Purpose yields to useful value, but that does not mean it is the arguable purpose, which is the available ambiguity that allows for us to create a purpose that describes the causal identity.
Commodity prices are currently in a crush. There is a lot of ambiguity as to what that means. Arguably, it is because China has slowed its rate of growth. Slow demand is also a measurable cause, continuing to measure the effects of the Great Recession.
Capitalism is full of arguable ambivalences due to available ambiguities. Often described as paradoxes to soften the obvious contradictions, arguing an apparent, natural-but-ironic condition that just happens, it appears there is cause without purpose. This causal-identity argument has the strength of ambiguity although, ironically, ambiguity is usually a fatal weakness of any argument.
The cause-without-purpose identity, used to describe a risk ontology, has a measurable effect on the probable outcome. It has the effect of limiting the liability (arguably unintended, of course, but is arguably its purpose). Unintended consequences look accidental, which means its value, although usefully enriching, is arguably intended by nature for a useful purpose.
Capitalists, for example, say that consolidating industry and markets supports prices, which naturally tends to overproduction. The natural “tendency” (falling prices due to overproduction, or deflation) just happens to be generally beneficial (having the “utility” of common divisibility). Its actual purpose (the intendency), however, is to simply enrich a few capitalists at the expense of evereybody else. This forms the utilitarian argument (the “natural identity” argument) capitalists use to limit the liability, existing by the law of large numbers, demonstrating the final, empirical proof (the art form) of an incontrovertible (naturally occurring, categorically imperative) legitimacy.
The strength (the virtue) of the argument exists in its use-value–its utility on demand. Although it may not be exactly intended, it just happens to be that greed tends to be good, yielding to common divisibility (the law of large numbers).
Commodities are currently in a crush–and Anglo American is laying off 86,000 employees. That’s a large number, but there is really no need for the measurable angst. Actually, they will be able to buy commodities at lower prices, right?
What is the real interpretation that actually attributes the value?
(Sanders and Trump are non-conformists. Sanders is no celebrity, but he draws big crowds, anyway!)