[Nettime-bold] (no subject)

[integer@www.god-emil.dk]

1stl! = rekomendaz!on = 01 edukaz!on + 01 zpelchekr
= krnt rout!n = mozt dezp!kabl = zan!taz!on++



2ndl!

chaos in economies

x = cx(1 - x) is known as the standard logistics difference equation. 
it models among other things the way in which the population of a 
product grows within its potential market. in this context,
the constant c is an amalgam of two factors. the first represents 
productivity - the number of product units which can be realised by one
unit
of human effort. this is amplified by production technology. 
the second represents the number of product units which
can be sold into the market by one unit of human effort. 
this is amplified by communications technology. however it is
diminished by competition. the population of a product within a market 
is thus held in balance by a mechanism similar to
that which holds life-form populations in balance with their environments. 


nature yields bounteously the needs of life in return for human labour. 
in the absence of war. oppression and exploitation
all could therefore live in comfort and well-being. 
the value of c provided by nature (let us suppose it's around 1.3 or
1.4) is more than adequate for the needs of mankind. 
it creates an economy with a smooth productivity curve. 
but the human life-form then started to develop technology. 
first tools then the wheel. then machines. then automation.
computers. communications and mass-media. 

the smooth sigmoid reached to ever-greater heights. 
once c passed 2.34 the curve started to 'ring' as it reached the top.
that is - production over-shot and then fell back to its stable rate. 
the ringing became more pronounced until at c = 2.9 it
gave birth to an almost steady (albeit shallow) rhythm of boom/bust 
which western economies have gradually seen emerge from the end of world
war 2. 
nevertheless the ratio between boom and bust
gradually fades away (proving every time of course that government
economic policy 
is working!?). but technology keeps on advancing driving productivity and 
marketing reach ever higher and further. 

the result is that the ratio between boom and bust gets larger but now 
ceases to fade away. as c increases further so does the boom-bust ratio 
until eventually its rhythm becomes more complex. we will probably leave
the 
20th century with many national economies booming and busting to this 
mesmerising 'waltz rhythm'. but of the future? what does the new
millennium hold in store for national economies? in a word: chaos. 


technical progress will not stop. on the contrary, its
rate of progress will accelerate. the boom-bust cycle will probably soon 
be following the profile of c = 3.68.

chaotic economic cycles are unlikely to hurt national economies or 
these who control them. however, they will ruin and
destroy the economic lives of ordinary people. 
that is - unless the rules of engagement between the 
individual and the body-corporate are substantially re-engineered. 


3rdl!

http://www.eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d/242.055.propaganda.html#00
http://www.membank.org/0002/0002.html
http://www.m9ndfukc.org/konkurs/00.html




c!ao.nn










eusocial.com -> superb source for korporat fascist antibodies.




                                          pre.konssept!n  
                                                meeTz ver!f1kat!n.     

-

Netochka Nezvanova
f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST
@www.eusocial.com
17.hzV.tRL.478
                                                    e
                                                    |
                                                     |  +----------
                                                    |  |     <   
                                   \\----------------+  |  n2t      
                                                       |       >
                                                       e











Terrence J Kosick <kosick@sprint.ca> t!pd


>One artist's thoughts about capitalism and geopolitics on May 1st 2000.
>
>Independence or teams for survival?
>
>I like leading my life as a artist. If I make money as an artist great
>if not so what? I'm sill having the life
>I chose and I contribute to culture. To make a go I manage a little
>bussiness and occsionally take on skilled workers for larger jobs. I
>think about them and keep in touch as they go from job to job,
>contractor to contractor big or small. Workers wondering about the rich
>west taking what they can to survive. I wonder at thier ability to make
>a go of it. Having a small bussiness gives me distance and in a way it
>is a part of what it is my artistic life is about.  I wonder if others
>see outside of their own interests and manner of surviving like I do? I
>wonder if others who are working for a big company feel they are being
>exploited and can get out or move around as easily or are they stuck?
>Perhaps many can make the choice to have their own business. Be it a
>hot-dog stand a power wash service. I think about what people have to do
>now, as a worker to survive and in turn make thier community survive and
>keep it running. Thinking how it all fits together makes me feel how all
>workers and even small companies are very vital. They work as a team
>both for the businesses and the communities. Realistically they should
>be treated as a teams in a league and like valuable players and not like
>treated slaves and traded for anothers' profits. What is more important
>is that they not be over taxed on their living wage and the profits of
>large companies should be somehow returned to the community whose
>labours made those profits possible. It is time the working people of
>the world acted like a team.
>
>Big for whome?
>
>Thinking of the independent person and thier paradigm for their self and
>their community. If you have connections  i.e. other people's money and
>you can establish a larger business or your little business grows to the
>point where your chances for greater returns/ profits are realized  you
>have to ask yourself "do the lives of those working for you improve and
>does the community get something from your activities"?
>
>Where's the Beef?
>
>My beef is that some very profitable business hire many part time to
>avoid benfits and pay less taxes. Also those business who buy out other
>business to close them down or restructure to maximise their's and their
>stockholders profits. (especially stockholders not living or partaking
>in that community or whose taxed income does little to benifite that
>community). I think of the people who end up on ui or welfare and let
>the insurance other worker's are paying keep them there. All that while
>factories are set up in another country producing goods or parts. The
>cost of living goes up but the wages stay low and the benifits vaporize.
>
>Some Evidence
>
>I can't count the large homes and mansions in my town owned by mostly
>offshore business owners who have factories in China and SE Asia where
>workers get little pay for products sold all over the 1st world. They
>are lavish. Some insanely lavish.  It is only a few places but it is
>enough evidence for me to easily wonder if there is a geopolitical
>problem with capitalism. Could the reason these particular people, who
>extract labour and chose to inhabit their market place rather then where
>the goods are made have something to do with the fear that their wealth
>could be nationalized? Become the property of The People? Or is the
>pollution less here? Or the education for their children better? It
>makes me wonder about many other peoples' welfare who put them in such a
>favorable position.
>
>Are better wages and improved condtions enough?
>
>I wonder sometimes if some of the profits actually help the communities
>whose labours that they pay the going rate to. Is it expected that their
>wages like ours be taxed for community centers and better more advanced
>schools? I feel a large portion of the wealth or profits of factories is
>precisely the property of those people. Viewed simply, the factories and
>bussiness thier owners are fortunate conduits for human biological and
>capital organization. Since they are users of raw materials and
>expenditure of energes the profits should also go to the people whose
>independence is sacrificed to the company or factory of that community.
>
>Isn't it Ironic?
>
>Is'nt it ironic that the unemployed, the homeless and the kids living on
>the street in the marketplace are so far away from the producing
>community? Perhaps these are people who could also be employed making
>all the crap everyone else, who can afford it here, are buying while the
>peole producing it are working for less than benifits? In some ways it
>seems there is a venal geopolitical situation going on, not just greed,
>and exploitation, that is, quite simply, a danger to human existence. It
>is a system that means everyone and everything connected harm.
>
>Survival for all.
>
>I'm all for small bussinesses and profitsharing and providing for
>healthy lifestyles and community responsibility. Giving back to those
>who sacrifice their independence to make your large business run. It's
>like a biological responsibilty and a measure of good will to your
>people and survival for all. Being good and responsible to your
>neighbours and sister communities whereever they are. Lending a hand and
>being hand in hand. It is about time we assessed all big business and
>unfair taxation welfare and cheap labour befor it kills us all by
>sucking the life out of the planet.



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold