Technical analysts are busy reckoning the rate of crude oil in a rapid price decline. The rate of change measures the risk, existing without much probability because, by definition, change is being measured unabstracted.
Existing without abstraction, the rate of change (the rate of substitution) measures the stakes. As the rate of probable change reduces (becoming less probable and more actual), changing the stakes induces. There is the immediate presence of the futures now, which induces changing the current value (the market price) that expects the risk (the rate of X-change).
Rather than a probable risk, there is the actual risk of change (emergence of a new standard or “objective reality”) and, by definition, resisting change that has already occurred (resisting the status quo) is the hardest thing to do.
Natural monopolies, like OPEC, having the comparative advantage of large, oil reserves, naturally measure the wrong way to do it right–discovering the unnatural advantage of trying to monopolize “the risk.” The falling price resists the rate of substitution but, guesse what…resistance, on demand, is futile.
The rate of substitution (the rate of exchange) measures the stakes, and when the price gets too high (when the value demanded exceeds the value to conserve it) the stakes are really high, inducing the gamma-risk dimension. The stakes are changed to command the risk, which is an abstraction, making us all wonder what the future holds, inducing existential angst (formation of the “probable” risk, abstracting the futures, existing the ambiguity, the relative value, of the unknown, existing its value–its MIQ–in the form of a clear and present danger).
The angst (fearing the unknown–the value of “X”) is an abstraction. We tend, then, to abstract what it is by discounting what it isn’t, but then we doubt exactly what that quotient yields on demand. Demand then tends to be abandoned for a command attribution, shifting the accountability so that it exists with an abstract, common divisibility that yields to the social contract. Instead of killing the contract, like Frankenstein’s monster, “it lives!” It exists to perform on command.