I’m beginning to think that the left has been too obsessed with GDP as a broken economic metric governing the global shitshow, when inflation is more insidious. Deflation may be a more radical demand than degrowth. Burst bubbles. Deflate the price of fossil fuel infrastructure.
It’s amazing just how much political economy is still determined by the threat of stagflation. This has created a weird metonymy in which as long as you’re fight inflation (preserving the interests of (older) savers) you’re also fighting stagnation (supporting (younger) earners).
To some extent the residual fear of deflationary spirals lies behind this, waiting in the wings for any suggestion that stagnation must be fought with deflation. This is entirely understandable, as uncontrolled deflation hits the poorest hardest.
The assumption that conjoins these fears into an engine of unbridled economic stagnation is that there’s a unitary market effectively mediating between the markets in different sectors, be this unity micro-economic or macro-economic in flavour. But this just isn’t how it works.
There is so much more logistic friction in the price system than the popular story of just in time production suggests, not least in the concrete details of differentiated trade between economic actors from local businesses to nation states.
The conditions that enable relative stability of prices between sectors are *extremely* political, and far more complicated than Hayek’s vision of the price system suggests. These conditions constitute the parameters of the tacit social contract underpinning liberal democracies.
Outside of niche markets in consumer goods, prices are incredibly sticky, and the reason they’re sticky is that the stability of power depends on their stickiness. Libertarians are fond of this as a critique of state intervention, but you don’t need a state to exert power.
The price system is not just smooth supply-demand negotiation, but power broking between finance, industrial cartels, and other interest groups, only partially mediated by states and state blocks. Anti-trust is a joke. The market is built from bonds of anti-competitive trust.
It’s not so much that prices are sticky as that purchasing power is sticky, the more you’ve got the easier it is to maintain it and the less you’ve got the harder it is to grow. It’s shifts in concrete industrial relations between sectors that have the potential to destroy power.
This is where the real lie of ‘disruptive’ investment comes to the fore. Such innovations are far likelier to disrupt labour power than anything else in an era where the institutions articulating this power are degraded or tame.
Moreover, the consolidation of purchasing power synergises with broken investment systems that divert resources away from genuinely disruptive technologies and into safe competition over consumer goods. Jet packs conflict with high street based business models
This isn’t to say that change doesn’t happen, just that its effects are felt in ways peculiar to the pace at which they take place. Micro-economically we’re good at relative value estimation in the short term (local), but bad at absolute value in the long term (global).
Consumers are boiled like frogs by slow but steady differential price inflation, and captains of industry push each other off cliffs like lemmings unable to see the industrial future rising up to greet them. New titans rise slow enough for common sense to mask it until too late.
Everyone is complicit in changing the industrial base as little as possible to preserve the current set of scams encoded in the relative purchasing power within and between political blocks, geographic and otherwise. The main risks taken are the precisely the wrong ones.
The grand cognitive potential of humanity and its technological prostheses is harnessed by the stubborn incompetence of the global market system and turned to tasks that waste it in egregiously efficient, rather than gloriously excessive ways.
It might just be time to reconfigure and reroute this potential around the complex knots of power and ignorance still holding together the last liberal compromise in political economy. To trade slow burn immoderation for destructive creation. There’s destruction aplenty already.
So I say to my fellow millennials, and the zoomers who are often confused for us, reach for your avocados and your smartphones: our work is not yet done. we’ve whole industries to destroy. 🖖
P.S. The fact my smartphone predictive text corrects ‘immiseration’ to ‘immoderation’ is the most bleakly poetic representative fact I’ve seen in quite some time.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with pete wolfendale

pete wolfendale Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @deontologistics

18 Feb
There are times I wish we could have something like a 'symbolic amnesty' where we just wipe a particular terminological slate clean of connotations so that we can have certain conversations without constantly blundering into excuses to derail them.
Like, it'd be really nice if we could talk openly about the *incredibly tight* ties between governance and finance in countries like the UK without having to be on the defence about accidental associations with accusations of blood libel. It's a discursive minefield.
There's a perennial 'man covered in shit' problem here, where no matter how economically reasoned or anti-racistly seasoned your critiques are there *will* be people who turn up to agree with you dragging flecks of anti-semitic faeces on their shoes, if nothing else.
Read 25 tweets
17 Feb
I think it's worth recognising that death will always divide us. There are deaths that are intensely positive/negative for me that you don't and can't feel in the same way I do. This is a source as much as a symptom of enmity. Yet the only universal enemy is death itself.
When one dances on another's grave, be it literally or performatively, one is inviting those who feel strongly for the dead to hate you. There's no getting around that. It's the price of doing business in the market of mortality, sorrow, and grief.
But all the same, violating a heuristic taboo (e.g., 'don't speak ill of the dead') is a legitimate way of signalling value (e.g., '...unless it's important'). It's a way of saying: 'Look what this fucker made me do! I only stoop this low as a monument to their awfulness.'
Read 11 tweets
17 Feb
Here's a hypothesis I just explained to @mojozozoe that I may as well put out here. DNA is not a map of an organism but a sequence of densely interlinked instructions for constructing one. The Y chromosome provides a very minimal way of modulating this process of construction.
Any attempt to understand (statistical/functional) sexual dimorphism has to begin from this fact, which is made obvious by the size of the Y chromosome relative to not just the X but all the other ones. This has a lot of interesting consequences for thinking about sexuality.
If there's one thing Freud got right about human sexuality it's that it's something that's assembled as the genetic process of constructing an adult organism gets modulated by the social process of producing a (gendered) person. The genesis of sexuality can be *very* extended.
Read 22 tweets
17 Feb
Just listened to this piece () by @jersey_flight about the responsibilities of leftist intellectuals and the ways these responsibilities are all too easily abdicated by academics. It resonates with my own recent critical comments (deontologistics.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/video-…).
Here's a few related threads for anyone interested:

1. A conversation with @OlufemiOTaiwo and @deonteleologist about debate culture and discursive charity:
2. A thread on degenerate 'critique' and the epistemology of ignorance:
Read 4 tweets
17 Feb
'Talent' is a place holder term: a promissory note for some more concrete conception of ability, yet to be articulated. The same might be said of 'electability'. When the Labour right repeats these terms without even trying to cash them out, they're running on intellectual fumes.
It's particularly telling that the one original term they had for Starmer's talent was 'forensic', which by now has been widely and rightly mocked. This is because it shows how incoherent their conception of political communication is.
Corbyn was repeatedly painted as and criticised for not being a man of the people, for being unable to communicate with anyone outside of the metropolitan bubble of urban millennial progressives. There wasn't nothing to these criticisms, but they were mostly performative.
Read 14 tweets
16 Feb
I think one way of looking at the economic pathologies of our society, without using words like 'capitalism' and 'rentiership', is to talk about inequities in the distribution of risk. Some have more taste for risk than others, sure, but risk is not distributed on this basis.
In the UK, so much of our political troubles come from the growth in the landlord class, who if nothing else, wield disproportionate power relative to their social worth: at one and the same time claim to be martyrs to the risk of investment, and demand these risks be minimised.
Of course, it's possible to make claims like this: e.g., nurses have every right to claim that they shoulder not merely more risk than most, but far more risk than is strictly necessary. The pandemic has made this brutally obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
Read 28 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!