/lit/ - Literature

>>23518059
>reluctant to study capitalism and mainstream economics?
Why are the adherents of chiromancy are reluctant to study astrology?

>>22666732
>His theories when applied
We can say that about mainstream economics as well.
Because, ever since the Cambridge Controversy, it has been proved that mainstream economics CANNOT work.

>>22597937
>Point being that capitalism doesn't work for shit neither
And they don't work for the very same reasons >>22597214 (pic there)

Capital is not an objective thing.

>>21941750
Nitzan J., Bichler Sh. - Capital as Power (2009) (pic related)
Fix B. - Rethinking economic growth theory from a biophysical perspective (2015)
Keen S. - Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor Dethroned (2011)

Also, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsUS3ynhAKY

>>21896334
>supply is observable and independent of the human mind
Yeah, sure, and that's why Noble Laureates kept conceding that it is only 'a parable', when pressed hard enough.

>>21828875
>pick up a book on basic economics
Pic related.

>I highly recommend economics in once lesson. Start with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsUS3ynhAKY

>It's not unreasonable to expect for literature to be able to support itself as an industry without being propped up by the government.
High brow literature might give one respect, but it will never be commercially successful. Because vulgar 'free market' plebs will pay only for cheap self-complacent thrills
And low brow tier lit is not literature, but paper wastage.The author becomes a crude manufacturer of shit. A clown slaving for the fags.

>>20739620
https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/2/20090522_nb_casp_full_indexed.pdf
Capital as Power (2009)

>>20560259
>Debunks both astrologers AND chiromancers
????

>>20513731
"Capital as Power" (2009) by Nitzan and Bichler

>>20224062
>leave the market do its own thing
ahahaha_faggot.jpg

>>20129043
>if it is exactly proportional to the quantity of training it costed
Which you cannot objectively *calculate*, I repeat. Calculate the quantity of mana, go on.

>He doesn't give a shit as to exactly how much
Indeed.
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/

"If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula. It doesn’t point to any fundamental truth about the world, either natural or social. The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.
This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real.
<...>
Now here’s the uncomfortable truth. Capital is the same as mana — it’s a euphemism for power. Let’s run through the similarities. Hawaiian elites had power because they had mana. Capitalists have power because they have capital. Hawaiian elites proclaimed their power boldly. So do capitalists, who broadcast their power daily via stock tickers. Lastly, mana had mystical significance. So does capital. By controlling mana, Hawaiian elites became ‘vessels of spiritual energy’. By controlling capital, modern elites (we are told) become ‘vessels of productivity’.
The similarities between mana and capital are unsettling. But there is an important difference between the two ideologies. Hawaiian elites didn’t quantify their power. But modern elites do. Capitalists use the ritual of capitalization to give their power a number. This ritual, Nitzan and Bichler observe, does something unique. It makes capitalism the first social order that is quantitative."

>>18614344
>But his main economic ideas are not very useful anymore, a modern textbook is still favored for
for comprehensive study of astrology

>>18605521
>finally a good /lit/ answer
Your only good answers were given >>18604866 >>18604871 >>18605055 here

1. Begin with "Capital as Power" by Nitzan and Bichler - first half of it explains why neoclassicism and marxism suck, why neither utility nor labor hours work, why Samuelson's "revealed preferences" is a sham, etc..
2. Proceed with "Rethinking Economic Growth Theory From a Biophysical Perspective" by Blair Fix - it explains why you can't sanely define GDP, rendering all the price measuring into some useless ritual.
3. Check "Debt as Power" and "An Anthropology of Money" by Richard H. Robbins and Tim Di Muzio
4. Read Steve Keen's "Debunking Economics"

>>18580413
>Same retarded argument could be made about the subjective value theory:
Indeed. It could. Which doesn't automatically make Labor Theory of Value true.

There is no determinable supply and demand. There is no way to objectively assign value to commodity. There is no such thing as Capital.
But that's probably something too complicated for you retards to grasp,

>>18543972
>Labor is bought and sold
>>18543329

>as such is subject to supply and demand
We have problems with identifying supply and demand - and it is a problem both of marxist and mainstream economics. Pic related
You could easily substitute Supply and Demand thingamabobs with some "The strength of Gork" and "The cunning of Mork", or some other made-up metaphysical shit.

>>13296639
>marginalist basis
No, neoclassical paradigms are complete shit as well, because circularity, reswitching and "Cambridge capital controversy".