Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

The point on global capitalism is well-made; but I suppose it's used generally to describe the way the current global system impacts societies and cultures. In all honesty, lots of contemporary theorists (Fredric Jameson among them) acknowledge global capitalism as just a stage in an ongoing process more typically referred to as "modernity" (a problematic term itself).

I know that Land is "neoreactionary." I honestly have no idea what that means. His political scheme sounds like dressed-up, rationalized oligarchy, from what I can tell.

 

[Dak]

The point on global capitalism is well-made; but I suppose it's used generally to describe the way the current global system impacts societies and cultures. In all honesty, lots of contemporary theorists (Fredric Jameson among them) acknowledge global capitalism as just a stage in an ongoing process more typically referred to as "modernity" (a problematic term itself).

I would just prefer a different label, but admit to be at a loss for a satisfactory label atm.

I know that Land is "neoreactionary." I honestly have no idea what that means. His political scheme sounds like dressed-up, rationalized oligarchy, from what I can tell.

Well there is the argument that all governemnts are/have been actually oligarchies, regardless of the public front, so whatever is concocted would also fall under oligarchical from that perspective.

http://www.xenosystems.net/trichotomocracy/

This was something he recently laid out. I commented to some degree about the military problem, but Land dismissed my concerns from two directions: Either A. The balance of power/social organization would be sufficient to prevent said problem or B. If my concerns were legitimate, it wouldn't matter because then no social(political) organization would ultimately be successful.

His theory is an attempt to create a balancing place at the table for competing "life orientations", with a sole exclusion for anything that smacks of the Cathedral/"progressivism"/etc.

 

[Dak]

The point on global capitalism is well-made; but I suppose it's used generally to describe the way the current global system impacts societies and cultures. In all honesty, lots of contemporary theorists (Fredric Jameson among them) acknowledge global capitalism as just a stage in an ongoing process more typically referred to as "modernity" (a problematic term itself).

I would just prefer a different label, but admit to be at a loss for a satisfactory label atm.

I know that Land is "neoreactionary." I honestly have no idea what that means. His political scheme sounds like dressed-up, rationalized oligarchy, from what I can tell.

Well there is the argument that all governemnts are/have been actually oligarchies, regardless of the public front, so whatever is concocted would also fall under oligarchical from that perspective.

http://www.xenosystems.net/trichotomocracy/

This was something he recently laid out. I commented to some degree about the military problem, but Land dismissed my concerns from two directions: Either A. The balance of power/social organization would be sufficient to prevent said problem or B. If my concerns were legitimate, it wouldn't matter because no social organization would ultimately be successful.

His theory is an attempt to create a balancing place at the table for competing "life orientations", with a sole exclusion for anything that smacks of the Cathedral/"progressivism"/etc.

Edit: Land in response to someone echoing the same concerns raised by most in the comments:

The worst outcome in your account — a re-integration of government, either through triumph of one faction over the other two, or by fusional coordination of the three — is the presumed basis for the main alternative (reactionary) proposal: i.e. integrated government. So the practical argument for the Triarchy is quite clear — At worst, it becomes what integral Monarchy is from the start.

“I’d expect each of the three factions to desire to increase their own power and wealth at the expense of the other two factions and the general population.” — This is the only reasonable Constitutionalist assumption, and the only reasonable assumption of political theory in general. In the absence of divine intervention, or a counter-factual utopian world, the only checks are:
1) Internal, through strategically fragmented government (durable division of powers)
2) External, through patchwork pressure, primarily Exit.
Any scale-free political theory can be expected to lean on both (although the former is emphasized here).

Yes, it’s difficult.

The reason that triangles are far more stable than binary divisions, of course — and indeed more stable than any other arrangement — is that domination by any one node requires a preponderance of power over both the others combined. Agreed that the military poses special problems, but these have been practically dealt with many times before, and tend to be over-stated by reactionary intellectuals (when was the last time that a prosperous commercial republic fell prey to a military coup?).

As a veteran, I don't feel I'm overstating the problem. Maybe my concerns are unduly magnified due to familiarity bias (but of course I don't think so).

 

[Einherjar86]

That's the post I read; the one on trichotomocracy.

I'm assuming Land is very familiar with political theory and philosophy, as well as the complex history of "law" (he has an essay called "After the Law"). With even the minimal amount of political scaffolding and institutionalism, I want to know how he aims to prohibit it; because one cannot have institutionalized government, in my opinion, without law, and law will inevitably come in conflict with market exchange.

The threat of military coup is founded upon the religiosity of law. Sure, it could absolutely be a contingent force of people with guns realizing their power; but they will never be doing so for anarchic reasons. A military coup, even one viewed as irrationally evil by those subjected, is done in order to resubstantiate some form of law. This kind of political side-winding seems very skeptical, to me, because I see it as wanting its cake and eating it too; that is, as wanting law without law.

We've had this discussion before, and your approach is honestly more supportable if only because you would (presumably) resist all forms of institutionalization. In my personal opinion, if we're talking about markets in an evolutionary (i.e. Darwinian) manner, markets want law. I know the tradition is to say that markets and information want to "be free," but I don't buy it.

I'd say that markets want law because they want the major, international, global corporate monstrosities. Markets don't care about people, even though they thrive on them. For all they care, let millions of people rot if it means we get multinational corporations that will drive vast amounts of capital. This is particularly useful if the markets become technologically self-sufficient.

I know you'll probably say that markets are nothing more than human interaction and exchange; but in our world today the market is moving further and further from anything resembling human exchange.

 

[Dak]

That's the post I read; the one on trichotomocracy.

I'm assuming Land is very familiar with political theory and philosophy, as well as the complex history of "law" (he has an essay called "After the Law"). With even the minimal amount of political scaffolding and institutionalism, I want to know how he aims to prohibit it; because one cannot have institutionalized government, in my opinion, without law, and law will inevitably come in conflict with market exchange.

The threat of military coup is founded upon the religiosity of law. Sure, it could absolutely be a contingent force of people with guns realizing their power; but they will never be doing so for anarchic reasons. A military coup, even one viewed as irrationally evil by those subjected, is done in order to resubstantiate some form of law. This kind of political side-winding seems very skeptical, to me, because I see it as wanting its cake and eating it too; that is, as wanting law without law.

A military coup is not about law itself but a particular sort of law - a law of power. You can't have a military coup in a truly lawless society because there would be no military. (You could, of course, have an external attack/occupation, but these are too costly to be anything other than shortlived).

We've had this discussion before, and your approach is honestly more supportable if only because you would (presumably) resist all forms of institutionalization.

Not quite all forms of institutionalization. All forms to institutionalize coercion, particularly a monopoly on it. Of course I think it's more supportable because it's not an attempt to rationalize a contradiction. Neoreaction assumes people who demand coercion will be content in a paper cage, as long as we build the paper cage in a suitable manner. I think this makes the same mistake as the purported thinking behind the US Constitution.

In my personal opinion, if we're talking about markets in an evolutionary (i.e. Darwinian) manner, markets want law. I know the tradition is to say that markets and information want to "be free," but I don't buy it.

Law and order may be considered synonymous, but law and government do not have to be, and thusly order and governments. Markets fall under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order. Markets and information want to be free, but that's not necessarily the same thing as saying they want chaos. Almost Kantian in such a definition of freedom.

I'd say that markets want law because they want the major, international, global corporate monstrosities. Markets don't care about people, even though they thrive on them. For all they care, let millions of people rot if it means we get multinational corporations that will drive vast amounts of capital. This is particularly useful if the markets become technologically self-sufficient.

I know you'll probably say that markets are nothing more than human interaction and exchange; but in our world today the market is moving further and further from anything resembling human exchange.

How can you make that assertion about markets? These international monstrosities, and prior international monstrosities (East Indies Company, etc), did not come about in a free market. Rather they have unanimously fed off an atmosphere of protectionism and/or other special government privilege and/or fiat currency.

The "market" is not moving further from human exchange. Stock indexes most certainly are, but as I said earlier, this isn't the "market". Stock markets are nothing but a conduit for the recycling of new Federal Reserve notes and other fiat currency.
Counterfact: System D is already dwarfs other economies, and it's probably the closest thing to a true market we can point to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/11/07/rise-of-the-shadow-economy-second-largest-economy-in-the-world/

In 2009, the OECD concluded that half the world’s workers (almost 1.8 billion people) were employed in the shadow economy. By 2020, the OECD predicts the shadow economy will employ two-thirds of the world’s workers.

http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_neuwirth_the_power_of_the_informal_economy.html

I've already discussed Ebay and Craigslist even moreso as a modern epitome of "the market".

 

[Einherjar86]

How can you make that assertion about markets? These international monstrosities, and prior international monstrosities (East Indies Company, etc), did not come about in a free market. Rather they have unanimously fed off an atmosphere of protectionism and/or other special government privilege and/or fiat currency.

So what if they didn't come about in a free market? That would be the whole point.

The "market" is not moving further from human exchange. Stock indexes most certainly are, but as I said earlier, this isn't the "market". Stock markets are nothing but a conduit for the recycling of new Federal Reserve notes and other fiat currency.

I think it's exclusive and reductive to say that the stock exchange doesn't count as the market. That doesn't make sense. Historically you can cite a break; but I don't believe there's a difference, especially if we're talking in an evolutionary sense. Stock exchanges are simply a new facet of the market.

I've already discussed Ebay and Craigslist even moreso as a modern epitome of "the market".

And those are moving away from human contact as well. You would probably say they're increasing and amplifying human contact; but paradoxically, this is only possible by estranging humans from one another. That is, the increased contact is only possible via the medium of the internet.

There's a dated theory that media constitute extensions of humanity; that they are expansions upon an original entity.

But there's also a more recent theory that envisions media as autonomous and thus not subject to human appropriation. This is, of course, the view I ascribe to, and it helps us better understand the market as just one such entity of mediation.

 

[Dak]

So what if they didn't come about in a free market? That would be the whole point.

I think it's exclusive and reductive to say that the stock exchange doesn't count as the market. That doesn't make sense. Historically you can cite a break; but I don't believe there's a difference, especially if we're talking in an evolutionary sense. Stock exchanges are simply a new facet of the market.

Things are a combination of nature and nurture: genetics and environment. Human behavior often (not always) seeks growth to the point of termination. This would be reflected in the macro - ever larger organizations (nature/genetics). Growing to the point of implosion. What fractional reserve banking/based fiat currency (nurture/environment) allow this growth to do is accelerate the growth and attempt (yet not ultimately successfully) to bypass natural market restrictions to "unreasonable" growth. Debt brings future production to the present - at a cost. Eventually payment comes due, one way or another. This is true whether for an individual or a government. The difference is scale, in all facets, and to a slightly lesser degree, coercive ability.

The argument regarding "mega-corps" in a free market is two fold: Either it won't happen, or if it does, it will only be so long as it supplies the needs/wants of consumers in superior fashion. You won't get this situation like we have now with Congress, or the President - where you have a 20~% approval rating and yet business as usual. When that happens for businesses you go under (or get a bailout! from that 20~! approved group with the guns).

Of course a stock market exists within a market (yet not necessarily a free market), but it is not the market itself. IE - the whole market is not a stock index, but a whole stock index is within a market.

A stock market is no closer to an accurate measure of economic activity or health than GDP figures. It's a measure relevant to the interests of the measurer, not "the market" or "the economy".

And those are moving away from human contact as well. You would probably say they're increasing and amplifying human contact; but paradoxically, this is only possible by estranging humans from one another. That is, the increased contact is only possible via the medium of the internet.

How is Craigslist or Ebay moving away? It's much more efficient at bringing people together than newspaper and magazine classifieds, and the medium is no less impersonal.

There's a dated theory that media constitute extensions of humanity; that they are expansions upon an original entity.

But there's also a more recent theory that envisions media as autonomous and thus not subject to human appropriation. This is, of course, the view I ascribe to, and it helps us better understand the market as just one such entity of mediation.

Newness does not bestow correctness. Of course if I were completely wrong I'm pursuing the wrong line of work and I should be pioneering information system counseling or something.

 

[Einherjar86]

Things are a combination of nature and nurture: genetics and environment. Human behavior often (not always) seeks growth to the point of termination. This would be reflected in the macro - ever larger organizations (nature/genetics). Growing to the point of implosion. What fractional reserve banking/based fiat currency (nurture/environment) allow this growth to do is accelerate the growth and attempt (yet not ultimately successfully) to bypass natural market restrictions to "unreasonable" growth. Debt brings future production to the present - at a cost. Eventually payment comes due, one way or another. This is true whether for an individual or a government. The difference is scale, in all facets, and to a slightly lesser degree, coercive ability.

The argument regarding "mega-corps" in a free market is two fold: Either it won't happen, or if it does, it will only be so long as it supplies the needs/wants of consumers in superior fashion. You won't get this situation like we have now with Congress, or the President - where you have a 20~% approval rating and yet business as usual. When that happens for businesses you go under (or get a bailout! from that 20~! approved group with the guns).

Of course a stock market exists within a market (yet not necessarily a free market), but it is not the market itself. IE - the whole market is not a stock index, but a whole stock index is within a market.

A stock market is no closer to an accurate measure of economic activity or health than GDP figures. It's a measure relevant to the interests of the measurer, not "the market" or "the economy".

I don't mean to be annoying, but none of this explains to me why we can say that the stock market isn't a market in and of itself.

How is Craigslist or Ebay moving away? It's much more efficient at bringing people together than newspaper and magazine classifieds, and the medium is no less impersonal.

It's about thinking the medium in a new way. We like to think of it as an instrument that connects us, but it's also an agent of its own in that it actively changes us. In order to connect us, it reinforces our distance. It rewires the way we think. I said nothing comparatively; newspapers were their own kind of new media, and now the internet is revolutionizing the way we think and connect. Sure it allows us to communicate, but it is, first and foremost, a means of mediation. Mediation means not immediate; thus, not connected.

Newness does not bestow correctness. Of course if I were completely wrong I'm pursuing the wrong line of work and I should be pioneering information system counseling or something.

I didn't mean to imply that newness implies correctness. I'm simply saying that the new theory is the one that I ascribe to. The old methodology is dated because it employs an older, Cartesian understanding of subjectivity.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm just going to jump in at random. Wish me luck.

"The stock market" has a couple different economic contexts, but I suppose one traditional view is that it represents the projected inflation-adjusted returns, or present value of future cash inflows, for a heaping multitude of companies (or investment trusts...) which have often (but not always) independent economic characteristics which can justify a small variety of "fair value" estimates, or a wider variety of goofball Jim Cramer addicts' crackpot theories. It's always gonna be "people fuckin' with your money", but it has a role in society etc etc please try a novel argument dak etcetc

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Debt leverage is unfortunately something that gets manipulated a lot and it varies from year to year and can become more difficult to calculate over time. There's plenty of random shit to learn about it, for instance I looked at some guy's charts of historical returns for "equity-based" real estate investment trusts, versus "mortgage REITs". Equity-based were definitely less volatile, using whatever industry averages he was citing.

The banks seem to be taking those Basel leverage regulations seriously, there are some lawsuits / multi billion dollar settlements flying around, and my impression is you can find reliable news about the regulatory situation from Bloomberg and BBC maybe, or you can not give a shit like people who watch Fox. Who's glad they didn't parade derivatives-dealin' Larry into the Fed chairman seat? What I'm really hoping for in a few years is that the monetary gurus (at least the European ones) do something about all the international tax havens, "Dutch sandwiches", and other bizarre accountant magic the big companies manage out of habit.

On an amusingly creepy note, Bank of America on having forecast their 2012 legal expenditures to within 1 percent:
“We obviously have not been immune to the critical legal issues that have confronted the global financial services industry,” says Lynch. “We require the highest-quality legal work, but that can be delivered even while financial efficiencies are realized. Pursuing each without sacrificing the other has been our focus.”

 

[Dak]

I don't mean to be annoying, but none of this explains to me why we can say that the stock market isn't a market in and of itself.

A market and the market are significantly different statements. Stock indexes in modern economies are heavily distorted, and that was before HFTAs. That they function to recycle new fiat money has been made plain in light of QE. If there was any reasonable doubt before, it should no longer exist. The Fed cannot turn off the money spigot.

It's about thinking the medium in a new way. We like to think of it as an instrument that connects us, but it's also an agent of its own in that it actively changes us. In order to connect us, it reinforces our distance. It rewires the way we think. I said nothing comparatively; newspapers were their own kind of new media, and now the internet is revolutionizing the way we think and connect. Sure it allows us to communicate, but it is, first and foremost, a means of mediation. Mediation means not immediate; thus, not connected.

I don't have a problem with suggesting "rewiring", but the emboldened portion is wrong. Our distance geographically is fixed. Any ability to connect over distance/close the distance more rapidly reduces the "reality" of that distance ("the shrinking globe"). Faster, more direct forms of communication can shrink distance, but they cannot "reinforce" what was already more or less absolute.

Ignoring the fact that craigslist transactions generally occur in person, I'm surprised you're insisting in "connected" being limited to the face to face variety.

I didn't mean to imply that newness implies correctness. I'm simply saying that the new theory is the one that I ascribe to. The old methodology is dated because it employs an older, Cartesian understanding of subjectivity.

Humans cannot actually see themselves out of anthropocentrism. I find attempts to do so illusory. We cannot act in any other way, since our very actions/thought/etc are affirmations of anthropocentrism, even when anti-humanist as possible.

I'm just going to jump in at random. Wish me luck.

"The stock market" has a couple different economic contexts, but I suppose one traditional view is that it represents the projected inflation-adjusted returns, or present value of future cash inflows, for a heaping multitude of companies (or investment trusts...) which have often (but not always) independent economic characteristics which can justify a small variety of "fair value" estimates, or a wider variety of goofball Jim Cramer addicts' crackpot theories. It's always gonna be "people fuckin' with your money", but it has a role in society etc etc please try a novel argument dak etcetc

Well I don't think anyone disagrees that stock indexes play roles. I'm suggesting the role isn't fixed. It changes depending on the actors and factors.

Here I was especially trying to point out that as the indexes gradually fail to accomplish the goals/comply with "reality", they will only further remove themselves from reflecting the "true" economy, or the majority of the economy. IPOs have been down for more than a decade, and the trend is to going private, not public. I was going to post some links but there were so many returns I suggest just googling it yourself. As far as the "Why", a less meta view was offered recently by Stanford:

IPOs slow down tech innovation by 40~%

Going public hamstrings your ability to take important risks. Companies have to get around this by "outsourcing" creativity and risk. Ultimately that is more expensive and (ironically) risky.

Debt leverage is unfortunately something that gets manipulated a lot and it varies from year to year and can become more difficult to calculate over time. There's plenty of random shit to learn about it, for instance I looked at some guy's charts of historical returns for "equity-based" real estate investment trusts, versus "mortgage REITs". Equity-based were definitely less volatile, using whatever industry averages he was citing.

A fractional reserve banking system is of course systemic debt leveraging by definition. Accountants and economists from various non-Austrian schools think they have figured out "stable" leverage ratios. The problem is that once the ratio is reached this creates the same problem within a system that requires constant growth that having zero leveraging creates.

The banks seem to be taking those Basel leverage regulations seriously, there are some lawsuits / multi billion dollar settlements flying around, and my impression is you can find reliable news about the regulatory situation from Bloomberg and BBC maybe, or you can not give a shit like people who watch Fox. Who's glad they didn't parade derivatives-dealin' Larry into the Fed chairman seat? What I'm really hoping for in a few years is that the monetary gurus (at least the European ones) do something about all the international tax havens, "Dutch sandwiches", and other bizarre accountant magic the big companies manage out of habit.

I don't know why people would watch any regular US network for information. 90+% fluff and the rest is heavily spun in pedantic ways. I put my money on being informed and have subscribed to the Economist. At least I get the unvarnished "official story" rather than the dumbed down version.

As far as tax havens go:
1. I don't think the empty suits in Europe can do anything about them even if they wanted to.
2. IF they could shut down one variety, then other solutions would merely be found. Nothing makes capital flee for good like trying to keep it in.

Of course, maybe you meant they should "do something" about them like make them unnecessary. Regardless of my beefs with various corporate behaviors, I have no problem with dodging the tax man. Just about anything Google (for instance) has been doing is more desirable than whatever the European bureaucrat borg wants with the money.

On an amusingly creepy note, Bank of America on having forecast their 2012 legal expenditures to within 1 percent:
“We obviously have not been immune to the critical legal issues that have confronted the global financial services industry,” says Lynch. “We require the highest-quality legal work, but that can be delivered even while financial efficiencies are realized. Pursuing each without sacrificing the other has been our focus.”

Not generating wealth, playing paper games.

 

[Einherjar86]

A market and the market are significantly different statements. Stock indexes in modern economies are heavily distorted, and that was before HFTAs. That they function to recycle new fiat money has been made plain in light of QE. If there was any reasonable doubt before, it should no longer exist. The Fed cannot turn off the money spigot.

So, as I see it, the stock exchange and two people meeting at a 7-11 to trade a bicycle are merely unique facets of your "market." I don't see the stock exchange as "not counting."

I don't have a problem with suggesting "rewiring", but the emboldened portion is wrong. Our distance geographically is fixed. Any ability to connect over distance/close the distance more rapidly reduces the "reality" of that distance ("the shrinking globe"). Faster, more direct forms of communication can shrink distance, but they cannot "reinforce" what was already more or less absolute.

I think you're wrong: "Hey, when can you meet"; "When are you available"; "Where should we meet"; "How do I reach you".

The actual act of meeting is moot, since this is just a fact of life. But when media of interaction are involved, they reinforce the distance by definition.

Before the availability of interactive media, the notion of "meeting" was either happenstance, or planned long in advance. The invention of media created a mediation between agents; sure, it allowed for communication between agents, but specifically by reinforcing their separation.

Ignoring the fact that craigslist transactions generally occur in person, I'm surprised you're insisting in "connected" being limited to the face to face variety.

Fair point; connectedness transcends separateness in our time.

Humans cannot actually see themselves out of anthropocentrism. I find attempts to do so illusory. We cannot act in any other way, since our very actions/thought/etc are affirmations of anthropocentrism, even when anti-humanist as possible.

I actually think you're wrong, again. We receive empirical data anthropomorphically, but we can certainly think beyond anthropomorphism.

 

[Dak]

So, as I see it, the stock exchange and two people meeting at a 7-11 to trade a bicycle are merely unique facets of your "market." I don't see the stock exchange as "not counting."

I'm not saying it can't count, or doesn't count to some degree. Merely that it can count in varying degrees, and that the current indexes are counting less and less in both definitive terms and practical terms.

I think you're wrong: "Hey, when can you meet"; "When are you available"; "Where should we meet"; "How do I reach you".

The actual act of meeting is moot, since this is just a fact of life. But when media of interaction are involved, they reinforce the distance by definition.

Before the availability of interactive media, the notion of "meeting" was either happenstance, or planned long in advance. The invention of media created a mediation between agents; sure, it allowed for communication between agents, but specifically by reinforcing their separation.

I don't see what the circumstances surrounding meeting have to do with it (re: long vs short advance notice, happenstance or planned, etc).

Maybe you have some point, but you need to find another word to describe what you're trying to explain other than "reinforce". Distance is a barrier, and communication breaks down this barrier, it does not reinforce. To reinforce something is to increase it, strengthen it, etc. Communication does not strengthen or increase distance.

I actually think you're wrong, again. We receive empirical data anthropomorphically, but we can certainly think beyond anthropomorphism.

We can think about the idea of not-anthropocentrism, but not without doing so anthropocentrically. Our thoughts and actions are anthropocentric in themselves.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well I don't think anyone disagrees that stock indexes play roles. I'm suggesting the role isn't fixed. It changes depending on the actors and factors.

Here I was especially trying to point out that as the indexes gradually fail to accomplish the goals/comply with "reality", they will only further remove themselves from reflecting the "true" economy, or the majority of the economy. IPOs have been down for more than a decade, and the trend is to going private, not public. I was going to post some links but there were so many returns I suggest just googling it yourself. As far as the "Why", a less meta view was offered recently by Stanford:

IPOs slow down tech innovation by 40~%

Going public hamstrings your ability to take important risks. Companies have to get around this by "outsourcing" creativity and risk. Ultimately that is more expensive and (ironically) risky.

Yeah, the fact that most businesses are private - and don't have to report their financial data for the most part - makes stock indexes a dubious source of economic indicators to begin with. I didn't really find anything on google about a trend toward taking/keeping companies private, though I see that the number of public companies peaked in 1997/98 and has been in steady decline since. There are always mergers and acquisitions going on, and the IPO market has been weak too.

Going public certainly curbs risk-taking, though I don't understand how outsourcing innovation would turn out more expensive or risky on average. The obvious risk is that an R&D investment doesn't ultimately turn out a superior product/solution. A second risk is the management distraction of monitoring more employees/departments, and thus a more complex company. With outsourcing you can go to someone with a proven solution, or a strong established talent pool.

A fractional reserve banking system is of course systemic debt leveraging by definition. Accountants and economists from various non-Austrian schools think they have figured out "stable" leverage ratios. The problem is that once the ratio is reached this creates the same problem within a system that requires constant growth that having zero leveraging creates.

I would think there's a benefit from economies of scale and the added buying opportunities that come from controlling a greater asset base, regardless of whether the final leverage ratio has been reached or not.

As far as tax havens go:
1. I don't think the empty suits in Europe can do anything about them even if they wanted to.
2. IF they could shut down one variety, then other solutions would merely be found. Nothing makes capital flee for good like trying to keep it in.

The UK began requiring overseas territories like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to share tax information with the UK and a few other countries, which is a decent step. There have been calls for Switzerland and Luxembourg to increase transparency over bank clients, but not a whole lot of progress it seems. Back in 2009 the US sued the Swiss bank UBS to release the names of its American clients, and the result was something like a partial release of names + a settlement payout to end litigation, rather lame.

Of course, maybe you meant they should "do something" about them like make them unnecessary. Regardless of my beefs with various corporate behaviors, I have no problem with dodging the tax man. Just about anything Google (for instance) has been doing is more desirable than whatever the European bureaucrat borg wants with the money.

Wasn't really thinking about that. What are your ideas on how to make them unnecessary?

 

[Dak]

Yeah, the fact that most businesses are private - and don't have to report their financial data for the most part - makes stock indexes a dubious source of economic indicators to begin with. I didn't really find anything on google about a trend toward taking/keeping companies private, though I see that the number of public companies peaked in 1997/98 and has been in steady decline since. There are always mergers and acquisitions going on, and the IPO market has been weak too.

That's what I was referring to, as well as notables like Dell, Best Buy, etc.

Going public certainly curbs risk-taking, though I don't understand how outsourcing innovation would turn out more expensive or risky on average. The obvious risk is that an R&D investment doesn't ultimately turn out a superior product/solution. A second risk is the management distraction of monitoring more employees/departments, and thus a more complex company. With outsourcing you can go to someone with a proven solution, or a strong established talent pool.

I don't think outsourcing necessarily/always reduces complexity. Outsourcing leads to a level of opaqueness about project requirements and progress, besides the lack of control. While I think outsourcing certain aspects makes sense (like "housekeeping" type activities), something as critical to future success as R&D is not something I would outsource.

R&D must generally be longview, and stock indexes (like politics), reward short term gains and punish long views (since R&D money could be paying DIVIDENDSOMG)

I would think there's a benefit from economies of scale and the added buying opportunities that come from controlling a greater asset base, regardless of whether the final leverage ratio has been reached or not.

Controlling a greater asset base through leveraging is only beneficial when the asset base outperforms the demand of the leveraging. No one is good enough to keep that game going forever without a bailout of some sort. This is fed in the current system by constantly taking on new bets to cover the old. Eventually you run out of bets to take and/or are not paid even on the bets that you win (2008).

The UK began requiring overseas territories like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to share tax information with the UK and a few other countries, which is a decent step. There have been calls for Switzerland and Luxembourg to increase transparency over bank clients, but not a whole lot of progress it seems. Back in 2009 the US sued the Swiss bank UBS to release the names of its American clients, and the result was something like a partial release of names + a settlement payout to end litigation, rather lame.

Wasn't really thinking about that. What are your ideas on how to make them unnecessary?

Why do companies seek tax havens? Because of all the above BS. Individuals do the same things. One mans loophole is another's smart financial planning.

Governments have demonstrated no reasonable ability to manage money in a wise fashion nor subject themselves to any sort of internal discipline, and the only external discipline has usually been bloody one way or another. Starve the beast.

Reduce tax rates. Stop the international double dipping. Etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not saying it can't count, or doesn't count to some degree. Merely that it can count in varying degrees, and that the current indexes are counting less and less in both definitive terms and practical terms.

I would say it's counting more and more...

I don't see what the circumstances surrounding meeting have to do with it (re: long vs short advance notice, happenstance or planned, etc).

Maybe you have some point, but you need to find another word to describe what you're trying to explain other than "reinforce". Distance is a barrier, and communication breaks down this barrier, it does not reinforce. To reinforce something is to increase it, strengthen it, etc. Communication does not strengthen or increase distance.

Yes, it does. You have to think about it dialectically.

In order for communication to work at all, it needs distance. Communication implies distance, and new media implies great distance, sometimes international distance. The internet connects people; but it simultaneously reminds us that we are separate.

With the concept of media/mediation, we're introduced to a dialectic of connection and separation. In a dialectical sense, the more connection is increased, so is separation; instead of being inverse, they're related in a direct sense. The reinforcement of connection is the reinforcement of separation.

We can think about the idea of not-anthropocentrism, but not without doing so anthropocentrically. Our thoughts and actions are anthropocentric in themselves.

Assuming the thing doing the thinking is a human...

 

[Dak]

I would say it's counting more and more...

In that digits increase. It's called inflation.

Yes, it does. You have to think about it dialectically.

In order for communication to work at all, it needs distance. Communication implies distance, and new media implies great distance, sometimes international distance. The internet connects people; but it simultaneously reminds us that we are separate.

With the concept of media/mediation, we're introduced to a dialectic of connection and separation. In a dialectical sense, the more connection is increased, so is separation; instead of being inverse, they're related in a direct sense. The reinforcement of connection is the reinforcement of separation.

To begin with, "new" media is ever changing, so what is it?*. Secondly, if media can imply distance in any way, "new" media implies much less distance than "old" media. We understand distance in two ways: physical separation and time required to close the distance ("I live an hour away"). "New" media reduces the time required for communication compared to "old" media, and therefore reduces that element of distance in similar fashion to how airplanes, bullet trains, and autos reduced distance for physical contact.

Assuming the thing doing the thinking is a human...

I'm using the accepted categorization of our species. Label it "post-human" and then "post-anthropocentrically" works the same. Whatever you want to label [us], we cannot think or act without being us in our/itself. Unless you want to suggest some are more evolved into other than others, which would be very interesting indeed.

 

[Einherjar86]

In that digits increase. It's called inflation.

Call it whatever you want.

To begin with, "new" media is ever changing. Secondly, if media can imply distance in any way, "new" media implies much less distance than "old" media. We understand distance in two ways: physical separation and time required to close the distance ("I live an hour away"). "New" media reduces the time required for communication compared to "old" media, and therefore reduces that element of distance in similar fashion to how airplanes, bullet trains, and autos reduced distance for physical contact.

You're not getting the dialectical component. I see what you're saying, but it isn't the cultural "unconscious" that media creates. By reinforcing connection, media technology is actively altering the way we conceive of distance; and it's concretizing distance as a necessary component of the way we connect.

I'm talking with you right now, but this form of communication only exists because we accept a necessary distance. We close in a temporal sense as we expand spatially. And as we interact via media technology, our subjectivity dissipates. Media, and even the senses, are not tools at our disposal; they are agential apparatuses mediating subjects in all directions. As we become less subjective, and filter more through our technologies, we face another way in which "the human" evolves...

I'm using the accepted categorization of our species. Label it "post-human" and then "post-anthropocentrically" works the same. Whatever you want to label [us], we cannot think or act without being us in our/itself. Unless you want to suggest some are more evolved into other than others, which would be very interesting indeed.

I would say that, in large part, our consciousness is already being removed into the technosphere.

 

[Dak]

Call it whatever you want.

Inflation adjusted figures are important. Of course, the link below only uses official inflation numbers....which have been tampered with more and more over the years to keep official inflation numbers down - so we are actually further behind than even the chart suggests.

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/chart.jpg

The current number in real terms doesn't even meet the highs of the dotcom boom.

You're not getting the dialectical component. I see what you're saying, but it isn't the cultural "unconscious" that media creates. By reinforcing connection, media technology is actively altering the way we conceive of distance; and it's concretizing distance as a necessary component of the way we connect.

I'm talking with you right now, but this form of communication only exists because we accept a necessary distance. We close in a temporal sense as we expand spatially. And as we interact via media technology, our subjectivity dissipates. Media, and even the senses, are not tools at our disposal; they are agential apparatuses mediating subjects in all directions. As we become less subjective, and filter more through our technologies, we face another way in which "the human" evolves...

Well I already agreed it's altering the way we conceive of distance, just not that it's concretizing (better word choice than reinforce) distance. Distance was already as concrete as could be. It's concreteness could not be increased, only decreased or remain stable.

If we want to include senses as agential apparatus separate from the subject (which I take issue with but for the sake of argument), then how can we become any less subjective? The subject remains the elusive "center", and redesignating given elements of the center as "Rings" around it does not make it less subjective but more so. It does however, support the argument for the subjectiveness of apparati - which may have been the aim.

I would say that, in large part, our consciousness is already being removed into the technosphere.

Well it's pretty accepted at this point that we have "outsourced our memory" to computers. I just don't see this as significantly different to outsourcing it to clay tablets, books, phonographs, photographs, etc. We have merely compressed and more sufficiently indexed it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Inflation adjusted figures are important. Of course, the link below only uses official inflation numbers....which have been tampered with more and more over the years to keep official inflation numbers down - so we are actually further behind than even the chart suggests.

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/chart.jpg

The current number in real terms doesn't even meet the highs of the dotcom boom.

I'm only saying that the stock market isn't some odious vulgarization of the real market. It's a very important component of the market, with very important consequences.

Well I already agreed it's altering the way we conceive of distance, just not that it's concretizing (better word choice than reinforce) distance. Distance was already as concrete as could be. It's concreteness could not be increased, only decreased or remain stable.

Reinforcement, concretization... these mean something different from "increase" in a quantifiable sense. When I say distance is reinforced, or concretized, I mean that some material force enters into our lives that reminds us of it, that makes distance discernible. The concreteness of distance - what you're taking to be its actual material space, its measurement - could only be acknowledged abstractly, prior to media intervention. Now, communication is possible over great distances; but the distance itself must be realized, it must be traversed by inhuman technologies. And humans, as much as they rely on and utilize these technologies, come to concrete terms with their alienation and separation from each other.

The material truth is that we aren't communicating as humans right now (and I would question whether we ever communicate as humans).

If we want to include senses as agential apparatus separate from the subject (which I take issue with but for the sake of argument), then how can we become any less subjective? The subject remains the elusive "center", and redesignating given elements of the center as "Rings" around it does not make it less subjective but more so. It does however, support the argument for the subjectiveness of apparati - which may have been the aim.

Subjectivity is an objective illusion, or fantasy. Thus, it's very real. But the senses aren't an extension of subjectivity; the senses are what give rise to subjectivity. They exist prior to subjecthood. Only after the fact do we appropriate them in a way that identifies them as for human beings.

What modernity has shown us, with the invention of mass media and the cinema show, is that our eyes are the ultimate movie screen; our ears, the ultimate phonograph. We've completed a Cartesian loop whereby we retrospect our own subjectivity and believe our senses to be the essential tools we use to gather data about the world. The challenge to empiricism, on the contrary, is that our senses constitute the ultimate ideological apparatus, as you've already suggested by claiming that we can't think non-anthropomorphically.

I would insist, however, that thought itself can be non-anthropomorphic because thought need not necessarily conform to sensory perceptions; it just so happens that, after millennia of evolutionary developments and internalization of the world according to sensory perception, our very consciousness is constituted by the way we perceive. If we make an effort to explore and confirm modes of thinking beyond the ideological appropriation of the senses (something that our Western culture, along with all philosophies associated with whatever market economy you claim we possess), then we can approach the actualization of non-anthropomorphic thought.

Well it's pretty accepted at this point that we have "outsourced our memory" to computers. I just don't see this as significantly different to outsourcing it to clay tablets, books, phonographs, photographs, etc. We have merely compressed and more sufficiently indexed it.

It's merely another step in the long process. The trick is seeing all this compression, indexation, and transcription as the way in which our ability to know has always been, in a strange way, apart from us. Our senses themselves only become natural after the fact, and then we accept our forms of knowledge as natural and efficient. But these external technologies are not so much extensions of our senses as they are new manifestations of the senses which are always-already external.