Cost Containment

Gaming the Collective-Risk Dimension

Capitalists are prone to a containment strategy. When economists talk about “bubbles” they are referring to the effect of containment.

Pent-up demand, for example, is a bubble. Resisting demand (reducing it to a near-zero marginal cost dimension) does not eliminate the risk associated with it, it contains it, and when it busts out, watch out.

When demand, resisted by the capitalist to contain costs, busts out of the container there is a “reaction.”

(Articles on “gamma risk” by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.

Gamma risk can be used to determine the arbitrage argument. The creative attributes of the argument determine timing, which determines probable risk occupying space over time. Timely occupation is a function of avoiding the risk since it cannot be eliminated.

Although risk is an objective reality that can neither be created or destroyed, it can be creatively managed to fit the argument. Typically, the objective–the measurable value of the argument–is to conserve the risk-value, which most people consider to be a nuisance. Objectivists describe the nuisance value as an “objective reality” that attains a “natural identity” and most people don’t argue with that, accepting the harm as an unavoidable risk ontology that can occur “at any time” to occupy their space.

It’s important to keep in mind that the risk is an objective quantity but its management is creatively addjective. The result is an unpredictable addjective reality that affects timing and the perceived liability–the causal attributes–of the risk.

The risk, for example, is made to be “big” to over-advantage its value at the extreme margin. This marginal existence–like zero marginal cost–forms “the argument” or the problem to be solved. It’s like a math problem with missing variables, to which value is attributed. The attribution takes time, which itself yields value “added” to the equation. It takes time to discover, or measure, the objectivity of the argument yielding to an objective value, cause, or purpose, and technicians call this “convergence,” as do many philosophers. The yield is a sum certain but you can play around with it all you want till the jig is up. Then it is a simple matter of reinventing the problem, which I refer to as “novation of the risk.”

Novation re-establishes the terms of the argument. It confirms the conditions of a recurrent, contractual obligation called “the big risk,” which is always being con-tested.

Being contested, the value of the “big risk” is renewed, affirming its logically positive, legal authority, typically reduced to being the result of an uncontrollable, objective-risk ontology that we all must collectively grin and bear.)

Reactionaries, although they say they are acting with the authority to control the mob (the terms of protection–the utility implied in the social contract), they are really acting to confiscate property. In other words, they act to consolidate wealth and power, but since outright confiscation, protected by the state, is obviously fascism, it occurs by means of controlling a nuisance, whereby owning property is conditional–conforming to community values with final authority from the top down.

The bubble is a metaphor for technical support and resistance and capitalists are prone (from the top down) to extreme support and resistance because it creates an arbitrage argument. It is (you see) not an “objective reality” but an “addjective reality” that is fully culpable. Liability, however, is legally limited with an on-demand, free-market legitimacy to contain demand (the risk) that determines it. This is what nihilism looks like–it is a philosophy of risk management that always manages to annihilate itself, always existing with the threat of unacceptable amounts of harm, which no one in their right mind wants to sign to.

Nihilists afford protection (utility) until they become (like the mayor and his council) the nuisance to be avoided. By popular demand, occupying more and more space over time, a nuisance is likely to be eliminated. When the big ugly monster (the nuisance) comes knocking on YOUR door to claim your self to be their private property (characteristically managed with command authority, for the common good, supported by the social contract) it’s time to slay the monster that contains all the costs.

Advertisements

About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Political-Economy and Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s