Swapping the Futures
Risk management is the practice of self-determination: seeing the probable futures and technically resisting what you don’t want, which exists what you do want, over time, on demand.
Technical analysts divine the future while Wall Street lobbyists write laws that define it. This “positive” confirmation of “law” that conforms to nature is then referred to as “objective reality.” Of course, objective reality “just happens” by natural design. It divines the providence of a natural identity, selected to manage the risk we all commonly collaborate, yielding reward by, essentially, not yielding to the risk.
When it comes to partisan politics, despite the gridlock, utilizing the committee system, the 113th Congress enjoys bipartisan collaboration to define the futures, swapping risk for reward by derivative device. The device is a contractual obligation authored by financial markets, from which derives a bonded, on-demand authority, securitized and transformed into public debt.
While we need deconsolidation of risk to avoid a catastrophic proportion, both Democrats and Republicans have voted by committee to resist it, supporting the “Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act” (HR 992) and the “Retail Investor Protection Act” (HR 2374).
Both these bills have predictive “utility” commonly referred to as the “big risk” that “just happens” to command the resources of a common collaboration.
Written by means of public authority, the “collaborative commons” is a massive debt in a too-big-to-fail proportion. The “collaborative” commonly results in confiscation of property and, by no accident, resists the right to self-determine on Main Street.