(Ontological Valuation of the Risk)
Fighting deflationary risk is like going up on the down escalator. Sure, you can make it, but all the capitalist has to do is speed up the escalator, making you struggle more for less.
Gaining the velocity of the risk (occupying space over time) isn’t obvious. For most market participants, what actually causes consumption of the risk occurs in dark markets; derivative markets, sometimes referred to as the shadow banking system.
Equity values recovered handsomely after the Great Recession. The valuation went up on the down indicator.
Rising equity valuations means we are wealthier, doesn’t it?
Communist China does not have a welfare system. The People save their money and get a return on equity with increasing valuation. Suddenly, however, they find themselves struggling to go up the down indicator, escalating the velocity of the risk. For the ruling-class elite, the function of the noble obligation is now to control for the emergent value (the emergent property), referred to as the macro-risk proportion (the gamma-risk dimension).
Marx referred to the difference in the real value paid labor and the actual value derived in the form of capital (with the added value actually measuring the real risk–the gamma-risk dimension) as alienation, but it is not alienated at all. The value derived is equivalently coercive (it has ECV-symmetry), existing on demand (existing what Kant described as the deontology of the moral imperative), which is what it means to “feel the Bern” in a “democratic” socialist kind of way.
Democracy means that the risk (coercive power) goes up when the indicators move down. Working more to get to the top, but gaining less, is hard to ignore, and thinking that it can be rationalized with a lot of technical hokum (to poke em) is delusional!
The Wealth Effect
Econometrics, like physics, models for effect. This is accomplished by using the tools associated with an organizational technology. The tools are the technical jargon used to describe and explain the data-driven objectives of holding the risk ontology (risk in the aggregate, gamma-risk dimension) in reserve. When risk floods the market beyond containment (because it is not really “free and open” like it should, actually, spontaneously be), it is pooled in the Federal Reserve System. In the reserve system, the risk is then managed in “dark pools.”
It looks like the risk is a random-like, out-of-control ontology; but no, that is a deliberate fraud (having a naturally moral dimension), which has a strict (naturally coercive) liability associated with it. Without properly tending-to the liability, it naturally accumulates, forming the “big risk” that suddenly floods the system. (This is the risk tautology I’ve been telling you about that is falsely described as gambling, which has a false, exculpatory effect.)
Systemic risk is then interpreted to mean that it has an ontological existence in the aggregate dimension; but no, that is false, because “the system” has been modeled (purposely designed) for the “wealth effect” in priority.
The market has been “made” to look like we are wealthier; but in the aggregate, it has been reduced at the bottom and added at the top. (This is what “the makers” work real hard to do, with intelligent design, which can be used for more optimally beneficial results, but is not because, “they” contend, nature prohibits it, ontologically derived, by design). There really is no added identity like capitalists say there is. It is a big fat fraud!
According to Kant, nature will deontologize the risk proportion in the aggregate dimension. Science calls this a paradigm shift–spontaneous convergence of the real with the actual, much like Hegel described the phenomenology of a natural existence; but it never was really alienated. Actualized on demand, it is always possible to deontologize the risk now!
What does the natural deontology look like?
What indicates the natural (ontological) design that reasonably “determines” the right thing to do? Going up on the down indicator, maybe, and working harder to gain more, for less, you naturally feel the Bern!
(We don’t normally think of moral value as being ontologically derived. Immanuel Kant, nevertheless, described its practical existence.
Moral value, or intelligent design, is described as “deontology” because there appears to be a purpose associated with the emergent value, which then de-ontologizes its natural existence with reason.
Reason, being on demand, has the natural attributes of free will, undetermined, existing measure, resisting nothing, occupying space over time, measuring the value of a passive resistance, on demand, like in a free market.)