(Building an Effective, Causal Model)
When things are looking bad, well, that’s really good, isn’t it!
That’s the way big-money, financial interests see it, anyway, since they literally have money to burn.
This is what it means to go up on the down indicator.
Statisticians say that expecting good things to derive from the bad is a fallacy. This is called the gambler’s fallacy, expecting luck to change one way or another. This is also called the gambler’s paradox because, in the aggregate dimension, over time, fortune does change.
Technical analysts then look for patterned oscillations over time to, in the world of finance, for example, reduce the fully assumed risk of loss. Since the risk, fully assumed, cannot really be reduced, it is effectively modeled into a probability, existing its measurable existence in terms of space over time, which is the velocity of the risk. Using this model, algorithms can be created to accelerate the velocity, which then (like going up on the down escalator) speeds up the expected value of the risk over time (making you work more for less), expanding the profit at the margin (surplussing value) without gambling.
Over time, the effective model is described as objective reality, having causal attributes that, like in nature, have no real purpose.
Like nature, the results derive without emotion. Nature does not care if anybody thinks it is right or wrong because, objectively, it just is what it is, beyond good and evil. According to Objectivist philosophy, then, derivatives have legitimate, positive value (natural symmetry) despite whatever measurable harm is done (making profits move up, even on the down side).
Isn’t that the reduction to a natural identity we see to limit the liability, operating so that, like gambling, what actually happens is, paradoxically, accidental and caused, then, without any real purpose?
Is this a dark delusion of a dismal, scientific interpretation, or the positive demonstration of a measurable moral imperative currently described as “feel the Bern!”