we know that libor is a rate, but that doesn't say much. let's problematize the mea$ure & rip it at the seams.
imagine 4 axes representing utility, need, satisfaction and cost:
1. the actual utility of a good i possess and contemplate surrendering = UTILITY
2. the sacrifice i must undergo if i cannot secure possession of the good i wish to buy = NEED
3. the potential usefulness of the good i wish to buy = SATISFACTION
4. the sacrifice i am willing to make in order to get the object i wish to buy = COST
with libor we get the following symbolic results:
* 2. is central & seeps through all.
* 2. & 3 are antinomies, i.e., 2. never brings about 3.
* in opposition to utilitarian economic theories 1. & 3. appear as inversely proportional.
* 1. is a minimal variable, dependent of 2. & 4.
* even if 3. obtains because of 1, or as result of minimizing 4. it always appear as subservient.
* we always obtain 2 > 3 no matter what 4.
* presently 4. is an outsourced rate of exchange dependent of cheap foreign labor & waste of local resources.
* though 3. appears as truncated by 4., 4. has no real power over 2.
* 3. appears a strong constant, yet its value is ∅. 3. never obtains as a result.
being that 1. is minimally nominal and 4 is outsourced & since no equilibrium can be found between 2 & 3, we denounce the following (unavoidable) redundancy:
1. & 4 are travesties. 2. is false & 3. is empty.
note: all of the above consequences apply to artlibor, which is a subset of libor.