83,274
edits
Template:M intro systems financialisation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Definitions: let us call “financialisation” the goal of reducing things to their most calculable, and manipulable ''values''. So: David | Definitions: let us call “financialisation” the goal of reducing things to their most calculable, and manipulable ''values''. So: [[David Graeber]]’s ''social'' indebtedness versus ''monetary'' indebtedness. | ||
The most manipulable, [[fungible]], calculable, aggregatable articulation of [[value]] known to western society is [[cash]] — [[degenerate fiat]] cash, sorry crypto bros— and it is what we describe our relationships in. Hence “financialisation”, but it needs not involve money. Reviews, five point performance appraisals, RAG statuses, star ratings, measurable criteria — anything which can be ordered, pivoted, Pareto ratioed, and put into a ranked, tranched order. | The most manipulable, [[fungible]], calculable, aggregatable articulation of [[value]] known to western society is [[cash]] — [[degenerate fiat]] cash, sorry crypto bros— and it is what we describe our relationships in. Hence “financialisation”, but it needs not involve money. Reviews, five point performance appraisals, RAG statuses, star ratings, measurable criteria — anything which can be ordered, pivoted, Pareto ratioed, and put into a ranked, tranched order. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Our own attitudes, and the stories we tell ourselves, and each other, matter. If we settle for premium mediocre that is what we will get | Our own attitudes, and the stories we tell ourselves, and each other, matter. If we settle for premium mediocre that is what we will get | ||
The ineffable value of [[uncertainty]] and the difference between ''risk'' (a calculable probability) and ''uncertainty'' (intractable, black box, non-linear). | |||
The [[modernist]] yen — imperative — ''need'' — to reduce uncertainty to risk, and the false comfort this gives. The Viniar problem. | |||
But non-linear loss is the consequence, and corollary of non-linear opportunity and vice versa. If we put our selves on a linear track that approximates the non-linear reality we will be fine until there is actual event at either end. Persuading everyone else to get on the linear track is a good strategy. As long as it works. If you can persuade everyone in the system to behave, the system will “behave” — in the sense of not producing unexpected outcomes, and not necessarily optimising, or producing particularly ''good'' outcomes. Volatility will drop. ''As long as everyone behaves''. | |||
Not behaving is arbitraging: exploiting structural differentials you are not meant to see, and that the loyal behavers cannot see. They may be obscured by the behaver’s internal model/narrative, or by moral principles. In either case arbitrage behaviour is destructive to the present configuration of the system, and those who stand to gain from the present configuration will be hostile to arbitrage. Arbitrage is ''defection''. The system will be set up to make arbitrage difficult, and to eradicate it, that is to say. The system will self purge. To the extent it doesn’t this will be because of novelty — a previously undetected arbitrage opportunity has arisen. This could be a latent arbitrage — that was always there, but no-one noticed, or one arising from new technology, new language or a new independent event presenting itself to the system | |||
The longer the system has been in play the less likely a latent arbitrage is to have lain undiscovered, and the fewer existentially threatening independent, non-agent events ([[force majeure]]) there will be (Lindy effect). New technology and new language arising spontaneously within the system can be largely controlled, if you so wish, but extraneous technology and language cannot, and for these the Lindy effect does not apply. | |||
''What if I turn out to be wrong?'' | |||
====Consequences of this instinct==== | ====Consequences of this instinct==== | ||
*Private equity | *Private equity | ||
| Line 47: | Line 60: | ||
The informal and formal lines of information in any organisation - in this take [[Jane Jacobs]], [[desire lines]] | The informal and formal lines of information in any organisation - in this take [[Jane Jacobs]], [[desire lines]] | ||
1 battleground: onworld v offworld==== | |||