conservatives to identify with Hobbes. They always loudly proclaim the natural identity of the revolution while at the same time advocating the natural advantage–the efficiency–of consolidating power.
Conservatives argue that the corporate body is pluralistic. There are big, consolidated entities that protect us all from the fully assumed risk, even small businesses whose existence can be attributed to “the multiplier effect,” which is an extension of the god-like “job creator” identity.
“Making markets”–merging and acquiring the identity of the people–hordes the value of self-determination. Sovereignty is then expressed as the natural advantage of an incorporated existence in which the liability, practiced in private with a naturally pretending identity, is limited–horded–in priority.
It’s foolish to sue the gods when things go wrong isn’t it? It’s irrational. When a storm takes your house, your car…what are you going to do, sue the forces of nature on demand? Don’t be foolish. It just is what it is…just let it be.)
Rand says the pretenses of aristocratic identity are an “objective reality.” Elite authority (like Hobbes contends) is absolute (integral) and believing anything else is just a fairytale. Resisting natural identity always shows a negative yield and tends to catastrophic risk. So, like Randians say, if we want to know the real story about why we have big problems don’t look any farther than liberals who pretend the hordes rule the lords (like Hobbes said they naturally do, on demand).
Rationalizing the risk is a recognition of fundamental attribution, which has a strong psychological component. In nature, animals can be observed avoiding risk. Nature selects behaviors that support reproduction of the species. Ontologically, there is no error of attribution here. Fundamentally, either you survive or you don’t–there is nothing to argue about.
(My cat, Pogo, wants to go outside, for example. So I let her out although I am told by the ASPCA that it is a threat to the wild bird population–but that’s not what I saw.
A great horde of starlings line up on a utility line to the house and keep Pogo pinned underneath the deck. Clearly there is a compromise. Pogo gets to go out but the space she occupies is highly limited, ruled by the great horde.)
What is the “rational price” at the grocery store. Keep in mind that “rationing” occurs in the futures markets, existing on demand, which implies that it is priced (ruled, measured) by the great horde, but it’s not. No, the price is being determined by an asset class (lining up against you) to keep you pinned down, limiting the space you naturally occupy by the numbers, having an effective negative yield (a persistent, deflationary economic risk pretending to be “the general welfare”).
To what do you attribute the price you pay at the grocery store? According to the “creators” you would not have a job to “take” (demand) what they “make” (supply) if they did not create it all with “the capital” that YOU supply (with integral value, which is “natural identity”) on demand.
(Articles on “attributive” and “retributive value” by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.)
It is important to understand. Consolidation of industry and markets intends to yield consolidation of power.
Yielding to Rand’s natural identity resists the natural tendency of pluralistic forces to limit the liability (the supply on demand) in real time. It intends to hoard the supply of self-determination, pretending to exist with an elite identity that tends to supply it on demand as Hobbes suggested.
Like Adam Smith said, hoarding demand is, naturally, unstable. If we do not act to resist the lords of the hordes, then we just get what we ask for, unpretending.