Saturday, October 22, 2016

Steve Keen on the Finance Sector


Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2

1 comment:

  1. This guy, despite being technically right, doesn’t get straigth to the point here (altough he developped this argument in his book „Debunking Economics“); there is no causal relationship between „cost“ (exchange value) and „benefit“ (use value), in other words, the law of sufficient reason doesn’t apply to economics. The big elephant in the room nobody dares to see, is, of course, complexity. Economists and accountants should be confronted as early as possible with the limitation Gödels theorems put on formal systems complex enough to contain arithmetics instead of being tortured with tautological game theoretical reasoning. Mathematics must quantitatively equalize different mangnitudes as though they were the same, which they’re not. So – contrary to Keens statements - the mathematization of economical curricula is indeed a problem, both in an ethical and an epistemological perspective. Economics should not be founded on mathematics or even analytical philosophy, because this stops the working class from understanding it. And economics cannot be founded on mathematics or philosophy, because it can only be properly founded on itself. Bertrand Russel wasn’t an original thinker. He didn’t produce a single mathematical theorem during his life time. His set theoretical paradoxon had been discovered before by other mathematicians at the same time. And Wittgensteins „Language Games“, if applied to natural science, would destroy science. (Wittgenstein pretended that the solution of a mathematic equation is in no way “contained” in the definition of the problem and the rules being applied.)

    There is a fundamental difference between natural science and economics in this regard, and I believe monetic theory comes closest to understanding this gap. For monetary transactions, the term “equivalence” is only a convention, a game in the Wittgensteinian sense. Only moral prevents me from not paying my bills, no mechanical law. The term „Mon“ was coined by Bernard Laszlo in his book about the „Biology of Money“, but I use it in the sense of Leibnitzian monadology. Second-order propositions (propositions about propositions) are monetical mones, first-order propositions are memetical mones. Mones in general are defined by the fact that their particular use is indistinguishable from their general use, which means, they’re privileging no individuals. Societys built on science and capitalism are principally more egalitarian than feudal religious society or a communist dicatatorship with a privileged party elite. Speaking about „Priviledges of Money Nobelty“ proofs that one has either misunderstood the concept of money or the concept of priviledge. The memetical mones, however, have negative properties that mones in general don’t have, so called un-emergent qualities. „Not being the measure of itself“ is an un-emergent quality oft he memetical mones that mones as such and in general don’t have. Arithmetics can reduce complexity, like in logarithm, only by relying on analogical reasoning, where there is always an uncalculable rest. Commerce, on the other hands, due to un-emergence, rests on binary codes withouth any natural base. The memetical mones are more complex than the monetical mones, because the particualar is due to its differentia specifica more complex than the general. Memetical mones are mathematical propositions, monetical mones are money. Because money is simple and not complex, economy is in no way a mechanism, but rather, a form of prestabilised harmony (Leibnitz), where the laws of causality are invalid. Therefore the central dogm of „Monetary sovereignty“ that taxes don’t found spending on the federal level holds true. And Debt doesn’t have an inflationary effect. I have tried to proof everything I say here, if you’re interested in the detailed proof of “monetology”, write me to