Price Relative to Risk

Supposedly, monetary and fiscal policy is designed to maintain a stable political-economic environment, but the economy is prone to crisis, which expresses as political risk maintained with a representative form of governance. Retributive value (an elusive quantum that has measurable, empirical value but is analytically treated as an intuitive measure of risk) is then re-presented as consensually derived and the outcome (classified consumption of the risk) has the force and legitimacy (the value) of public authority.

The Zen (an intuitive measure that renders risk with relative, retributive value) is an elusive quantum that mystically exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time. As an expression of relative value (being essentially ineffable but nevertheless knowable), the Zen (a cult of objective identity that defines what reality is and the motive to pursue it or not) is used to exculpate and conserve the value derived from the risk. It is a psychological component that binds the outcome to our unavoidable, natural condition. "A is A" as Ayn Rand described it, for example, or it is the secret knowledge that right-wing reactionaries refer to when trying to explain bogus economic paradoxes as a binding contract (a necessary trade off) with nature or God, which governs the natural extent (or the probability) of our self-determination and the value of its technical achievement.

The Zen (an intuitive perception of knowledge that has a calming sense of certainty and expectation) is used to maintain the legitimacy of the risk-value distribution. The practical concept of creative-destruction, for example, is an expected value of nature. It demonstrates a natural tendency to revolutionize the status quo into something better. At the same time, however, "something" (that elusive but intuitively knowable value) is made retributively worse.

The value retributed is the value conserved. It is the value of creative-destruction--a mysterious quantum that paradoxically cannot be created or destroyed but that we are always determined to retributively achieve as value technically added, and deleted, in impulsive and corrective waves.

The impulse to create something (like risk) and then technically correct for it is the Zen of beta volatility. Without giving it too much objective thought, relying mostly on ideological identity, we systematically maintain volatility to manage the objective risk, and while causing risk by trying to avoid it may seem counter-intuitive, the accumulation of retributive value that results is the motive to redefine our objective reality.

While resistance is futile--and we should resign to the inevitable risk of change--we should nevertheless organize to direct (or deontologize) the risk to satisfy the self, which is the only thing we really, intuitively, know.

When Bank of America and Goldman Sachs use our money against us (positioning us for the inevitable risk by transforming our money into their private equity from their proprietary desks) it is not a function of selfish greed, it is creative-destruction. Operating with the Zen of beta volatility makes us better off, not worse. The price of going bust is relative to the value of the risk--the accumulation of capital that makes us all better off, and we all know that because we all want, intuitively, to satisfy our "self."

The philosophy of selfishness is so endemic that not acting selfishly is considered a moral hazard. If we do not consider Goldman Sachs to be a peer, with an objective identity to which we all aspire, as Ayn Rand puts it, we deny our very nature. This cult of selfishness is so culturally endemic that rich people--just when we thought the level of psychoses couldn't be any grander--think it is an honor to be bilked by big bankers that bundle their booty into a big bag of bogus benevolence, giving real meaning--objective identity--to the expression, "stupid money."

Not subscribing to the cult of Goldman's greed, and the mysterious, dark side of investment banking, is to not understand how the world really works by default. No matter what we do to try and not be greedy, greed always wins because it is our nature. Communism, socialism, fascism, capitalism...no matter the "ism," the ambitions of a power elite will always rig the system, operating in the dark to achieve a classified distribution of the risk. Resistance is futile.

The philosophy of risk is like a kind of religious, mystery cult...like believing in the gods that Socrates said was nonsense and so was condemned by the establishment for corrupting the youth with the truth.

(We all "know" that to make something better something has to quantumly change. For change to occur without a quantum difference is a technical trick, and so there is a tendency to organize the risk binomially so that it is either on or off, which maintains quantum value in the form of expected change. When, for example, the CFTMA abolished Glass-Steagall, the risk inherent to consolidation of financial markets was turned on--it was modernized. When it is turned off, or changed, the quantum value accumulated will not distribute. The value of the accumulation will be conserved in historical perspective as an expected value--something that will always happen no matter what we do to change it. This is the anchoring effect--a psychological trick that gives the quantum value of the risk the appearance of legitimate consensuality when it is really a perceptual manipulation...what swindlers do to get their victims to pay them bonuses for robbing them.

Conservation of risk-value is the Zen of beta volatility. Despite change, it is quantum value we know will be timelessly conserved by means of creative-destruction. The price we pay is always relative to the risk no matter what we do--it's only natural. Angst, then, cannot be quantumly reduced, but it can be quantumly managed to represent our values.)

We see today, physicists describing a mysterious quantum entanglement that occurs in nature. When describing and explaining the elusive value of beta-risk volatility (remembering that its empirical value--measurable income--represents objective, moral value, which is the price paid "relative" to risk) there is an exculpatory zeitgeist. A risk ontology is inferred that derives from the upper echelons of our intellect.

Reason converges with intuition in the quantum dimension where, paradoxically, things just don't happen like we expect them to. We are enlightened by objective observation--nature is volatile with infinite probability and our fate is in the lap of the gods who are, by nature, fickle, changeable, "unpredictable."

The gods are busily plotting to determine our fate and appoint our natural leaders who are created (and naturally represent values) in their own self image. Thus, naturally selected, they are the most determined to occupy the upper echelons of power where risk is, by nature, in their own image, fickle, changeable, and predictably entangled by objective.

Objectivism guides our technical endeavors. Risk is not objectively determined, but is technically derived to conform to our moral objectives. We hedge the fully assumed risk of loss by organizing markets to predict the future (to reduce risk not by reducing volatility but by positioning to profit from it). When Goldman Sachs and Bank of America bundles (or consolidates) risk into securitized debt (in a too-big-to-fail proportion) and markets it as low risk because their organizations are big enough to withstand the volatility, they are predicting the future.

The risk of loss is fully assumed, but not necessarily occupying the space as technically projected because risk, like predictng the position of quantum matter, does not naturally appear where expected. Its position is naturally volatile and unpredictable but can be organized, or structured, to occur in a way that is technically beneficial for everyone as we, by nature, act to surplus value and hedge the risk in our self-interest.

Risk-value (the detriment) does not only distribute by technical objective, but is randomly objective as well. Goldman Sachs and Bank of America are not, technically, behaving immorally, but objectively protecting themselves, as expected, from risk that is fully assumed and occurs with equal opportunity.

Empirically, the price to be paid relative to all the risk Goldman Sachs and Bank of America avoided in a too-big-to-fail proportion is, naturally, a massive detriment. Loss of income and net worth continues to accrue to ninety-nine percent of the income distribution, which technically, and not coincidentally, represents the values of the top one percent and maintains the Zen of beta volatility.

Volatility is the playground of opportunity. It is the quantum change (the retributive value) that objectively measures, and technically maintains, the difference between "us" and "them"--the opportunity to occupy the space that binds us together.