Opacity, limiting spurious accounting & properly squeezing the supply side


Our system has brought us a lot of technology or at least allowed it. And it has brought us many comforts and products that many of us really appreciate. And it has enabled some good and also some fantastic lifestyles. But it’s not perfect.

End users as individuals and as a group will benefit from having less accounting. Designing accounting out of systems makes for better systems. This goes beyond simply fitting systems to people vice trying to fit people into systems.

Suppliers on the one hand do collusive things with labor markets to lower the price of labor as much as possible and then when it comes time to sell products they have an all-the-market-will-bear mentality. Soon they will be selling only to themselves in an unsustainable situation. All this needs to be reversed by breaking the real or measured society. A common business refrain is: “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.” First, they aren’t qualified to manage, not by intellect or ability and not by knowledge or virtue. This holds especially with regard to internal HR matters within firms and states. The methods and culture is backwards and psychopathic. The business community is simply the wrong community to empower. It needs disempowerment. The political community is also the wrong community to further empower, even if it’s generally brighter. Let us not be confused by the rare example set by some organization founders, they are far from the norm.

It is the end user or citizen of the world that needs empowerment. That starts with deliberate obfuscation. Accountants and business types aren’t entitled to raw data on the lives of end users. Where its welcome they can ask questions and be satisfied with the answers. To what end would they use the data? So they can sit there and try to figure out how much of an end user’s disposable income should be allotted to their product or their manipulations? Rather they shouldn’t have a clue about how much income is available and should be at the mercy of what an end user feels their products are worth. It should be completely an end user’s prerogative to set the value and also the end user’s complete prerogative whether particular goods or services continue to exist. Societies and markets exist to serve end users or citizens. The supplier considerations are irrelevant except to the extent that they serve end users. Societies that get this wrong shouldn’t to continue exist as they aren’t societies but oppression. But employees are also on average a lot closer to the role of end user and as such they matter much more than profit, speculators and stock holders and much more than management. Everyone is an end user and citizen, that’s always the primary role and way of consideration.

Roll back the clock enough and people were self-sufficient without products or services. There is no special claim for suppliers on anything. What of business rights? Businesses and states don’t have rights not even relative to each other. Only citizens have rights or the idea becomes ultimately useless even as it’s already mystical as Hume pointed out. Rights above all call for equality, not money justified inequity or arbitrary power. These rights are intrinsic and not related to concerns of merit or demonstrated ability. Also, money, relative to speech is censorship not speech and must not be conflated with speech. Society exists despite the wealthy. Their status is a luxury or even an inconvenience, but never a necessity. Excess in the form of profit is never guaranteed and in worthwhile society it will always be a secondary concern. Spare a toenail or liquidate AT&T and Comcast? Liquidate the firms, they don’t have the value of a single hair on someone’s head.