These connections between money and value all have their own time-
honored debates with ongoing momentum. Here, however, we push away
from these debates, at least as conventionally framed, and look to build toward
a historically newer connectionone that takes both money and labor to
their current frontiers in development and flexibility. That is, we seek to take
money beyond gold and even state money, to its form as a spectrum of highly
liquid financial assets of uncertain value, and to take labor beyond wage work
at the factory to a fluid contract of service engaging direct wage work, home-
work, and the employment of independent contractors and even to the house-
hold labor of managing financial risk. The analysis seeks to tie these fluid
identities of money (or finance) and labor together, to reveal how they are
mutually reinforcing and anchors of value in financially distinct ways. Our
objective is to consider how value might be conceived when its two units of
measure, labor and money, are undergoing such rapid transformation. It is
an agenda clearly at odds with those who wish to treat finance as merely
speculative and unproductive and to focus instead on money as a unit of
account and a means to circulate real capital. This article starts from the
premise that if theories of value cannot incorporate finance in a central role,
then they are disengaged from the frontiers of capital accumulation.
Historical parallels between the coevolution of monetary forms and
labor contracts are significant. The postwar application of Keynesian policies
emphasized the pursuit of full employment and stable currencies as com-
panion agendas, and such parallels can be traced back much further.1 The
recent developments of liquid financial assets and increasingly flexible work
contracts and the financialization of labor outside the workplace are also sig-
nificant. What they have in common, in the domain of measurement, is risk.
Antonio Negri ([1973] 1979) implicitly identified risk as the critical issue of
the change that came with the end of the long boom. While the Keynesian
state had taken on the policy agenda of stability, or, as he termed it, linking
the present to the future (via fixed exchange rates, stable interest rates, mini-
mum wage guarantees, protection of profits), Negri astutely saw this role
now shifting to the market and the pricing of the future in the present. So
while the Keynesian state absorbed the risks (and uncertainties) of the
future by decreeeffectively a collective insurancethe shift of this role to
markets meant a loss of a collective dimension. The risks of the future have
become increasingly individualized and transferable and are thus only social
in some partial, private way by conscious processes of mass hedging.
So just as that postwar monetary stability gave way to more fluid forms
of finance following the floating of exchange rates and the invention of the
labour which, in a given society, the average person can perform, productive
expenditure of a certain amount of human muscles, nerves, brain, etc. It is
simple labour [English economists call it unskilled labour] which any aver-
age individual can be trained to do and which in one way or another he has to
perform. The characteristics of this average labour are different in different
countries and different historical epochs, but in any particular society it
appears as something given.6
Marx formulated his discussion of norms and averages in relation to the need
to anchor use value and exchange value to a common denominator. But what
is at stake in the (conceptual) process of measurement? Marx is ambiguous in
his discussion here. Sometimes it is invoked as a norm, with the norm itself
based roughly, if not precisely, on a process of arithmetic averaging, with
elaboration of competitive imperatives that drive the average onward: in effect
a rolling average. A universal unit of labor is one defined by international
averaging of (otherwise) irreconcilable national differences in subsistence lev-
els. This is also what lies behind the notion of industry norms: for example,
that SNALT is determined by the industry normal costs of production (such
that those at the frontier of technology, with lower than socially necessary
labor time, will generate a surplus in excess of the average). Indeed, the aver-
age rate of profit itself is, at base, a norm defined by an average.
What is the concept of risk that lies within the move toward these units
of measure? In relation to norms and averages, risk might be thought of as a
distribution around the average: deviations (albeit not formal standard devi-
ations) of individual performance. This notion is implicit in SNALT, in dis-
cussions in volume 3 of Capital of formation of the average rate of profit and
prices of production (transformed values). For example: Commodities
whose individual value stands below the market-value realize an extra sur-
plus-value or surplus profit, while those whose individual value stands above
the market price are unable to realize a part of the surplus value which they
contain (Marx [1894] 1981: 279).
While this distribution is generally interpreted in terms of efficiency
and costs of production, it should also have a risk dimension. Formally, to be
constituted as a contribution to value, a commodity must meet two condi-
tions. First, it must be valued according to SNALT. Second, the commodity
must be solda proxy for being turned into a use value. There can be no attri-
bution of value at the point of production: value can only be identified retro-
spectively, for it will not be known what the social norm of production is until
the size of the market is known. The commodity may lie unsold and hence
valueless. Value must be produced, but it is in exchange and more expansively
in the process of circulating as (commodity) capital that value is verified.
Here an initial incorporation of risk would mean that any individual
process of production can be understood as producing surplus value, with
risks attached. Conceptually, at least, these risks will be quantifiable: risks
about production costs (technology, labor skill), currency, interest rates, and
the amount of revenue secured (demand, currency). This way of incorporat-
ing of risk would mean that any produced commodity that lies unsold is val-
ued no differently to the one that is sold, for each carries the risk of being the
other. Commodities that have a higher risk of being unsold are thereby each
valued less than those that have a lower risk of being unsold. For any indi-
vidual produced commodity, risk may not be determinate of value, but for
individual capitals producing commodities, the higher-risk ones will in
aggregate have more commodity failures (less of the labor embodied in the
output of that individual capital will be revealed as value-producing, socially
necessary labor time). Simple probability theory says that, in the aggregate,
risk does have an impact on value.
This strategy for incorporating risk into value may be credible, but it
seems to make an already analytically formal and rigid measurement exer-
cise just that much more problematic. It may introduce some fluidity and
contingency of the conjuncture but takes it back into an inherently static
Innovations dating from the 1950s in portfolio theory through to the Black-
Scholes model of options pricing and techniques of the capital asset pricing
model (CAPM) and value at risk (VaR) are all about linking abstract capital
(that which generates an expected rate of return) to the market performance
of individual capitals. These are capitals version of Value calculation. No
one would argue that the class of capital has been technically successful in
its endeavor, as regular financial crashes, some of them major, attest. Yet
despite their flaws, these measures are performed constantly: there are real-
time portfolio measures of the value of capital adjusted for risk, and invest-
ment decisions are actively based on these valuations.
Critically for our analysis, these calculative techniques of capital per-
form the process by which discrete investments are made mutually commen-
surable, and hence capital itself is made homogeneous (capital in general)
via the concept of return relative to calculable risk. This commensurating
capital is what labor confronts, and this is why for labor it is the calculative
imperative that is critical, more than the numbers calculated at any particular
place or point in time.
Yet in relation to labor, by contrast, many contemporary Marxists
undertake a process of differentiation and decompositiona concern with
the question of which acts of labor are productive and those which are cir-
culatory or supervisory; with which sectors of the economy are unproduc-
tive (and here finance is so readily located); and with different sectoral profit
rates. Too often these differentiations are used to depict divisions in capital
accumulation but without confronting how accumulation itself might be
rethought as a result of these shifting divisions.
Perhaps, some will argue, this agenda serves Marxism well, if empiri-
cal verification of long-term falls in the rate of profit is seen to constitute an
analytical victory. But we believe that it is in danger of occluding an abstracted
analytical agenda that seeks to identify how issues of production, work, and
surplus are changing rapidly, along with the fluidity of more recent changes
in accumulation, especially in relation to finance.8
imagining the social factory (Gill and Pratt 2008). Their critical point is
that there is increasingly no discrete labor of production, which is sepa-
rate from what is conventionally called circulation, either in abstraction or
concretely. The popular focus in their work is often through the process of
immaterial labor, sometimes reduced to the production of service commod-
ities, without material form, but more significantly seen as a new domain of
production of social relationships, knowledge, and affect. Maurizio Lazzarato
(1996: 133), for instance, defines immaterial labor as the labor that produces
the informational and cultural content of the commodity. A central focus in
the immaterial labor literature is on social processes of marketing and
consumption: things like advertising, fashion, marketing, television, and
public opinion. How a commodity is presented is part of what it is. In this
conception, value production thereby has new benchmarks. As Lazzarato
(1996: 138) again puts it: Immaterial labor produces rst and foremost a
social relationship (a relationship of innovation, production, and consump-
tion). Only if it succeeds in this production does its activity have an economic
value. This activity makes immediately apparent something that material
production had hidden, namely, that labor produces not only commodities,
but rst and foremost it produces the capital relation. For Hardt and Negri
there are two further consequences of the hegemony of immaterial labor in
that it establishes a clear break with manufacturing as an ideal type and site
of value production and that it throws open just what is involved in the pro-
cess of production. In their proposition of value creation beyond the fac-
tory, Hardt and Negri also make a decisive call on the possibilities of quanti-
tative value theory, at least a value theory with the microfoundations in
SNALT. We are here in the realm of value beyond measure (Hardt and
Negri 2000: 355).
In some ways, the notion of production beyond the factory builds on
the work of cultural studies scholars like Fredric Jameson (1983: 113), who
long ago identified the changing forms of subjectivity of labor, such that in
an era of consumer capitalism, social relations of consumption were seen to
have heralded a new type of social life and a new economic order [of] . . .
postindustrial or consumer capitalism. Significantly, the social life of con-
sumer capitalism is understood as an extension and intensification of labors
engagement with capital rather than an escape from it. In particular, Jame-
son recognizes in Gary Beckers notion of human capital that it not only
reconceptualizes labor as a form of capital but reconceptualizes consump-
tion as a form of production, akin to that of a firm. Jameson contends that
in [human capital theory] consumption is explicitly described as the pro-
trading the assets themselves. The financial vision is to imagine the multi-
ple dimensions of household wealth and expenditure that could be made
profitable: to create a spectrum of liquid financial market assets built on the
performance of (illiquid) household assets.
Central to this process has been the securitization of household pay-
ments: a process of bundling up payments on loans (for housing, education,
and vehicle, personal, and other credit), on insurance (for house, vehicle, and
health), on rent, and on utilities (for energy, water, and telephone) and selling
the income streams (the monthly payments) into global markets, but without
selling the underlying asset.12 These are called asset-backed securities (ABS);
those related specifically to mortgages are called mortgage-backed securities
(MBSs). They involve selling the liquid dimension of households exposures:
not the fixity (the house) but the mortgage payments, not the health care but
the health insurance payments, and not the student learning experience but
payments from post-student earnings. To paraphrase Hardt and Negri (2004),
capital is finding in labors households a veritable multitude of financial-
ized attributes around which securitized assets can be built.
Of these securitized household payments, MBSs are the best known.13
Their value crashed in the financial crisis due essentially to subprime lend-
ing, but since the financial crisis MBSs have returned as a central way of
funding housing loans and as a key financial asset in global markets. Indeed,
MBS purchases are now central to US Federal Reserve policies of quantita-
tive easing, raising the possibility that these liquid assets can be considered
integral to US and global monetary stability.14 Private ABS issuance is also
growing steadily after slumping in the context of the subprime crisis and
high household default risk (SIFMA 2013; Standard and Poors 2013, 2014).15
The precrisis process of securitization was not accidental, but it was
akin to a process of primitive accumulation: of finding extant contractual
household payments and opportunistically shaping them into securities no
matter the risk of default on those payments. Postcrisis, securitization is
being managed differently. The calculative project of finance as capital
involves the intentional management of household finance, akin to the
supervision of labor in the traditional workplace (a parallel we will return to).
The project involves the movement of more and more household payments
into fixed-period contractual relations, to ensure locked-in future payments
on which securities can be built and penalties for non- or even prepayment
that disturbs the valuation of securities.
The household creation and ongoing viability of the assets that go into
ABS can be understood as a process of coproduction. This, we suggest, is
A Deleuzean Turn
This framing of labors real subsumption to finance resonates with the
insights of Gilles Deleuze. While Deleuze develops his analysis in relation to
consumption, he provides a means to understand new forms of production
in finance and processes outside the discourse of SNALT.17 Specifically,
Deleuze gives us access to the way capital imagines new, distinctive securi-
ties and the way particular bundles of household payments can be evaluated
for default risk.
Conclusion
In its 2005 Global Financial Stability Report, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF 2005: 5) famously declared that the household sector has increasingly
and more directly become the shock absorber of last resort in the financial
system. The neglected statement that immediately followed was, Given the
growing relevance of the household sector in assessing financial stability
and the incomplete and fragmented data on household balance sheets that is
currently available, national authorities and the financial services industry
should try to improve the collection and dissemination of such data. Accord-
ingly, we are seeing a link between labor (in the form of households), pro-
duction of financial assets, and risk in a financial depiction of value cre-
ation. It involves the calculation of averages and norms of household
performance, which are used by capital to construct calculations of risk-
adjusted rates of return. Labor is being incorporated into this process of pro-
duction of liquid financial assets, and similarly risk is incorporated into
labors creation of Value.
For households, this absorption of financial system risk is increasingly
just part of daily lifeincidental to consuming and paying billsin the way
that producing surplus value is thought incidental to wage labor. Further,
Notes
This research was supported by funding from the Australian Research Council under grants
DP120101473 and FF110100043. We would like to recognize Duke University Press for its thor-
ough editorial work on this essay.
1 Indeed, in many postwar central banks, full employment was a specified goal of post-
war monetary policy. The parallels can be traced back much further, for example, to the
British Bank Charter Act of 1844 that coincided with the Factory Acts, seen by Marx to
be central to labors real subsumption to capital, in the form of relative surplus value,
and the associated rise of the joint stock company.
In every country there is a certain average intensity of labor below which the labor for the
production of a commodity requires more than the socially necessary time, and there-
fore does not reckon as labor of normal quality. . . . The average intensity of labor changes
from country to country; here it is greater, there less. These national averages form a
scale, whose unit of measure is the average unit of universal labor. The more intense
national labor, therefore, as compared with the less intense, produces in the same time
more value, which expresses itself in more money. (Marx ([1867] 1976: 7012)
7 While Marx developed the concept of relative surplus value in the context of technologi-
cal change in the factory, and the process of making labor more productive as distinct
from extending its working hours, the wider meaning is clear: With the real subsump-
tion of labor under capital a complete revolution takes place in the mode of production
itself, in the productivity of labor, and in the relationwithin productionbetween the
capitalist and the worker, as also in the social relation between them ([1863] 1993: 107
8). We will develop the case shortly that this insight can now be extended such that a sub-
sumption within circulation has been occurring in relations between finance and labor.
8 See note 5.
9 This proposition is close to that of Andrew Leyshon and Nigel Thrift (2007), who talk
about the capitalization of almost everything in addressing finances growing reach
into the mundane expenditures of households.
10 While loans were issued in a calculative way (with risks shifted from mortgage origina-
tors to holders of mortgage-backed securities, or MBSs), borrowers were not anticipated
to comply with capitalist calculation: they were expected to default.
11 Notably occurring with the emergence of attempts to conceptualize asset prices con-
ditioned or augmented by liquidity risk, this approach has become variously known
as the liquidity asset pricing model (Holmstrm and Tirole 2001; Acharya and Peder-
sen 2005; Jarrow, Protter, and Roch 2012). The initiative predates the financial crisis
but points to one technical path toward a calculative fix in a world of variable liquid-
ity. See, for example, FSB (Financial Stability Board) 2013 in relation to bringing over-
the-counter derivatives on exchange, Basel III in relation to banking practices, and
US proposals for arms-length credit ratings by the Securities and Exchange Com-
mission (SEC 2012).
12 To give just one example of the securitization of rent, hedge funds and private equity
firms have entered the real estate market, buying cheap, usually foreclosed houses and
selling securities backed by the rental income stream (Gottesdiener 2014).
13 MBSs date back to the 1930s and began to reemerge in the 1980s and then expand rap-
idly (Green and Wachter 2005; Pryke and Lee 1995).
14 As a central component of the US policy of quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve
continues to invest heavily in MBSs as a key to economic recovery. The Federal Reserve
now holds 40 percent of its $4 trillion asset portfolio in MBSs despite, at various stages
over the past five years, announcing an intention to sell off its exposure (Bernanke
2013). The Federal Reserve kept up large monthly purchases of MBSs as part of QE3
until the policy was terminated in October 2014. Since then, the policy has been to
keep purchasing new MBSs as those on the books expire. So MBS purchases remain
critical to ongoing economic growth.
15 In the United States, issuance of ABS increased from S140 billion in 2008 to $200
billion in 2012, albeit this figure is well short of the $750 billion in 2005 and 2006
(SIFMA 2013).
16 Being aware is not a condition of production. After all, the objective of conventional
production is the creation not of commodities but of surplus value, the process of which
most workers are unaware.
17 In Empire, Hardt and Negri (2000: 28) focus on biopower rather than dividuation in
their interpretation of societies of control.
18 At the base of dividuation is multiplicity replacing substance (Deleuze [1968] 1994). In
Marxian Value terms, the substance of value may perhaps be thought of as being both
homogenous and multiple. It is worth following this connection, at least a certain way,
for it takes us back to risk and finance.
19 In computer-based communication, attributes of the individual (the websites they
engage, their spend at particular sites, and even the content of their communications)
are being monitored and data collected on whatever information is required for a par-
ticular strategic purpose. When a database is mined for information on a persons buy-
ing, borrowing, leisure, viewing, and communication practices, the object of collection
is not the individual but the dividual.
20 In Marxian terms this could be framed as a shift in focus from the site of production
(C-P-C) to the totality of the circuit of industrial capital (M-C-P-C -M). For Deleuze,
and those who follow him, the emphasis has been on marketing (C-M), but not on
finance (M-M). For a Marxian framing, this analysis is in danger of shifting the value
relation from one of equivalence in exchange to one of distortion. This is not to deny
that capital manipulates consumption, just that it is a different order of issue from the
one addressed here. We may say that the employment contract is unfair because the
employer holds the power, but Marx was emphatic that it be understood as a voluntary
and equivalent exchange, of labor power for wages. And therein lies the basis of surplus
value: that the employer buys commodity labor power but acquires control of value-
creating labor (Marx [1867] 1976: chap. 6).
21 Like a derivative, dividuation has both a flexibility and fluidity of form by being unen-
cumbered by the meanings that attach to the underlying, aggregated individual.
22 The International Monetary Fund (IMF 2005: 5) also emphasizes in this context the
need for household responsibilization and financial literacy:
Overall, the transfer of risk from the banking sector to nonbanking sectors, including
the household sector, appears to have enhanced the resiliency and stability of the finan-
cial systemmainly by widely dispersing financial risks, including throughout the
household sector. Policymakers may now need to take the next logical step by helping
households to improve on their financial education and to obtain quality advice and
products necessary to manage their financial affairs. In fact, there is a growing consen-
sus, in both the public sector and the financial services industry, on the importance of
promoting the financial education of households. Clearly, households will remain
responsible for their investment decisions.
References
Acharya, Viral V., and Lasse Heje Pedersen. 2005. Asset Pricing with Liquidity Risk. Journal
of Financial Economics 77, no. 2: 375410.
Amoore, Louise. 2011 Data Derivatives: On the Emergence of a Security Risk Calculus for
Our Times. Theory, Culture and Society 28, no. 6: 2443.
Banaji, Jairus. 2011. Theory as History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation. Chicago:
Haymarket Books.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Becker, Gary S. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Beggs, Michael, Dick Bryan, and Michael Rafferty. 2014. Shoplifters of the World Unite! Law
and Culture in Financialized Times. Cultural Studies 28, nos. 56: 97696.
Bernanke, Ben. 2013. Transcript of press conference, June 19. www.federalreserve.gov/media
center/files/FOMCpresconf20130619.pdf.
Bryan, Dick, et al. 2012. An Important Failure: Knowledge Limits and the Financial Crisis.
Economy and Society 41, no. 3: 299315.
Bryan, Dick, Randy Martin, and Michael Rafferty. 2009. Financialization and Marx: Giving
Labor and Capital a Financial Makeover. Review of Radical Political Economics 41, no. 4:
45872.
Campbell, John Y. 2006. Household Finance. Journal of Finance 61, no. 4: 15531604.
Cowen, Michael. 1976. Capital and Peasant Household Production. Institute of Develop-
ment Studies, University of Nairobi, mimeograph.
Deleuze, Gilles. (1968) 1994. Difference and Repetition. Translated by Paul Patton. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles. 1992. Postscript on the Societies of Control. October 59: 37.
Elson, Diane. 1979. The Value Theory of Labour. In Value: The Representation of Labourin
Capitalism, edited by Diane Elson, 11580. London: CSE Books.
Feher, Michel. 2009. Self-Appreciation; or, The Aspirations of Human Capital. Public Cul-
ture 21, no. 1: 2141.
Foucault, Michel. 1984. The Courage of the Truth (The Government of Self and Others II): Lec-
tures at the Collge de France, 19831984. Edited by Frdric Gros. Translated by Graham
Burchell. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
FSB (Financial Stability Board). 2013. OTC Derivatives Market Reforms: Sixth Progress Report
on Implementation. September 2. Basel, Switzerland: FSB. www.financialstability
board.org/publications/r_130902b.pdf.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Polit-
ical Economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Gill, Rosalind, and Andy Pratt. 2008. In the Social Factory? Immaterial Labor, Precarious-
ness, and Cultural Work. Theory, Culture and Society 25, nos. 78: 130.
Gottesdiener, Laura. 2014. Wall Streets Hot New Financial Product: Your Rent Check.
Mother Jones, February 10. www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/blackstone-rental
-homes-bundled-derivatives.
Green, Richard K., and Susan M. Wachter. 2005. The American Mortgage in Historical and
International Context. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, no. 4: 93114.
Haggerty, Kevin D., and Richard V. Ericson. 2000. The Surveillant Assemblage. British Jour-
nal of Sociology 51, no. 4: 60522.
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.
New York: Penguin.
Harvie, David. 2005. All Labour Is Productive and Unproductive. Commoner, no. 10: 13271.
Holmstrm, Bengt, and Jean Tirole. 2001. LAPM: A Liquidity-Based Asset Pricing Model.
Journal of Finance 56, no. 5: 183767.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2005. Global Financial Stability Report. April. Washing-
ton, DC: IMF. www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/2005/01/pdf/chp1.pdf.
Jameson, Fredric. 1983. Postmodernism and Consumer Society. In The Anti-aesthetic: Essays
on Postmodern Culture, edited by Hal Foster, 11125. Port Townsend, WA: Bay.
Jameson, Fredric. 1991. Postmodernism; or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Jarrow, Robert A., Philip Protter, and Alexandre F. Roch. 2012. A Liquidity-Based Model for
Asset Price Bubbles. Quantitative Finance 12, no. 9: 133949.
Lapavitsas, Costas. 2013. Profiting without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All. London:
Verso.
Lazzarato, Maurizio. 1996. Immaterial Labor. Translated by Paul Colilli and Ed Emery. In
Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics, edited by Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt,
13347. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Leyshon, Andrew, and Nigel Thrift. 2007. The Capitalization of Almost Everything: The
Future of Finance and Capitalism. Theory, Culture and Society 24, nos. 78: 97115.
Martin, Randy. 2008. Marxism after Cultural Studies. Generation Online, February. www
.generation-online.org/c/fc_rent7.htm.
Marx, Karl. (1859) 1977. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress.
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/.
Marx, Karl. (1863) 1993. Economic Manuscripts of 186163. Vol. 34 of Karl Marx, Friedrich
Engels: Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, Karl. (1867) 1976. Capital. Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx, Karl. (1894) 1981. Capital. Vol. 3. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mohun, Simon. 2014. Unproductive Labor in the U.S. Economy, 19642010. Review of Radi-
cal Political Economics 46, no. 3: 35579.
Murray, Patrick. 1989. Marxs Theory of Scientific Knowledge. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humani-
ties Press International.
Negri, Antonio. (1973) 1979. Reformism and Restructuration: Terrorism of the State-as-Fac-
tory-Command. In Working Class Autonomy and the Crisis: Italian Marxist Texts of the
Theory and Practice of a Class Movement, 196479, edited by Red Notes, 3337. London:
Red Notes.
Postone, Moishe. 1993. Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marxs Criti-
cal Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pryke, Michael, and Roger Lee. 1995. Place Your Bets: Towards an Understanding of Global-
ization, Socio-financial Engineering, and Competition within a Financial Centre.
Urban Studies 32, no. 2: 32944.
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). 2012. Report to Congress on Assigned Credit Rat-
ings. December. Washington, DC: SEC. www.sec.gov/news/studies/2012/assigned
-credit-ratings-study.pdf.
Shaikh, Anwar M., and E. Ahmet Tonak. 1994. Measuring the Wealth of Nations: The Political
Economy of National Accounts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shamir, Ronen. 2008. The Age of Responsibilization: On Market-Embedded Morality. Econ-
omy and Society 37, no. 1: 119.
Shiller, Robert. 2003. The New Financial Order: Risk in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
SIFMA (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association). 2013. US Asset Backed Secu-
rities Issuance. www.sifma.org/uploadedFiles/Research/Statistics/StatisticsFiles/SF
-US-ABS-SIFMA.xls?n=21330.
Standard and Poors. 2013. A Strengthening U.S. Economy Is Likely to Bolster U.S. Consumer
ABS Fundamentals. March 21. New York: Standard and Poors. www.globalcreditportal
.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1099914&SctArtId=170826&from=C
M&nsl_code=LIME.
Standard and Poors. 2014. New Structured Finance Opportunities Will Push the Boundaries
for Securitization across Latin America in 2014. January 30. New York: Standard and
Poors. www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1252568
&SctArtId=210845&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME.
Tett, Gillian. 2010. Silos and SilencesWhy So Few People Spotted the Problems in Complex
Credit and What That Implies for the Future. Banque de France, Financial Stability
Review, no. 14: 12129.