Looking at the image just below, “the context of color contrast and intensity,” colors can be changed without being really changed. Thus there is a correlation, but with a confused causal identity.
I authored the context of the image. Logically (as Aristotle would describe it) I am the efficient cause. What derives from correlating the elements of the object is a measurable effect, but we can also say that the intensity of the blue mat “causes” the interpretation of the subject, which then becomes “objective reality.” This also happens in the realm of financial risk where the fully assumed loss is easily confused with the intention to apply “the risk” in order to derive the loss over time.
Today the new Fed chairman, Mr. Powell, said he will continue with the dual mandate and the 2% inflation target. It appears that the Fed’s policy program correlates with a causal identity but it is cast in an effective-causal, descriptive attribution. This is very confusing and it naturally reduces to a philosophical discussion over what the efficient and effective causal identities really are. This is where identity can be, and is, actually added to the picture without really changing the colors of the blocks in the chain. It has the appearance of a natural identity — existing without intention in the aggregate dimension — but derives, nevertheless, from intending devices that exist on demand.
While having a legitimate, on-demand dimension (directly derived from the consent of the governed by means of dollar votes), these derivative devices exist, however, with a measurable chain of command that is fully culpable (i.e., correlated with the causal identity intending to derive the efficiency of attaining the objective measure). The liability associated with deliberate application of the risk is therefore not limited, at all, like the corporate body says it naturally is. In fact, it measurably isn’t, by default.
While the risk never really changes, the interpretation of it can change over time to give color and shape to the liability associated with its occurrence (the occupation of space) over time (which can be “made” to accelerate, yielding to a crisis dimension that tends to ignore the liability for “protection” in the name of “the public interest”).
The new Fed chairman, Mr. Powell, also said on Capitol Hill today that cutting the corporate tax rate will boost productivity. This, of course, is to describe a cause-effect relationship.
GDP is more likely to derive, however, from deficit spending, which directly correlates with the corporate tax cut. The corporate rate was made permanent because it causes economic growth (productivity) when it actually doesn’t, effectively changing the causal identity of the risk without really changing it. This added identity results in mispricing the risk, which causes a credit-default crisis and the need to bail out the system, by default, to protect us from the risk that just happens by natural design, doesn’t it?