Shaping the Future

The series of articles on risk I have authored and published to this site are not only to identify variables typically ignored or attributed to randomness, but to describe and explain a practical means of shaping the future.

A probabilistic ontology is not a random walk. Closer inspection reveals a probability of risk that is largely determined by indicators (symbols that guide perception) technically designed to shape the perceived risk and, thus, the future. Identifying the incentives associated with the perception of the risk predicts its future value and its probable path, or trend.

High-frequency trading, for example. As I have pointed out in previous articles, value is being determined by a highly consolidated capital. That concentration combined with high frequency increases the velocity of the risk (and the reward). Remember, these are hedge funds--they magnify the margin by hedging the risk. They increase their profits by shifting the risk to you, now at high frequency and velocity which, if you are not in control, appears to be randomness.

Randomness, as I have described and explained in the series, suggests a lack of culpability. If there is a zero-sum detriment, the beneficiary needs to demonstrate a lack of responsibility for the outcome and pin it on the victims as having "taken" (consented to) the risk, and lost.

Americans, having been stuck with overwhelming detriment on a macro-economic scale that suggests a macro-risk ontology (the systemic risk), now seek to mitigate the loss and recover damages (retribute the value). The macro means of mitigating the loss (the risk) in a post-industrial, post-modern world is the Keynesian application of economics.

Suing out the damage is a function of political process at the macro level. Victims consider the damage to be deliberately inflicted--their net worth confiscated and used against them in the pursuit of "the American dream." Keynesian economics is a technical means of managing the risk of liability by consolidating it (reducing it to the force and legitimacy of public authority)--what the series refers to as the gamma-risk proportion.

Having been betrayed by political rhetoric that promises the American dream, Americans are deciding (are determined) to actually "take" the risk, rather than have it extended to them, and reduce the dissonance (the gamma-risk proportion). While it may not be everyone's cup of "tea," taking the risk to shape (determine the probability of) the future transforms rhetorical possibility into the realpolitique of probability, posing a significant risk that is fully gamma.

Risk analysts do not figure a gamma-risk proportion. If the practical model does not assume the risk is a possibility because it ignores it, the probability it will occur is ontologically assumed and is fully extended (nearly 100%). While it may seem to be stupidity error, ignoring the probable risk is a calculated, political measure, ideologically (axiomatically) derived.

Since risk axiomatically derived suggests a model that fixes, or determines, the risk-to-reward coefficient, the value of what you don't want to occur tends to be undervalued and the risk becomes over-extended as discussed in previous articles on the extension of the risk.

Avoiding the over-extension requires abandoning its ideological assumptions which, in the gamma proportion, renders the possible evermore probable. I refer to this as the ontology of the gamma-risk proportion.

Republican rhetoric, postulating a free-market system that provides for the commonwealth, for example, has suffered a significant loss of credibility within the short-term, declarative memory of its constituency. Without abandoning its ideology that subsidizing the rich provides for the common wealth, it is entirely dependent on the two-party system to systematically recycle the risk to "conserve" its current value. I refer to this as recursion of the risk, which very effectively shapes the future, until now.

The system is set up to inspire class mobility but then deny it with a macro ontology. The system, however, at this point of our political-economic history, in the midst of a deepening crisis, has inspired a critique of that ontology instead.

Fundamentally questioning the logic of producing value by denying it to a cohort that the system "selects" to give it the power of consent will, at this point, with a macro ontology, not be denied.

As the middle class gets bigger, there is less distinction between the classes. While each member of a different class puts their pants on the same way, there is a big difference in the value of their pants. While the use value may be the same, the market value is a mark of distinction symbolizing the ability to pay and is expressed by referencing to a political group or party (and perhaps more important, inspiring the over-extension of debt into a crisis proportion).

Tea partiers, for example, are highly motivated to manage the macro-risk without Keynesian attributes. Eventually, class symbols (like reverse pricing) are not enough to demonstrate class identity. It is then reduced to the ability to survive the extension of the risk that results in the zero-sum accumulation of net worth (macro-economic liquidity crisis).

When crisis occurs (remembering that it is supposed to be improbable as long as we axiomatically adhere to the right ideology), class is fully valued, categorically and unsymbolically, in the form of the ability to pay (where you once could not afford the reverse price for a pair of pants, now you can't afford a pair of pants). The risk is then rendered with Keynesian attributes and the debt accumulated (extended) to maintain a middle class status.

The ability to pay (the risk) is monetized and consolidated into state control which, of course, tends to conserve the status-quo. The middle class is returned to the previous extent of the risk in liege (in debt) to its benefactor (the beneficiary of the detriment now buying and selling the monetized middle-class debt with funds expropriated from their net worth, which caused the crisis).

The zero-sum is successfully applied and prepared to be recursively re-applied in an ontological fashion, protecting the reward from the risk of liability--but the Tea partiers are too smart for that.

If we want real freedom, we must break the cycle of consolidated risk. Real freedom requires each person declare independence. The extent of our self-determination (the risk) will then be obtained by shaping the probability of what We The People want will occur.

Shaping the future is like what Michelangelo said about his sculptures--the ideal image has always been there, all we have to do is remove what we don't want.

The commonwealth is a work of art just waiting to be sculpted.

It is perfectly natural (our natural right) to revolt against a system that is constitutionally endowed with the freedom of self-determination but operationalized to deny it. Nature ontologically acts to resolve this paradox that has been extended to an unavoidable, gamma-risk proportion.

It is our natural right to deny systematic means that prevent shaping the possible into the probability of what We The People want, beginning with providing for what we all need.