Did you know that going to the grocery store is an argument created by the use of the calculus?
It is an arbitrage argument.
When you go to the grocery, you are looking for the rational price. If the price is irrational, you don’t buy. It’s an act of self-determination but (paradoxically?) you did not determine the price.
Do the math.
If you did not determine the price, what remains is the quantity. Temporally, in the first order, the effect is disinflation–reduction of price to reduce the quantity on demand. In the second order, when the corporate consolidates to protect itself from disinflation, the effect is deflation because it is too big to fail. (Having a whole lot more money than you, corporate conglomerates can wait longer than you have money. Their existence does not depend on your income but you depend on theirs. Your “self” is determined by income on demand.) The result of deflation is rising inventory, which is then described by the capitalist as empirical confirmation that capitalism cures shortages on demand. Unparadoxically, this is accomplished by destroying demand and recreating it in the form of capital, which is then used to bid up the remaining inventory with the working hypothesis that “demand exceeds supply.” The result is the whipsaw effect. Consumer spending is down and demand is pent up.
Potential, pent-up demand is “figured” into the futures price. Speculatively, the price to be paid (the attributive value–the rent) is delivered forward (rationalized) as inflationary risk, formulating the “arbitrage argument” (which has a natural, “objective identity” derived from supply and demand) supported by underlying financial instruments that distribute (manage) the risk according to asset class.
The price to be paid is largely determined by asset class, and winning the argument depends on it, pre-tending to an on-demand existence.