Tag Archives: economics

¡C!

¡Consolidated! (PostBailout AdornoStrength-HowieLivin’ Mix)

Back from 1989 with a double major in Armchair Revolution and a minor in Personal Theory it’s -¡C!-

Not a consumer product – yet. They are of the same mind as i about money = it sux. So go get some more of their beats and smarmy smartass sciences from them for free:

http://www.consolidatedmusic.org/

After, you can go talk to at least 1 (one) of the people in your neighborhood. Just to say “hi”. Do it! You won’t regret it.

For Adam (who’s right despite having short hair) and Tommy (who understands these ol’ sk00l Bay Thangz)

Decolonize yourselves. It’s going to be an outstanding day.

|v| = |L|

[Economics wit’ B0B]

I have spent a long ass time studying the ways humans turn tools into modes, modes into institutions, institutions into people of incredible power, and life into an empty gray hallway of needless strife and extra effort for negative gain . It’s almost funny, except for the part where i have to live here with you retards. Here’s something to grok about economics.

The word “economics” stems from “eco”, which is “that which is without/external” from which “ecology” also stems. Ecology is the study of this environment, and the study of human interactions and relations with it would be something like “ecophylology”. “-Nomics” indicates verbal modeling, description, naming; but NOT study. No Logos here, just taxonomy. If one wanted to study interactions based on quanta, one would use the lowest common unit in the systems observed; this is a unit of energy known as an erg. Hence, “Ergonomics” or “human factors”, which is like applied physics and engineering with a harm-reduction/efficiency maximizing spin. The erg has been quantifiable for a long time, and has been used as the base measure for Labor Value Theories quite effectively. When you think about it, talking about human production systems in terms of money and quarterly reports is rather like using shiny rocks as the unit in which all studies of birds shall be expressed; it’s drawing an abstraction from a symbolic tool and calling the model done rather than, you know, actually observing stuff.

Oh, and it’s not “fee-aht” currency; that’s a grouse. Good one too, the whole tax-value thing. No, no; it’s “fae-yaht” which means “agreed price – market value”.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiat#Turkish

http://www.soilandhealth.org/05steve’sfolder/0501steveswritings/050107surplusvalue.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_wave_principle

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayuCGEGBjZUM&refer=home

http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/imp_notices/2003/dtc/set/set_5415.pdf

http://wallstreetpit.com/sec-announces-end-of-consolidated-supervised-entities-program/

https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS00F0059M/07DF0K.13OJ0H_GS-00F-0059M_JHT00CORP.PDF

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A01E0DF133EE333A25753C3A9639C946197D6CF

http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/er/pdf/2005cons-tbls_053006.pdf

Now go meet some neighbors.

Smith Operatorus

These are divisive times, and the fractous ebb of popular action signals an accademically developmental era for democratic unionists.

So let’s try to do better than our Forebears and Betters™.
Let’s get the principles of populism down to provable precepts.

For All to inarguably accept a precept as Givens, it has to become Law.

This is a lengthy and nebulously defined “scientific” phenominon. Regardez the declention ofPythagorias’ Theoreum -vs- Boyle’s Law.

The reasons for this obviously skewed, specialty-dependent and arbitrary nomenclature being bandied about by our Expert class of Authorities are variously incompetence, corruption and petty stupidity in differing ratios. In general, though, the gestault of the Academic Authority will move towards acceptance of a given principle if it is arguably true (and stated falsifiably), or at least gives them enough to chaw on that Papers can be written, thus affording the individuated Authority Units of current Academia opportunity to advance thier own personal Status.

Unless of course it proposes a direct danger to the Dominant Culture or it’s Control Authority, in which case a discovered principle, it’s technological applications and quite possibly it’s proponer and thier adherants are generally bashed, banned and burned in public.

Therefore the Populist in search of a Principia Primae upon which to rest a less-Elitist Demagogiae Democratii, one which forgoes the repugnant and lazy side-step towards the hated Republic By Patricians, must belabor a bit the methodology, lest an obvious Truth™ be badmouthed as balderdash too simple to besmudge another blog entry with.

V ≣ L

Take our precious Labor Theory of Value, which should rightfully be a Law.
I mean, think about it. Even gold is valueless as is, especially in a State of Nature. It’s Labor, applied and layered, that gives an object of gold any actual Utility Value that it has. Bread has more Value than raw wheat, and good 9-grain bread more again due to increased Labor enhancing the Utility Value.

UV L

Kenysian Value theory, and economics per Authoritee Academe, shied purposefully away from such and abandoned the Utility based science that had been built in favor of an quantatively aggregationist, statistically specious, psuedo-science cum propaganda platform far more useful as a soapbox for industrial appologism than as a tool for inquiry. Oh, maybe it could be used by a marketteer to describe preference changes of a target demographic in a given set of circumstances, since Preferences are MainGod for market economics and it’s flimsy, mutable excuse for Value. We can suppose also that one can use Thier™ stats against Them™, but why?

{∑∞⇅⋓ॐ≢x(n+1)}≣¡|Justice + Equality|!

(There Does Not Exist a Theory of Everything that is Strictly Equivalent To a Strong Argument For the Absolute Value of Justice and Liberty)*

In light of the task at hand, being devising or divining a logical expression of principles governing Human Social Macrodynamics (political economics), let the following operators be (re)defined THUS:

means Authority.
means Strictly Equivalent To.
means Given (Because).
means Therefore.
means Dialectically Reciprociprocal.

This expresses a relationship which may be negative, neutral or possitive with regards to impact. A model to consider here is English and spin on a poolball, which impart with reversed direction when vectored off another ball.

⤴⤷A⥤B=⤵⤶B+⤵⤹A
or
¡A!-⇅¡B!

where ¡! is indicative of an integrated unity of the multi-phasic set of vectors and forces describing the movement of the enclosed Variable Unit.**

means There Exists
means There Does Not Exist.
means Is Not Equal To.

These are our Operators; let us pray that we never have to use them against the Innocent™. Except and . They’re cool looking. with a circle around it is of course the traditional “Authority” symbol, -v- the Circle A™ of our Beloved Future Perfect, Anarchy. Go figure why they aren’t standard unicode characters.

Better yet, go remind yourself of the Twin Tards, the Authority Agents whose “Enlightenened” ideas we need to supplant and surmount to succeed in seeding Democracy.


John Locke: Ovaltine

To make his arguments John Locke had to re-write some of the “Noble Savage” drivel of J-J Rousseau, upon whose Natural Law our idea of the Social Contract is hung, tacked up like a Proclaimation the Sheriff was told to nail onto the doors of our peasants’ hovels, en masse under the cover of an Absinthe-flooded night.


Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Return of The Golden Rectangle?

Refresh your heads as breifly as possible (if you wish) on these gentlemen and thier odd ideas. Ruminate about thier Class, perhaps, and what thier goals were, if you think they indeed had any.
Then we’ll move on.

* One should likely insert the words “Piss-Poor, Senseless and Hastily Fabricated” prior to “Theory of Everything” in the refering sentence to get more literal translation from the equation above it; however, this is contrapositive to it’s given and nominatively eponymous raison d’etre.

**(Luckily, we won’t be doing physics proofs with demographics, per se. Your Candidate is notably weak on the quantificationisms.)