3 ms·

Morally speaking, is ((profit<->negative externality) <-> (speculation<->liquidity provision)) a tautology i could get any of u curious about? It motivates a s

Morally speaking, is ((profit<->negative externality) <-> (speculation<->liquidity provision)) a tautology i could get any of u curious about? It motivates a search for the mystical beast: Marxist financier (not the pastry?) (Not to mention elucidates the boney/HF-inspired principle of intertwining* (wrt scaling — CENDEC, decentralizing by centralizing — marxist-financing-in-itself)) *https://archive.is/FxHSl https://archive.is/FxHSl https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40603483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40603483

aebtebeten 2y ago
Defo! (but not necessarily a tautology: there are models where it's false, it just happens to be true both for Marxists and for financiers — or have we some axioms which would make these models inconsistent?) Note that 1984's Inner Party, despite not owning anything, benefits from everything; compare Plato's Guardians: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 (or Номенклатура?) On a straight CenFi note, even Cicero is more subtle than he'd appear by my contextless quote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796726 ; he may have enlisted Cato to frown upon usury, but I take http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0048%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D42 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... as implying that he smiles upon clipping coupons: Sed ut pecuniae non quaerendae solum ratio est, verum etiam collocandae, quae perpetuos sumptus suppeditet... [the distinction between ownership and benefit in both code and common law jurisdictions has its roots in roman law, but unless either of you are really interested I'm not going to delve in that graveyard] EDIT: HF? Our Ford? EDIT2: for an SAP advertorial, I like TLTF! pigs acorns etc.
082349872349872 2y ago
TIL; I was more familiar with a different product of Lorraine: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWv-grOihXZOItYsKjAX3lR6EgkrAR5Nll-g&s https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWv-gr...

aebtebeten 2y ago

Defo! (but not necessarily a tautology: there are models where it's false, it just happens to be true both for Marxists and for financiers — or have we some axioms which would make these models inconsistent?) Note that 1984's Inner Party, despite not owning anything, benefits from everything; compare Plato's Guardians: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 (or Номенклатура?) On a straight CenFi note, even Cicero is more subtle than he'd appear by my contextless quote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796726 ; he may have enlisted Cato to frown upon usury, but I take http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0048%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D42 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... as implying that he smiles upon clipping coupons: Sed ut pecuniae non quaerendae solum ratio est, verum etiam collocandae, quae perpetuos sumptus suppeditet... [the distinction between ownership and benefit in both code and common law jurisdictions has its roots in roman law, but unless either of you are really interested I'm not going to delve in that graveyard] EDIT: HF? Our Ford? EDIT2: for an SAP advertorial, I like TLTF! pigs acorns etc.

082349872349872 2y ago

TIL; I was more familiar with a different product of Lorraine: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWv-grOihXZOItYsKjAX3lR6EgkrAR5Nll-g&s https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWv-gr...