Price discovery is transactional interpretation at current value. Remember that current value is useful value currently present that can be applied to the futures (a multiverse of probable existence that will probably reduce to the effective model in operation on demand, or the in-tendency). Useful value is something intended, and even when it is discovered accidentally, it is recognized to have currency, naturally gaining support by reducing the resistance.
Being vested with capital to be put to work is what it means to be in-vested, intending a return on the capital in excess of the capital invested. Since the natural (measurable) model is ECV-symmetry (conservatism), the ontology of the fully assumed risk is to expect a declining rate of profit, or intending the deontology of an Equivalent Coercive Value.
Deontology of the Legitimate Coercive Value
LCV, like Pareto described it, may not be symmetrical at current value, but has the presence of ECV-symmetry, like Kant said, nevertheless, with the real and actual value measurably conserved in all the futures, expressing both a standard and a pluralistic model of added identity at the same time.
Massive force divided by infinity equals the probable value of an observable, weak force at present value that does not have the appearance of equivalence. It has an added identity, existing a measurable identity that occupies space over time.
Coercive value is not usually associated with a free-market economia, but that is what happens when parties legitimately consent to the art of making a deal. There is a Legitimate Coercive Value, which is a measurable space, having a strong, localized force, occupying the intentions of all the parties, on demand. The art of the deal is that there are an infinite number of possibilities, just like when an artist produces a work of art, defining space that has an otherwise infinite (and virtually meaningless) identity.
The value of a virtually meaningless identity (existence) is naturally wide open. Meaning is infinitely possible. (Again, remember, infinite space over time is a naturally weak force at full velocity. It simultaneously exists but does not exist, having cause without purpose until there is a definable space that actualizes a causal identity–a strong force–ontologically described as an emergent property that has the deontological value of an apparent purpose, on demand.) Infinity can be any-thing, meaning the probability it will be nothing is zero, being virtually meaningless until the artist occupies the available space (TI) over time, ontologically existing measure, deontologically resisting nothing.
At the fundamental level, where objective reality is wide open, it is a free-market economia. Since it is arbitrary, yet conforming to observable rules (the numbers) of a structural existence (which we then model for effectiveness), there is the sense of “being and nothingness.”
As an economic philosophy, Objectivism is a familiar existentialist philosophy, operating with an effective model of objective reality. The TI is highly influential, and despite that few people may know what Objectivism is, its measurable effect (its deontolgical value) is common to what is currently described as fundamental, free-market economics (a natural ontology). It is an existentialist, being-and-nothingness philosophy of the risk.
Application of the risk (naturally coercive value with a legitimately ontological, objective, cause-without-purpose identity) is what a free market, and Objectivist philosophy, is all about. The “being and nothingness” aspect is what Kant refers to when he describes the duty (the categorical imperative) inherent to knowing the truth.
It may seem like Objectivism is really a lot of intellectual mumbo-jumbo, but no, it’s actually not! It is an effective philosophical model that lets capitalists derive value (income inequality) from doing harm, arguing the Legitimate Coercive Value (LCV) of the risk (ECV-symmetry) fundamental to free-market economics.
Objectivist philosophy is being used to describe the harm done, and will continue to be done, as a natural identity, by default. So, for example, using the natural-identity argument (the truth to which, like Kant said, we are all morally obliged by default of a natural existence), when there is a Great Recession and TBTF banks confiscate homes (and net worth–repossession–by default, because, like Rand said, the rich really own it all anyway, by default) the harm done is neither good or bad since objective reality is, really, wide open. In fact, capitalists explain, the harm done is actually good, conforming to (like Kant said) the natural identity (the deontology) of objective reality, which conforms to the only legitimate measure we really have–a natural existence, having legitimate coercive value that cannot be avoided by default.
“The little people” don’t see the emergent value of the benefit (the big picture, which is the apparent purpose of the design, naturally occupying space over time) because they have, by nature, small minds. “They” don’t have the secret knowledge like “We” (the naturally endowed) do, and so, they are forced to follow elite authority (to enjoy natural rights in pursuit of happiness), having the emergent property of being beneficial to both us and them, by natural design (by default).
The rights of the majority naturally derive from elite authority, Objectivists say (which is the theory of the social contract).
Capitalism, conservatives say, for example, delivers us all from the moral obligations of slavery. (The working class is not obliged to the ruling class, and the ruling class is not obliged to the workers in the form of being their property. It is all, with all due propriety, the object of self-determination, legitimately existing, coerced, on demand. Slaves are much more portable in the form of capital, and are “kept” captive at much lower cost, coerced on demand.) Conserving the ownership (the proprietary risk proportion) of the capital interest (the rate of repossession by default, coerced on demand) allows for the majority to have more than they would otherwise have (as Pareto, for example, argued), having the incentive to expand the available supply, being naturally more productive.
According to Objectivists, like Paul Ryan, who is Speaker of the House, productivity is the natural incentive of not being poor. What he means is, the more productive workers are, the more they earn to demand the supply, which naturally resists poverty and deflation. However, that is exactly what capitalism is effectively modeled not to do.
Conforming to the effective model (having the natural incentive to be the model of success), people like Paul Ryan (who have the secret knowledge–having an elite-class identity) strongly oppose paying people not to work (although it is required–imperative–to resist deflation and a declining rate of profit that comes with a rising rate of poverty). Paying people not to work is counterintuitive, isn’t it?
Ontologically (by the fundamental mechanics of free-market economics, which exists independent of capitalism’s model of success), paying people not to work actually is productive. It demands the supply, which then demands jobs, being then naturally counter-deflationary and thus (contrary to the secret knowledge) not counter-intuitive, after all, but morally imperative, if reducing poverty is what we really want to do!
Capitalists say welfare is bad because it is counter to the natural incentive (the moral imperative) to work out of economic desperation (create surplus value and cause the next recession, which is the opportunity to repossess the property of The People, realizing its “natural identity”–just like Ayn Rand says it always does). The harm done (the “natural identity” you see!) is not really a bad thing (Randians explain)–it is actually a good thing (the secret knowledge to which the elite class is actually obligated, having a duty to the real truth, despite the delusional demands of The People). Capitalism (operating with the phony “secret knowledge” of the good derived from the bad–the harm expected to be done–revealed only to the ruling class of really smart people) can be worse than slavery because their is no incentive to keep wages from falling below subsistence, which is naturally deflationary (by default) like we have now!
For capitalists, it is necessary to skillfully make it look like the harm done has a natural identity, like the moral imperative Immanuel Kant described.
Discussing Kantian philosophy is really arcane, like Mrs. Clinton said when referring to whether we should reenact Glass-Steagall. It is not immediately apparent, but its reenactment depends on whether we think deflationary tendencies–and that “the poor will always be with us”–is a natural identity or not–i.e., something we just expect to happen no matter what.
Naturally, the skillful politician–in the capitalist environment of “the public good naturally derives from deliberately doing harm”–is the phony progressivist.
(This is where Kant talks about antinomies. Doing the wrong thing naturally measures–it knows! and always did know!–the right thing to do. We are then obliged–categorically!–to do it because it is a natural, imperative identity. Like Kant said, doing the wrong thing naturally describes the moral imperative because it realizes the counter-identity, its antithetical value, as Hegel described it, or an emergent property, as science describes it, which is then a “duty” to be actualized on demand.)
The false progressivist suggests the natural imperative, described by pathologically making the same mistakes over and over again, because it is considered to be ontologically derived.
We see the natural-identity argument everywhere. When TBTF capitalists get together to discuss what needs to be done to reduce the angst and suffering associated with the business cycle, the consensus is that it is a naturally occurring risk. The poor will always be with us and bleeding-heart liberals will always be there to reduce the angst and suffering because it is the right thing to do.
The right thing to do then maintains the so-called natural utility of economic desperation.
Providing the incentive of economic desperation not only causes deflation but the compassion of progressives who operate not to eliminate it but conserve it.
The reactionary element then acts to conserve “the natural identity” (just like Randians and the Elite School describe it). This identity is the portability, or facile utility, of labor value in the equivalent, inalienable form of the capital interest, which has a natural tendency to be worse than slavery if progressives do not react (being the natural ruling class of “the little people”) with welfare (paying people not to work).
The reaction is elemental, the liberal element objectively explains. It naturally resists confiscation of the property (the capital) that does harm and produces the goods on demand.
Confiscating the property of the master (the ruling class) is not only ungrateful, it is unnatural (undoing the harm that actually does all the good). The reaction allows capitalists to keep going up on the down indicator, which effectively measures the future value of the probable risk now, at current value, always yielding to the categorical imperative.
The imperative is there, in the Constitution, categorically expressed as “We The People” (the ruling class) naturally identified (endowed) in priority.