Anon, I don’t believe this Eastern Euroid for a second; I felt like I was having a stroke trying to understand the latter half of that question.
It is unnecessarily wordy and feels like a contrived filter for “stupid people.”
If the ESL understood it, it was probably due to their non-English grasp of grammar. Don’t feel bad.
> Eastern Euroid
Hahaha you’d wish > It is unnecessarily wordy and feels like a contrived filter for “stupid people.”
Never said that wasn’t the case > If the ESL understood it, it was probably due to their non-English grasp of grammar. Don’t feel bad.
Cope of the highest order. Pic related. Mutts are simply inferior
1 year ago
Anonymous
Shut ‘yo Czech Republic ass up
I’m sure there are a number of poor results from which to cherry pick; underachievers are present in every land, an inevitability of human enterprise.
They wrote this in a moronic way, seemingly losing steam partway through and neglecting some words as a result, but after reading it a few times, they are essentially asking: What term is a managerial measure of the value of an organization’s resources converted to value itself?
Or in other words, managerial measure of input to output.
So presumably productivity is the answer.
>Someone translate this
Capital seeks its own expansion, not merely through its reproduction, but through its expanded reproduction. As it is committed to the circuit of its own reproduction it moves through various phases:
As a stock of money
As a stock of commodities being labour power, capital goods being both existing physical capital and used up capital
As things in a process of transformation in production
As a stock of commodities for sale (or in the case of waste, negative sale)
As a stock of money
M—C…P…C—M
The purpose of P is to turn C into C', a set of commodities into a set of commodities of greater value, for capital not only to reproduce but to reproduce in an expanded form.
To achieve this one particular commodity must exist capable of reproducing more value than the cost of its purchase. That commodity is man in the form of labour power. A labourer costs a fixed set of costs determined socially in any one instance, but if a man costs eight hours to reproduce, then it is possible to get yet 18 hours of work from him (this I know myself from concrete practice).
In this difference between 8 and 18 profit lies in the form of 10. Such a profit can be made as only the capitalist owns the machines on which to turn at the socially required rate wool into yarn: while a man may so do with a drop spindle his work will be valued at the difference in producitivity between his home handicraft and that of the machine: at the socially determined average productive rate.
Thus adding more unproductive hours does not expand the value of the commodity: only labour performed at the average rate of productivity does.
There's not a proper relationship between the dependent clause which is modifying "the process" and the clause which would follow a verb like "converts or compares". There's nothing intelligible predicated of the subject of inquiry. There should be a verb preceding ...to the value created.
At least two of the answers would satisfy the answer if we substitute possible verbs into that spot to make a grammatically correct question.
It's impossible to answer this question with any certainty.
I agree. Productivity feels like the most likely answer.
Key performance indicator next.
Mostly because humans love to make stupid fricking acronyms out of simple shit so that they can feel like their occupation is more skilled than it actually is. T. marine
>I'm basically a fricking ditch digger irl now.
Postman is much more satisfying and less back breaking. Also as you'd know, logistics as a productive enterprise has both a strategic and operational role in liberation from labour.
We can simplify the same structure to break apart the grammar. "what's the name of the process by which the nuts squirrels digest ... to nuts squirrels bury."
Theres a floating clause "to nuts squirrels bury" which has no discernable relationship given to the process described in the first part of the sentence due to the lack of the verb where I put ellipses.
If you substitute the verb converts or compares or equals, to that part of the original question, then some of the answers might fit.
KPIs.
I've heard this so much at work, and how we need to have good KPIs to have a "good image" for upper management, but lowkey, we all know it's for our manager's image.
Lazy and ignorant management will treat their employees like machines, the more they shit out the "better", and the consequence of that is more debugging and calls to fix constant production issues.
I don’t know the answer but the question is easy enough to understand: how do you call the process that turns valuable resources into actual value?
Am I the moronic one, then? I looked at it for 2 minutes and had no idea what he was asking
Seems like it. English isn’t even my native language and I found it easy to understand
Anon, I don’t believe this Eastern Euroid for a second; I felt like I was having a stroke trying to understand the latter half of that question.
It is unnecessarily wordy and feels like a contrived filter for “stupid people.”
If the ESL understood it, it was probably due to their non-English grasp of grammar. Don’t feel bad.
> Eastern Euroid
Hahaha you’d wish
> It is unnecessarily wordy and feels like a contrived filter for “stupid people.”
Never said that wasn’t the case
> If the ESL understood it, it was probably due to their non-English grasp of grammar. Don’t feel bad.
Cope of the highest order. Pic related. Mutts are simply inferior
Shut ‘yo Czech Republic ass up
I’m sure there are a number of poor results from which to cherry pick; underachievers are present in every land, an inevitability of human enterprise.
They wrote this in a moronic way, seemingly losing steam partway through and neglecting some words as a result, but after reading it a few times, they are essentially asking: What term is a managerial measure of the value of an organization’s resources converted to value itself?
Or in other words, managerial measure of input to output.
So presumably productivity is the answer.
what is the measure that relates the value of inputs an organization uses to achieve its goals to the value made by achieving those goals?
that's d2l isn't it?
have a nice day, useless trashbin.
This was probably defined in the textbook, learn reading comprehension
>business majors
The answer to that level of middle manager word salad is always KPI.
>Someone translate this
Capital seeks its own expansion, not merely through its reproduction, but through its expanded reproduction. As it is committed to the circuit of its own reproduction it moves through various phases:
As a stock of money
As a stock of commodities being labour power, capital goods being both existing physical capital and used up capital
As things in a process of transformation in production
As a stock of commodities for sale (or in the case of waste, negative sale)
As a stock of money
M—C…P…C—M
The purpose of P is to turn C into C', a set of commodities into a set of commodities of greater value, for capital not only to reproduce but to reproduce in an expanded form.
To achieve this one particular commodity must exist capable of reproducing more value than the cost of its purchase. That commodity is man in the form of labour power. A labourer costs a fixed set of costs determined socially in any one instance, but if a man costs eight hours to reproduce, then it is possible to get yet 18 hours of work from him (this I know myself from concrete practice).
In this difference between 8 and 18 profit lies in the form of 10. Such a profit can be made as only the capitalist owns the machines on which to turn at the socially required rate wool into yarn: while a man may so do with a drop spindle his work will be valued at the difference in producitivity between his home handicraft and that of the machine: at the socially determined average productive rate.
Thus adding more unproductive hours does not expand the value of the commodity: only labour performed at the average rate of productivity does.
Jesus c**t this isn't translation. READ VOLUME 1.
> Read Marx's 6 million page long book of ramblings and 2nd grade arithmetic that has no relation to reality.
You are a useless homosexual.
It's grammatically incomplete.
There's not a proper relationship between the dependent clause which is modifying "the process" and the clause which would follow a verb like "converts or compares". There's nothing intelligible predicated of the subject of inquiry. There should be a verb preceding ...to the value created.
At least two of the answers would satisfy the answer if we substitute possible verbs into that spot to make a grammatically correct question.
It's impossible to answer this question with any certainty.
and yet i know in my heart the answer is productivity
its kind of funny to not include the answer here so well just bicker about the actual meaning of this gibberish
I agree. Productivity feels like the most likely answer.
Key performance indicator next.
Mostly because humans love to make stupid fricking acronyms out of simple shit so that they can feel like their occupation is more skilled than it actually is. T. marine
I'm basically a fricking ditch digger irl now.
Based
Your ditches are keeping me safe
Keep up the good work Corporal Bartley
>I'm basically a fricking ditch digger irl now.
Postman is much more satisfying and less back breaking. Also as you'd know, logistics as a productive enterprise has both a strategic and operational role in liberation from labour.
We can simplify the same structure to break apart the grammar. "what's the name of the process by which the nuts squirrels digest ... to nuts squirrels bury."
Theres a floating clause "to nuts squirrels bury" which has no discernable relationship given to the process described in the first part of the sentence due to the lack of the verb where I put ellipses.
If you substitute the verb converts or compares or equals, to that part of the original question, then some of the answers might fit.
KPIs.
I've heard this so much at work, and how we need to have good KPIs to have a "good image" for upper management, but lowkey, we all know it's for our manager's image.
Lazy and ignorant management will treat their employees like machines, the more they shit out the "better", and the consequence of that is more debugging and calls to fix constant production issues.
Frick this shit.