/lit/ - Literature

>>16118334
no they arent. they just wish they were. economists are psuedoscientists.
it would be so much more impressive if economists were technicians of blind wealth

Currency as a mark of wealth and dominion of the state, not a separate power of its own laws. The Owl of Athens on the gold coin; a contract of honour in which only wealth is changed hands, as in skilled work which is a mark of giving and inheritance.
Electrum is perhaps even more valuable than gold, a fasces quality in the metal representative of the state's inseparability from work and property. All work together to combine wealth and sovereignty of all classes. Their division and conflict suggest that the currency has been debased along with wealth.
The black market, particularly in the mafia, exists as something of a death cult of this, preserving some aspect of honourable wealth - an economy upheld by violence in law. The method of exchange is linked to the old families and world, so it is an economy in time and total opposition to the new world. Breaking these societies apart was significant, the leveled criminal rackets of the 'underworld', the racial gangs, and class gangs are much less of a threat. They maintain no opposition to the new society, they are its rightful form of criminality.

The coin is more than symbolic, it must contain ritual and festival qualities - a mark of law. Otherwise one can presume that the currency of a state has been weakened, descending towards its inevitable debasement. Where this occurs the state has already fallen from wealth and begins to search out means of exchange; this is in the same way that the divine law of a nation becomes lost to the managerial necessities of its territories.
Technical administration forms where wealth loses its intoxicating qualities, its forceful hold over a people in that its appearance occurs as a transition, or passageway, to greater laws. This is why Hermes can never be a god of economy alone, he is also of the criminal element, of wealth which must be thieved even if it means descending into the underworld - a guide for those seeking the greatest wealth beyond this world.
Currency velocity may then be seen in another sense, as a mark of the deathless, of those who can never know a greater wealth. There are no more places worthy of death, nor do we any longer have guides of the dead - and so they continue to search out the greatest wealth here in this world.

>>16118336
You sure?

>>16118334
>Plato wrote it so it must be true.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

>economists are all austrians who believe in prosperity gospel
>not bookish nerds trying to use math to explain the world
have you ever actually met an economists?

>>16119262
>Appeal to authority fallacy.
Appeal to fallacy fallacy.

>>16119276
>Appeal to fallacy fallacy

>>16119275
retard

>>16119305
so you havent met any economists?

>>16119275
Yeah, OP's a moron. Economics is pretty much a Platonic attempt at divining information and relations out of the aether through math.

Finance, sure, I guess we could describe as that, but that's such an oversimplification as to be worthless at that point.

>>16119262
Everything Plato wrote is true. Everything we're learning now is really just rediscovering things Ancient Greeks wrote about

AAAAAAAAAAA
SELL
NO BUY
NO SELL
NO BUY
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
CHECK THE NEWS
SOMEONE SAID IT'S A NOTHINGBURGER?
BUY BUY BUY BUY
SOMEONE SAID IT'S A SOMETHINGBURGER?
SELL SELL SELL
ANALYZING THE SITUATION, READING STUDIES, LISTENING TO INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONALS, LOOKING INTO THE DISEASE DATA?
NO! FUCK YOU O'M NOT SOME NERD KEK!!!
BUY BUY BUY SELL SELL SELL NO BUY AGAIN NO WAIT E SHOULD SELLL
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AHAHAHA IT'S THE DIP GET IT WHILE IT'S HOT
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THIS IS A PANDEMIC WE'RE ALL FUCKED DUMP IT ALL
UNLESS....
WE GONNA MAKE IT BROS TO THE STARS AND BEYOND BUY BUY BUY BULL RUN
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I REGRET BUYING OH GOD IT'S ALL OVER SELL IT ALL
THE FUNDAMENTALS SAY THE COMPANIES ARE DOING GREAT IT'S THE RETARDS WHO PANIC CAUSE THE DIP BUY BUY BUY
NOOOOO THERE'S A DEAD GUY IN WASHINGTON
SELL SELL SELL
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
SOMEONE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FLIP A COIN
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT TO DO THE MARKET WAS GOING UP FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FUCK YOU MARKET YOU FUCKING FAGGOT GO UP GO UP GO UP
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I GRADUATED IN 2010 WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO DO ALL MY CAREER THE MARKET WAS GOING UP
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>16119335
>plato calls economists retards
>no we're the real platonists
go back.

>>16119372
What exactly do you think an economist does all day?

>>16119372
no, plato said that blind wealth is not a benefit. that has nothing to do with economics, as many economists will tell you (the utility money brings levels off pretty steeply, to say nothing of issues of nominal vs real). economics is not about the accrual of blind wealth, and there are numerous disciplines of economics that are basically unemployable (you literally cannot get a job doing anything but teaching micro if you specialize in micro)

>>16119396
pretend to be a millionaire on biz and pol?

>>16119411
Imagine being this retarded. Your post doesn't even make sense.
Plato doesn't even list economics, it's simply not a consideration in the creation of a society. Read a book sometime.

>>16119363
kek

>>16119363
>>16119426
So this is the famous literacy of /lit/ anno 2020

>>16119411
So what's it all about anon?

Economics =/= money

>>16119714
Economics is really about understanding markets. The "economy" is just the sum of all markets

>>16119950
What's your point?

>>16120899
That the OP is wrong

bizfags seething.

>>16119957
and markets are about understanding individuals, from Aristotle to Smith. other anon's point is that economics is not simply about wealth as it is.

>>16119957
And what's a market, my dear Glaucon?

>>16120907
How is Plato wrong when he doesn't even mention money?

>>16118343
Based

>Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.
Were the neets right all along?

>>16119336
>Everything Plato wrote is true.
this. plato was writing under divine inspiration and transcended human reason like no other philosopher

>>16121584
as if. basic economics proves this wrong.

>>16121601
the only thing economics has ever proved wrong is itself

>>16119363
Best documentary about stock exchange I have ever seen.

>>16121687
This is a documentary?

Economics, as it is studied today, falls under the lesser version of mathematics if we go by the text you're citing

>>16121620
how so? economics has made even bottom tier workers wealthier than kings.

>>16121620
ITT
Beta losers from their shitty room brag about some thousand year old quote to be able to look on chad economists without their penis sucked into their bodies.

>>16121750
>chad economists
BASED

>>16119594
Seems pretty lit.

>>16121750
>everyone on biz is in the 1%

>>16121739
>>16121739
Yes, at a surface level. But do these laws not also apply to math? The difference between ancient and modern mathematics is its being applied as a means of transition of values, of technique formed of eternal laws, or as a means of technical transition, as a thing in itself. In simple terms, the geometrical lines either move toward divine laws or the mundane - in the latter all of the worst elements of the form take over the representative and applicable quality. People take this as a reality, a "divining information", but it is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the forms and a revaluation in which the lesser include the greater. We will have either the great war machines of Archimedes or Fourier's oceans of lemonade and whales singing to their enslavement. This triumph of the lowest values means that even logic and math lose their applicable value, all things are reduced to the mundane.

>So what’s the correct method of distribution? First, one has to determine what the total number of people ought to be, then agree on the question of the distribution of the citizens and decide the number and size of the subsections into which they ought to be divided; and the land and houses must be divided equally (so far as possible) among these subsections. A suitable total for the number of citizens cannot be fixed without considering the land and the neighboring states. The land must be extensive enough to support a given number of people in modest comfort, and not a foot more is needed. The inhabitants should be numerous enough to be able to defend themselves when the adjacent peoples attack them, and contribute at any rate some assistance to neighboring societies when they are wronged.

We can see throughout history a devaluing of such distribution. In the great poverty of the late medieval period kings would not give anything less than 140 acres to people, as it would have been a threat to life. Today homesteaders attempt to live on ten acres or even as little as an acre, while the majority of urbanised people have to persist with a few hundred square feet. Paradoxically, as people are democratised they are also centralised towards adherence to the lowest values, and they must deal with far less.

>>16124443
2
This may be understood as an equivalent of Tocqueville's war theory, in which the highly skilled professional soldier is abandoned and replaced with the volunteer, a democratised being who has been defeated within himself - the soldier's will occupied by antiwar sentiment. The effect is that there is actually greater militarisation, ten unskilled men are required to defend the territory once held by a single professional soldier in a watchtower. And this asymmetry of skill is only increased for the attack (which accounts for much of the great shift in modern warfare). The law of peace begins to see the potential for war in all things; an eternal struggle against death.

The modern law of wealth is a proscriptive law, one in which judicial wealth is seen as a threat because of the potential greater laws it may unleash. Many men must perform the duties of one great distributor of wealth, which then goes against the very law of survival. The civilised man becomes a domesticated man once the cities are completely cut off from nature - each hiding away like a mad king. Unification brings all cities together as an attrition against nature, but only their own difference is defeated. Technical measures become greater where man is confined and forced into a permanent state of conflict - there is no time to even fight the war against oneself, the birth of individualism. Morality is replaced by technical measure, the laws of men of the lowest values; even the Christians fall to this.

This is difficult to imagine for anyone who has been taught his whole life that blind wealth is a natural law, one in which the universe is divided between those who see its legal autonomy and those who seek a tyranny of distribution. A false distinction, and for us the very technical analysis of wealth seems to be the greater form because at its very foundation the law contradicts all principles of wealth. Economic man is satisfied with reports that things are improving or that new shipments are soon to arrive, this humanises all of his conflicts. Speculation is the very mark of economic thinking, its currency, and this speaks to the extent that it is a self-abstracting law.

Another contradiction appears in this idea that we are dealing with ever-depleting wealth. How can this be when the origin of the modern world is that of the founding of a new continent? The greatest discovery of potential wealth in history, but technical man immediately turns to an attrition against its animals and a deadening of its forests. All this while he starves or freezes to death with the greatest abundance at his fingertips. The very figure of the modern man is one who starves in paradise. He is horrified by what he finds, and while being enslaved to the Golden-Souled he kills him. This is something less than even the Iron Age.

>>16124455
3
We are in a situation where the lowest values are at war with themselves. This accounts for the incredible bursts of technical inspiration, for example, in the incredibly intricate works of the baroque period. But the unbelievable rate of decline following this period, and the impossibility of return, suggests even its proximity to the mundane. The lowest laws are sustainable for a short time, but quickly exhaust themselves and give way to other forms.

The mark of the financial crisis is of this same law of laws. Here even currency exhausts itself, instantly debased and then reevaluated to a law without grounding. The currency which loses all value must be replaced by many currencies. The economy, what little is left of it, effectively escapes and is replaced by what is nothing more than a phantasiespiel of financial representation - the speculative value of speculative value, and the aestheticization of theory. The end of values is the death of even the symbolic.

This is where cryptocurrency appears and also essentially what it is, the law of non-laws, a non-currency that must use the image of gold to even be considered as potential currency. In reality it has no use other than a final exhaustion of technical systems, it is the lowest of all possible value elevated into a value - which accounts for it being the most wasteful practise in history. An incredible sacrifice of quickly depleting resources must be exhausted simply to maintain the belief in currency. It is the final burst of economic theory before a great shift of eras and founding of new laws. It is effectively the decaying dust of the Twin Towers. The betrayal of law is written into the very name: a currency which holds an unknown loyalty to other laws. Total wealth of dead value.

Hermes is always the first to warn of the gods' anger; Plutus regains his vision and eliminates vast territories of wealth for the cause of justice. The Romans knew of this great law, the danger of plunder - thus the spoils of victory are presented in the eternal arches, as if passing through the gates of the underworld.

Mundane law only understands plunder and elimination, self-defeat. The gates of the underworld must be blocked up, and behind them Hermes and Plutus. All that remains is an endless defense and flight from Penia, she who is married to Porus. Economics is the Pyrrhic victory of wealth, a war of poverty against the expedient.

>>16119262
Plato was taught by the wisest man in the world. To become a student of such a man man one would have to be pretty wise themselves. So Plato's works must contain a lot of wisdom.

>>16124462
After the fall of the great symbol of modern wealth, The World Trade Center, there can be no other economy than a dying law of trade. The centralisation of the world through American law begins to collapse into it own foundation, and all that remains is the ruins of the world civil war. It is no longer even denied as the total law of the West, and it is no mistake that economic ruination follows its every move.

Trillions of real dollars injected into the financial system while the economy comes to a complete halt. Only the essential remains while the currency accelerates towards its death, which only proves that in a society that worships currency as its greatest law there remain much more powerful laws beneath the surface. This should be obvious to anyone who studies history, as we see that legal wealth plays no part in the founding of modern law, only blind wealth. The worship of economy is nothing other than society being at war with itself and the lowest values coming to triumph. Economy rules where there is nothing else, where a people exists on the verge of starvation - a starvation of justice and subordination of blind wealth to its greater form.

Economics is the nihilism of wealth, hence its great hold over those who worship all that is mundane. "Plutus is blind and remains blind." - the motto of the state of ruin. Post-consequentialism, the proscriptive law of time, the eschatology of a history that never ends. Irrational exuberance, where even mathematics is defeated by its worst elements, becoming the long division of a complete nothingness. Economy remains tied to the greatest laws, even as they appear formless.

>>16119262
>Plato wrote it so it must be true.

>>16124443
Are you saying that even math is subject to the forms?

>>16121858
I see dead jews.

>>16125323
Yes.

>>16121687
What documentary?

>>16118334
I can't believe that you didn't take it out of context - it would have been a truly brainlet's take otherwise (where is reason to begin with).
Anyways, isn't it fucking obvious that economics focuses mostly on material development, whatever rank it happens to occupy in some retarded list (and don't you think that you need some wealth to take care of your health - he must have been some NEET who took wealth for granted so he could have just ignored it in his musings)

>>16118334
>Actually thinking economics is about accruing wealth instead of providing utility evenly over a populace

You're about 200 years behind my friend, after the neo-classical revolution in economics all we care about is how to spread welfare. I do agree that economics indeed *can* be used as a toolbox to make the wealthy better off, but the "mere technicians of blind wealth" you are speaking about are the 'scholars' in the business field, definitely not the contemporary economists.

>>16127453
Perhaps you misunderstood the statement? It seems that most of the people responding don't get what is meant by blind wealth.
The entire point is that economics is nothing more than providing base utility and welfare, all while elevating it in theory as if it were a higher value. It seems that you fell for the trick.

>thinking economists actually understand the math

>>16127504
I do indeed think we are on different wavelengths here and I might've understood the statement incorrectly. I agree that economics is all about providing base utility and welfare, and while I think that is useful, I don't believe economics is or should be anything other than that. What I don't get is the definition of blind wealth here. I interpreted it as what Aristotle called the 'chrèmatistikè', the focus on unlimited acquisition of property. This as opposed to what he called 'oikonomia', which is satisfying requirements of the household and the family. In that oikonomia, I believe there is a legitimate place for Economics. Therefore I don't understand the statement that economists are technicians of blind wealth and that economy is therefore 'BTFO'd'

But it might well be that I have gotten a wrong interpretation of 'blind wealth', and if so, please enlighten me.

>>16127607
Will try to answer later.

>>16119336
This. If you're not a Platonist you're part of the problem.

>>16118343
Ya— violence should be decriminalized.

>>16127607
>>16127607
Blind wealth in this sense refers to the god Plutus. In the myth he is blind, and related to gods of fortune, and wealth is thus distributed according to the laws of blind fate. The other gods return his sight and he acts, much like Hermes, as a messenger. Wealth is then redistributed according to laws of justice.
This would suggest, much like Plato is saying, that blind wealth is fine and good so long as it is in accordance with justice - it is not something we consider as a great law as it proceeds naturally from the others. My basic argument following this is that other side of the myth, that loss of justice will result in a moment of vengeance and a great redistribution of wealth in accordance with justice.

In other words, blind wealth comes to reign when man assumes his triumph over greater laws, or at least this appears to be the case. Economics would then be the technical distribution of this blind wealth, of the lowest of laws. The proof of this is that such wealth is distributed entirely based on technical thinking, without recourse to any of the higher values. From the perspective of this law all difference between the modern political ideologies disappears. Any distinguishing characteristics are minor and stem from geography, culture, current level of industrial development, political opposition, history of war, etc. In other words, the economic ideas are formed by other laws, not the other way around.

This contradicts the thinking of both the economist and the average person, for whom the economy represents the greatest value, as if it were a natural law. Any opposition within these theories never gets to the essential, anything that would return to us to higher values. For instance, in marxism the redistribution of wealth is merely that of blind wealth, its revolutionary economics never gets to the essential quality - and this is what accounts for its impoverished sense of being as well as the reaction in the west which senses this impoverishment. And this is why it appears unjust even to those who are opposed to critical levels of wealth inequality, there is no great force, no shift towards what would seem to be of higher laws - what is redistributed is only what is insignificant. It seems like a return to nihilism.

>>16130997
2
At another level, it seems foreign to us as we already went through the revolution of technique, the great leveling process that turned us into technical beings. Economic thinking triumphs as the greatest value only because we no longer sense anything else, technology seems natural to us and all that remains is further technical analysis and distribution of blind wealth.

Yet, other laws persist, war being the obvious example. And it is curious in these times that all opposition based on economic differences can disappear just as well as it may intensify. This again suggests that greater laws remain in play even if we don't acknowledge them.

Otherwise, we may sense a total disconnect between the real economy, that of the wealth of higher values, and that of the economy of blind wealth. There is a simultaneous deepening of real poverty along with the progress of blind wealth - and this poverty is increased by all the dangers of technological life. Economic theory has no answer for this precisely because it is powerless, there is no way for the greater values to be formed of the lowest.

>>16131006
3
As for Aristotle's terms, certainly interesting but I don't think such a distinction would be as useful. Even unlimited acquisition could be of the higher values, or considered as a redistribution of wealth in accordance with justice - as in the case of a war. In the same way the oikos could just as well be concerned with distribution of blind wealth, and the very idea presupposes a false division, one which may easily serve as a transition towards mundane concerns. In other words, if a law of economy is created in which the household is of the highest then a shift away from higher values has already occurred.

Instead, the dominion of the state and the whole of the people must be the primary concern, one which follows an oath to higher laws. What is considered economic should instead follow naturally from these greater laws, and where wealth is concerned its distribution must follow the laws of justice.

Such economic fatalism is of a whole other type than the modern form, and explains why the old world had systems of pardon for criminals and even temples for their gods. Hermes as a god of thieves as well as travellers and the underworld suggests a law of transition - the thief taking away blind wealth for only he can see its greater value. Or as sacrifices to the underworld. His territory is that of the dangerous roads of nature, and the criminal district is the reappearance of these rough laws within the city walls. Otherwise it is a confrontation with death, a reminder that greater things than blind wealth may be taken from us, and that a terrible fate may be coming for us.

The economy of the household must be weighed against that of the criminal. In both we see a decline from higher forms of wealth, but only one is capable of holding a judicial sense of wealth. "For it is better to die when possessions are being seized than to be a coward."

The greatest poverty is the loss of time, an approaching death of the spirit, and theft the return to a sense of time. It is also one of the great rites of Prometheus, and in it we are returned to the primordial origins of life. Paradoxically, this is also of our vision of the future within the halls of death, we must thieve life itself rather than endure the curse of a premature death or its spiritual heir.

>>16119292
Where'd all the bizfags go?