The effect of the philosophical argument, operationalizing Objectivism, for example, is to sequence the events that determine the philosophy of its existence.
Like the political scientist says, things that appear to be causal really aren’t. The result is fundamental attribution error, which affects the useful outcome of policy programs (ie, the attribution yield).
Again, keep in mind, causation is a function of temporal sequence–timing. Accepting a new philosophy of the risk can change things really fast–acting with high velocity. That is why capitalists time things to happen in the futures.
Working with derivative values, utilizing derivative, market-timing devices, capitalists have the appearance of not being responsible for the outcome. Instead, it is argued to be the product of a natural existence. What derives is an apparent confirmation that conforms to Objectivist philosophy; but like the science of politics says, this is really a tautology–validation of a set of philosophical principles that violates the temporal sequence known to be the method that yields to verification of hypotheses.
Violation of the temporal sequence is a causal attribute, nevertheless. It is a method used to determine what is considered to be the risk. The means determines the variable at the end, which is why science rejects philosophy in priority.
Let’s say you are an analyst with the IMF. If you know that falling investment in emerging markets will cause a global recession, raising interest rates is not an effective measure. This is a causal sequence that leads to an effective assessment of the probable risk–ie, what you think the risk actually is.
Using the equation, >investment=<recession, the causal attribute is the incentive to invest, and capitalists say that if they do not have the tax and spending programs they want, they will not invest, thus causing a recessionary trend. Notice this conforms to the Objectivist model of objective reality, but is it really confirmation of a "natural identity?" Is this an equation of coercive power, like a natural law, that can't really be violated (like Kant said) but can be foolishly ignored with categorically imperative consequences economists refer to as "moral hazard?"
Being an IMF analyst, given the facts, what is your recommendation? Are you going to defy the natural-law symmetry of objective reality and say we should aggress the minimum income required to stimulate global economic growth in priority, which creates jobs for investment; or are we to be austere and cut the Minimum-Required-Stimulus-Income necessary to cause a passive resistance.