/lit/ - Literature

>>23524879
>So what is the solution?
2 solutions

1. differential accumulation, measured against top 500 firms, as a proxy for power quantification.
2. electricity (biophysical inputs, the only actually measurable units)

>>22671424
>I know the price of the tool now
which tells only about company's ability to forcefully restrict copyright access to a, say, USB-stick. You can't price air. Not powerful enough.

>it's rate of production over time
Ian Steedman's 'joint production' problem

>and the rate at which it will deteriorate
A USB-stick transported into 1920s would be no different than a wooden stick. A USB-stick as a piece of tech is nothing aside from the broad context of the social whole. Which lies outside your ability to measure.

>All of those things are objectively quantifiable in terms of real world empirical data
No more than a Saturn's influence on your fate. Yet ever since Babylon, the diviners were convinced otherwise: omens, extispicy, self-evident truth.

>You can't directly argue against this so you regurgitate a superficial connection to astrology.
You were just given:
-an argument against the price (price is quantifiable differential power, i.e. a nominal phenomenon)
-a several decades old reference to 'joint production', which in turn has commitments to Sraffa's and Joan Robinson's Cambridge Controversy, which directly argues that capital is not a measurable material thing (hence no production)
-the definition of tech as the knowledge part of human social network, - and the latter as a Complex System (as such, Chaotic)


Yet all I hear from is but a "reee"-shriek a-la "Noooo, you can't!"


>You can't perform basic mathematical operations
Currently, there is no need. As there is doubt about the validity of YOUR mathematical operations.

>let alone describe to me how data is quantified into formulas
Since economics cannot measure anything but prices, the only formulas that matter are:
1. anthropological ritual observation - aka differential power.
2. price measurements of the only nigh-universal yet-objectively-physical proxy: electricity

>I'll tell you that all descriptive models are based on past observation
There is a reason why sociology/anthropology/economics are not a hard science. They can't predict shit. As such, there is little difference between them and, say, Tolkien Studies

>The problem is that the economy is an extremely complex system
And Complex Systems have sensitive initial/boundary conditions. Insertion of 5 wolves changes the course of a river.

Complex Systems are resistant to math. Because math deals with static phenomena, and you are dealing with dynamic ones. You cannon mathematically model a river changing its own riverbed through flowing.

>and just like any system we study scientifically we model it piece by piece
To deal with a dynamic system you run computer simulations. Hoping, that the simplified model's cyclical behavior would somewhat resemble the real one.

But you've just been expressed doubt of the existence of the particular 'pieces'. You are trying to input fucking teletubbies in there.

>determining aspects of a complex system by its parts and how they engage one another
nonlinearly

>>18614370
>Is there any framework to competently relate Labor, Capital, material production, and economic power relations which does not resemble anything out of the Marx
If you renounce labor, then Power Theory of Value

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/
"Capital, Nitzan and Bichler argue, is not a ‘thing’. It’s an ideology. Capital is the ritualistic quantification of property rights. And because property rights stem from the power to exclude, it follows that capital is the ritualistic quantification of power."

>>18580788
>It doesn't allow to calculate anything, doesn't have formulas, theorical explanations