3 ms·

One thing on the ontology of capital: once enough capital (billions, trillions) is gathered in one single control point there is a phase transition: from a mean

One thing on the ontology of capital: once enough capital (billions, trillions) is gathered in one single control point there is a phase transition: from a means towards an end (build X, destroy Y) it becomes a manner of escaping reality: with enough (crony or not) capital you can keep afloat a business no matter how bad it is, how badly run, how useless or how dangerous the products. Not that 'there is no skin in the game', but there is no skin, there is no game anymore.

eastbound 4y ago
Whereas with government, you can keep afloat a government no matter how bad it is, how badly run, how useless or how dangerous it is. Except, as opposed to a company, it can’t crash like Enron or be threatened by competition. It doesn’t even need to fight to stay afloat.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  You can't. At some point disaster and dumb leadership conspire to push the people and elite to revolution. We're no where near that now, but don't be fooled that governments are untoppable. They aren't. Every former regime had its peak. You can see how structural faults in US government could produce the tinder. The threefold and interdependent issue of the US Senate and subsequently Electoral College resulting in Presidential and Legislative and ultimately Judicial representation by a smaller and smaller group of constituents. The reason we have legitimacy narratives today stems from this very structural fault. But tinder alone does not produce a fire. An unforeseen event poised to exploit the flaws of the fault and uniquely incompetent leadership conspire to make régime ancien.
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  By control point you can understand a corporation or a government, no need for false dichotomies: in the age of capital there is no beyond. Enron was a weak company, nowhere near the escape reality velocity: at peak, in 2000, they had a market capitalization of $60 billion, at the same time Microsoft was at $600 billion [1]. Also, any company worth their capital knows very well that "competition is for losers" [2] and dreams of the ultimate consolidation [3]. [1] The Largest Public Companies by Market Cap (2000–2022), https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/largest-companies-from-2000-to-2022/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/largest-companies-from-2... [2] Competition Is for Losers, https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-..., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k [3] The Consolidation Curve, https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-consolidation-curve https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-consolidation-curve

eastbound 4y ago

Whereas with government, you can keep afloat a government no matter how bad it is, how badly run, how useless or how dangerous it is. Except, as opposed to a company, it can’t crash like Enron or be threatened by competition. It doesn’t even need to fight to stay afloat.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
You can't. At some point disaster and dumb leadership conspire to push the people and elite to revolution. We're no where near that now, but don't be fooled that governments are untoppable. They aren't. Every former regime had its peak. You can see how structural faults in US government could produce the tinder. The threefold and interdependent issue of the US Senate and subsequently Electoral College resulting in Presidential and Legislative and ultimately Judicial representation by a smaller and smaller group of constituents. The reason we have legitimacy narratives today stems from this very structural fault. But tinder alone does not produce a fire. An unforeseen event poised to exploit the flaws of the fault and uniquely incompetent leadership conspire to make régime ancien.
ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
By control point you can understand a corporation or a government, no need for false dichotomies: in the age of capital there is no beyond. Enron was a weak company, nowhere near the escape reality velocity: at peak, in 2000, they had a market capitalization of $60 billion, at the same time Microsoft was at $600 billion [1]. Also, any company worth their capital knows very well that "competition is for losers" [2] and dreams of the ultimate consolidation [3]. [1] The Largest Public Companies by Market Cap (2000–2022), https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/largest-companies-from-2000-to-2022/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/largest-companies-from-2... [2] Competition Is for Losers, https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-..., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k [3] The Consolidation Curve, https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-consolidation-curve https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-consolidation-curve