(Driving the Data)
Pricing the risk is data driven.
Political-economic problems essentially reduce to probable-risk analyses, or risk assessment. It appears, for example, that forming a cartel to “make the market more efficient” is motivated by an economic interest, but it is really more a political motive.
This morning, for example, the oil trade (so-called “betting” on the futures) was expecting resistance to the falling knife driven by record-high inventory data (overproduction due to high prices in the past, “caused by” forming a cartel, for example, deliberately forming an effective, business model “to make markets more efficient” in the futures). The expectation was driven by data suggesting an actual decline in inventory, revised overnight, but the interpretation turns out to be wrong, which adjusts the expected value of the inventory in the futures markets down. (So, who do you think had “bets” the data was driven wrong to make it right and drive the profit margin up on the down side!)
With all the deliberate, market manipulation (“market making”), it does not appear that a natural, risk ontology actually exists.
If Legitimate Coercive Value (LCV) derives from free-market mechanics, what is the natural identity of manipulating markets to defeat it? (Is this the “deontology” Kant, for example, refers to in “The Critique”–effectively knowing what the data is actually driving to, or intending, and thus yielding to, in priority?)
How we feel about it (the data being deontologized–manipulated–to a naturally existing conclusion that we must accept as THE LEGITIMATE FORCE of an ontological identity) is the political dimension of a data-driven economic reality. So, if conserving the “natural right” (the natural-risk identity) to apply risk at will (as an act of self-determination) is the goal, the ontology of natural “cause without purpose” is nothing but a delusion of grandeur, driving us into a self-retributive, pathological identity that is holistically unnatural.
Unnatural simply means irrational. “Feel the Bern!” is, for example, a feeling that intersects with a sense of rationality we know exists (by pure reason) but irrationally lacks a practical presence, which is described by conservatives as being delusional, or non-existent. It is, however, on the whole (holistically, in the aggregate dimension), a nomology (a noumenon Kant would say) of our natural existence. That simply means the right thing to do (like a math problem) is a preexisting condition–a natural imperative (a deontology) always ready to happen NOW (on demand).
Senator Sanders’ political appeal derives from an economic dimension that most people observe to be irrational, which has a naturally emotional response. So, when the free market is supposed to punish extortionists (people that will force you to buy or sell something at a particular price because you have to, not because you want to) but, instead, the market is made to routinely reward them for being unsymmetrically coercive (because it is their natural identity and thus yours), naturally, you get all burned up! There is nothing irrational about it, but conservatives describe the feeling of “being burned” as delusional and crudely ungrateful!
Ayn Rand in particular said the delusions of the little people (expecting the elite to conform to an unnatural identity) is what causes violence. (If “We” just accept our “natural identity” then everything will be alright, won’t it? … Yes, it will! So go ahead, “feel the Bern!” and passively aggress–naturally progressing into the political futures now–with Legitimate Coercive Value, naturally existing on demand.)
Is it really delusional (unnatural) to reasonably expect the elite not to behave like extortionist gangsters!
The real deontology is the on-demand dimension. It is “critical” for purely reasonable purposes, “making markets” safe (more efficient) for practical reasons, effectively reducing real angst without reducing the actual risk. Ontologically, risk does not actually reduce. Its knowable (limited) mathematical quantity (which naturally defines the limit of liability) forms the natural deontology measuring propriety at the margin of existence (the measurable quantity of space over time).
(See other articles by griffithlighton on the “proprietary-risk dimension” published on the World Wide Web.)
Look at, for example, the natural, free-market ontology at work when assessing the probable risk associated with the future price of oil. The rate of substitution is actually the real rate of return, or the real rate of repossession BY NATURE (the naturally existing deontology that “feels the Bern!”–which is the angst that measures, or feels, the probable risk and motivates the asking price ON DEMAND).
By no coincidence, high oil prices (derived from derivative financial products) reduced aggregate demand while building inventory, which has been measured today at record-high levels. While traders were saying there would be a rally this morning because yesterday inventories were declared to be declining, “bets” were lost to the sudden reversal, driven by the data? This makes it look like a gambling casino but, like in a casino, the House (the host), by no coincidence, wins most of the time by the law of large numbers, existing in the aggregate.
Existing by the natural law (by the numbers), what happens, for example, to the royal family when (at the real rate of substitution) oil is so high (and demand is driven so low by the numbers) that alternatives are not only economically competitive but politically correct?
Capitalists discover what it really means to “make the market” so that the marginal profit always moves up (unnaturally resisting the declining rate of profit) on the down indicator.
They discover what it really means to drive the data and, technically, “Feel The Bern!” (aptly described, by no coincidence, as the delusion of objective reality).