Inside the System

Eva:

While in any nation, wages are a guaranteed return on investment of effort without respect to the profitability of the enterprise.   So, just to be clear: you regard that there is, or is not, any value to be assigned to that guarantee by others?   So the total compensation is the value of the wages plus the value of the guranteed rate of return.    I think that you share a majority view about that -- there is no value in that guarantee.   That is why, for me, I did not hire the majority at any time in the last 30 years and guarantee their rate of return.   That would have no value.   But I am not speaking for the majority.   I am speaking only for me, and what I can offer of value.  Apparently, that guaranteed rate of return for effort as wages is not something of value.    There is another theory once directed at me that I could not make a living without taking advantage of the wage labor of others.    It turns out that isn't true at all.   It is entirely possible to earn more on average than the POTUS without any employees at all and in the past and present political environment, those who can do.  

When we labor for guaranteed rate of return on investment of effort as wages, we agree to a rate of return.    Some of that might even be in the form of equity-- it is called backend sunshine, and happens all the time.    But it is usually negotiated in advance, not afterwards.    Negotiating the reward after the risk has been borne is like trying to join the group that pooled together after the lottery was won.

Is there some view of the Universe that makes us believe it actually cares when we say "we are not interested in profit?"   When that happens, does the Universe call down to the risk/reward Department and tell them "ignore this guy -- he's not interested in profit, so don't expose him to any loss, either.   Make sure his efforts realize neither profit nor loss, he is taking a pass on all that."

I need to pretend that I didn't figure out the answer to this question of risk/reward and the labor theory of value 30 years ago.   I didn't run my experiment for Census, nor the Tribe, nor the Lit Department, nor those that provide the Sacred for we grubbingly secular Profane, nor any of the Herdists doing their little collectivist dance.  It has been immensely satisfying not buying into all that bullshit.   I hope that bullshit eventually works out for those still buying it decade after decade after decade...any day now, no doubt.   Meanwhile, I'm grateful that my one and only life didn't pass by crippled by all that.

You are building a future for the masses, without the odd fringe anecdotes.   I understand that.  I understood it 30 years ago.   I'll watch, and cheer.   Good luck with that.   Take all the time you need.   But, this is where I came into this ever-running movie...

Oncle F.

Awe christ Fred that link has that dirty Foucalt word...shhhh lest loopy Janet comes to comment!

Tarantino and cultural feminism

“Class is part of the paradigm of art,” says Sontag; however, according to Brophy[5] , it is not so much class that is part of the paradigm of art, but rather the dialectic, and subsequent futility, of class. It could be said that von Ludwig[6] holds that we have to choose between preconceptual dialectic theory and subconstructive feminism. The characteristic theme of Abian’s[7] model of cultural feminism is the common ground between sexual identity and class.

The primary theme of the works of Tarantino is the rubicon of predialectic sexuality. But any number of dedeconstructivisms concerning Lacanist obscurity may be discovered. Bataille suggests the use of cultural feminism to modify class.

Therefore, in Four Rooms, Tarantino examines Lacanist obscurity; in Reservoir Dogs, however, he analyses capitalist materialism. A number of desublimations concerning not situationism, but neosituationism exist.

But Foucault promotes the use of Lacanist obscurity to deconstruct sexism. Postmodernist textual theory implies that the establishment is capable of significance.

It could be said that Marx suggests the use of Lacanist obscurity to challenge and read society. If cultural feminism holds, we have to choose between modernism and subcultural desublimation.

However, the premise of cultural feminism states that truth, somewhat surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning. Tilton[8] holds that the works of Tarantino are postmodern.

1. la Fournier, L. T. ed. (1984) Semioticist Discourses: Lacanist obscurity and modernism. Cambridge University Press

2. Prinn, V. (1977) Modernism and Lacanist obscurity. University of North Carolina Press

3. Dietrich, R. W. Q. ed. (1993) Reassessing Realism: Lacanist obscurity and modernism. O’Reilly & Associates

4. Geoffrey, K. (1985) Lacanist obscurity in the works of Tarantino. University of Oregon Press

5. Brophy, J. P. U. ed. (1993) The Rubicon of Reality: Modernism and Lacanist obscurity. University of Georgia Press

6. von Ludwig, V. (1975) Capitalist theory, modernism and nationalism. Harvard University Press

7. Abian, Q. P. ed. (1993) The Iron Key: Lacanist obscurity and modernism. University of Massachusetts Press

8. Tilton, K. (1985) Modernism and Lacanist obscurity. Panic Button Books

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).

This installation of the Generator has delivered 10015841 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational.

The most deliciously savory line from that page:

More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks”. An on-line copy is available from Monash University.

Fred,

Yes, of course there's value  in investing. This is made clear in the Keynesian accout of how economics works.

Marxists call this into question, not progressives, of which I'm not one, either.

The issue I raised (strictly in terms of theoretical divisions within the field) concern whether or not investments exhibit behavior consistent with 'Rational Expectations' as cited by Austria and quantitiozed by Chicago...or not.

Also, re Cambridges, What is 'profit'?

Is this a 'fair' outcome of a set rate that's set by how the system works, (and if so, 'fair' by whose standard), or rather do they simply take as much as the law permits from the wage pile (ie variable capital) and call it profit: "rape followed by seduction" in Fredese?

Eva

re#28

Okay, everyone but an Austrian is a 'progressive'. And everyone not named 'Baratheon' uses numbers.

More to the point: as someone who doesn't belive in data piles to begin with, it's great to say that those who believe in 'one data pile are 'progressives'.

If it were that simple then ALL companies would succeed by "following that thar model".  

Again, I never said I was against using data or that any economist who does is progressive - that's how you're misrepresenting my argument to score cheap talking points. It was clumsy at first, but now that you've been corrected and persist in misrepresenting, it's just plain dishonest.

I have degrees in economics and law and I work in one of the most significant financial institutions in the world. Please do tell me more about what specifically makes you more qualified to speak about economics than I am.

Eva:

Yes, of course there's value  in investing.

Wages are a guaranteed return of investment in effort/value.   My question was about the value of that guarantee.

Not all investments are guaranteed.  (How would that be possible in this universe?)   Without coercion/force, in order for there to be guaranteed investment, there must be investment at risk of loss.   Risk of loss in the universe is endemic and cannot be unilaterally repealed or wished away.  Who is it that guarantees the investment?

With coercion/force, risk can be shed unwillingly onto others, such as, taxpayers, for the benefit of some few outside of the bounds of free association.

Under free association, peers living in freedom choose their exposure to risk.   Modern economies evolved to provide choices under an ethical model.

An ethical model does not include showing up after the lottery ticket wins and wanting in on the pooled group risk taking.

An ethical model does not include pointing a gun at the many, making them unwitting shareholders in Solyndra or Curt Schilling's Studio 38, and creating a political cronyism based game of connected chutes and ladders, heads a few win, tails the many pay the bill.    Not only lousy ethically, but exactly moral hazard and the killer of focused discipline in an ethical risk/reward model.

Seriously?  Curt Schilling?

Oncle F.

""One of the sad parts of working in the game industry is that once you move into management you have less and less time to play the games,""

Really?

Hi Robert, nice to see you again.

re 33:

>>>If you're asserting there is a single data set that economists can use to objectively model the economy as a whole, then yes, that is a progressive view of economics and the scope of human knowledge.>>>

Fama, Hansen, & Schiller use a universally-accepted 'single' data pile. The first two are not 'progressive' by any known standard--only Schiller is.

I'm curious to know exctly what instituition would give a degree in economics that features Austrian? Cam Newton University? Did you steal laptops together? As for your 'financial institution', I hear that your boss was apprehended by the Mexican narcos yesterday. So is a promotion in order.

More to the point: whatever your 'qualifications', you're made exactly zero real factual points, so far. That makes you a talking horse with nothing to say.

EM