## Supposing the Natural Identity

Barclays Bank was fined \$150m today by the New York Department of Financial Services.

Barclays is a TBTF bank operating with the “modernized” practices (the rules and regs) of the GLBL and CFTMA.

TBTF means failure is not an option, which effectively presupposes all the futures, measuring the actual strength of its relative weakness.

Big banks, like Barclays, operate in the world’s most liquid market, the spot FX market, with an average turnover of \$5.3 trillion a day.

(If it’s a question of identifying what TBTF is, systematically managing risk at an aggregate rate of \$5.3 trillion a day would probably be it!)

On a really big scale, things can get out of control if the objective is to predict it, and one of the big problems is that things are not actually what they really appear to be. We then create models, mathematical models (algorithms), for example, to actualize the objective reality.

Copernicus is a good example of how we can model for predictive utility, and then accidentally emerge with a better understanding of objective reality.

Copernicus is famous for predicting both planetary motion and the probable rate of foreign exchange. Predicting the effective force (the causal mystery) of change is a fundamental challenge. It brings us closer to realizing a causal identity that we otherwise suppose to be.

Copernicus’ Law is, in effect, an FX algorithm, and at high frequency, algorithms can be used to “fix” the probable risk of loss by simply assigning it to someone else, which is what TBTF banks do on a daily basis. Barclays was caught doing it, once again, utilizing the menacing risk (“the big risk”) that exists in a TBTF dimension.

When Senator Phil Gramm was advocating the strength of weakening Glass-Steagall back in 1999, promoting the emergence of the CFTMA, he didn’t mention it creates a huge public menace!

While discussion of the means are deliberately arcane, there is nothing arcane about the measurable results, which Gramm, and other Objectivists, describe as the “natural identity” of the capital.

Apparently, the natural identity of capitalism is supposed to be a public menace.

All new income going to the top 1% is an emergent property–a natural identity that just happens, accidental like, isn’t it?

The real effective strength of the argument measures the actual identity of its relative weakness.

When Copernicus came closer to the natural identity of planetary motion it wasn’t exactly objective reality, but it was a lot better than the hugely complex models that otherwise determined the simplicity of its strength.