Research talk:5c/YT/BaudrillardPostmodernStockMarket - Revision history

Reversedragon: Baudrillard broke with Marxism in the 1970s

2026-08-30T08:27:00Z

Baudrillard broke with Marxism in the 1970s

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:27, 30 August 2026
Line 90:		Line 90:

	{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}adding the Soviet bureaucracy to economic equations -> this sounds like a {{censor\|\|shit\|post}} but I'm quite serious. when you have capitalism proper the economy is all chunked up into separate islands (eco-nomics = laws of house-islands), but when you have as much as the Soviet bureaucracy things are more directly connected to each other, and the "cybernetic feedback arena" won't behave exactly the same as it did before.		{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}adding the Soviet bureaucracy to economic equations -> this sounds like a {{censor\|\|shit\|post}} but I'm quite serious. when you have capitalism proper the economy is all chunked up into separate islands (eco-nomics = laws of house-islands), but when you have as much as the Soviet bureaucracy things are more directly connected to each other, and the "cybernetic feedback arena" won't behave exactly the same as it did before.

			{{li\|I=Z1/IV\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{book\|The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique}} (David North) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/21/dnbo-j21.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/21/preo-j21.html]

			{{li\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Baudrillard broke with Marxism in the 1970s, or at least shortly after 1968; this is not to imply that he believed in [[E:Philosophical System of Bolshevism (meta-Marxism)\|Marxism]] before, but is only to state that he was not a Marxist (Leninist; Communist; Bolshevik) in 1976 [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/03/baud-m17.html]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: The existence of fan fiction disproves Baudrillard

2026-08-27T19:58:06Z

The existence of fan fiction disproves Baudrillard

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:58, 27 August 2026
Line 80:		Line 80:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Baudrillard isn't a real postmodernist -> if he actually distinguishes between reality and simulations enough to accuse the economy of improperly being a simulation, then is he really doing postmodernism? or is this just post-structuralism or something?		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Baudrillard isn't a real postmodernist -> if he actually distinguishes between reality and simulations enough to accuse the economy of improperly being a simulation, then is he really doing postmodernism? or is this just post-structuralism or something?

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}The existence of fan fiction disproves Baudrillard -> I'm serious. the fact there is really actually a correct answer to a lot of questions about whether characters are in character (though not all of those questions; a few are subjective) means that symbols don't really refer to nothing. the difference between correct answer and incorrect answer is one cause for fan fiction existing.

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Game theory isn't real (Baudrillard) / Game theory problems are detached from society -> game theory and so-called "feedback processes" are a consequence of physics, more than a lot of postmodernist theories are a consequence of physics, really.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Game theory isn't real (Baudrillard) / Game theory problems are detached from society -> game theory and so-called "feedback processes" are a consequence of physics, more than a lot of postmodernist theories are a consequence of physics, really.

Reversedragon: adding the Soviet bureaucracy to economic equations

2026-08-27T19:55:46Z

adding the Soviet bureaucracy to economic equations

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 27 August 2026
Line 85:		Line 85:
	{{li\|I=S1/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}floating signifier / the digital, programmatic sign, which has a purely tactical value -> does he think photons exchanged between physical objects have a purely tactical value, too?		{{li\|I=S1/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}floating signifier / the digital, programmatic sign, which has a purely tactical value -> does he think photons exchanged between physical objects have a purely tactical value, too?

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Petty producers are workers (Baudrillard) / Because novelists work directly with the layer of labor hours and not with the top layer of signifiers (stocks, fiat currency), petty producers are workers (postmodern economics) -> "that doesn't sound correct [[E:that doesn't sound right, but I don't know enough about stars to dispute it\|but I don't know enough about Baudrillard to dispute it"

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}adding the Soviet bureaucracy to economic equations -> this sounds like a {{censor\|\|shit\|post}} but I'm quite serious. when you have capitalism proper the economy is all chunked up into separate islands (eco-nomics = laws of house-islands), but when you have as much as the Soviet bureaucracy things are more directly connected to each other, and the "cybernetic feedback arena" won't behave exactly the same as it did before.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Fiat currency finds its value on the signifier side of economic language in Marxist economics [false]

2026-08-27T18:38:45Z

Fiat currency finds its value on the signifier side of economic language in Marxist economics [false]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 27 August 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:
	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ES, MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion; it can exist outside media and culture {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> all right, technically true.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ES, MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion; it can exist outside media and culture {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> all right, technically true.<br/>
	I do have a silly question though: how can you be a postmodernist and believe that hidden illusions can actually exist and maliciously deceive people if you can't know what's illusion and what's real in the first place? Marx can figure out there are hidden illusions but... for a postmodernist, haven't they already said that the existence of illusions is just their own opinion? how is discovering illusions actually in any way actionable if you view things that way? haven't you set up a framework where it's a perfectly valid "opinion" to be deceived and you can't tell people they shouldn't want to be deceived?		I do have a silly question though: how can you be a postmodernist and believe that hidden illusions can actually exist and maliciously deceive people if you can't know what's illusion and what's real in the first place? Marx can figure out there are hidden illusions but... for a postmodernist, haven't they already said that the existence of illusions is just their own opinion? how is discovering illusions actually in any way actionable if you view things that way? haven't you set up a framework where it's a perfectly valid "opinion" to be deceived and you can't tell people they shouldn't want to be deceived?

			{{li\|I=F2/BM\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Expectations of expectations float around above reality -> no.

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is a signifier

	{{li\|I=S2/BM/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is a floating signifier {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> hmm! that's an actually interesting claim. I'm not sure it's true. and I'm not sure this is an economics statement rather than a psychology statement, either.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/BM/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is a floating signifier {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> hmm! that's an actually interesting claim. I'm not sure it's true. and I'm not sure this is an economics statement rather than a psychology statement, either.<br/>
	fiat currency actually does {{em\|something}}, however minimal. there's a real difference between a dysfunctional Third World currency that's wildly inflated and the US dollar. the US dollar is doing something the broken currency isn't doing. the ratio between the US dollar and the broken currency reflects some actual relationship between the population with the functioning fiat currency and the population with the broken one. I don't think I can say more than that {{em\|with certainty}}, but I do love to idly think about what might be happening there.		fiat currency actually does {{em\|something}}, however minimal. there's a real difference between a dysfunctional Third World currency that's wildly inflated and the US dollar. the US dollar is doing something the broken currency isn't doing. the ratio between the US dollar and the broken currency reflects some actual relationship between the population with the functioning fiat currency and the population with the broken one. I don't think I can say more than that {{em\|with certainty}}, but I do love to idly think about what might be happening there.

	{{li\|I=F2/BM\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}~~Expectations~~ of ~~expectations float around above reality~~ -> no.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency "technically" has a referent / 1 dollar bill refers to the value of {{i\|n}} used books / N dollar bills refer to M loaves of bread -> you can't get much for a dollar bill these days but sometimes you can get a used item.

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is able to represent multiple levels of value because numbers (cents; yen or yuan values; etc) are defined relative to each other -> wow. linguists just discovered basic arithmetic.<br/>
			I wouldn't be so sarcastic about this if Deleuze and Guattari hadn't {{em\|really actually}} forgotten how to count. I don't trust linguists to know how to count any more.

			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency finds its value on the signifier side of economic language / Fiat currency finds its value on the referential side (signifier side) of the equation ([[E:sign equation\|sign equation]])

			{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=ES onto MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Linen refers to nothing / Fiat currency finds its value on the signifier side of economic language in Marxist economics -> I'm going to have to stop you there before you get through the rest of this video. no! I have read enough of {{book\|Capital}} to know that is completely misquoting Marx. Marx doesn't even use fiat currency to describe the values of commodities. he uses abstract units of labor, which are a completely different unit on a different layer of reality. this allows the [[E:surplus value gap\|surplus value gap]] to exist. there may be small amounts of uncertainty associated with determining how much "real effort" goes to how much product in each industry that bubble up into comparisons between industries, but that isn't a big problem. the surplus value gap is the more interesting observation, particularly in regard to Baudrillard's whole "floating signifier" thing. the nether side of that gap is already much closer to reality than he is, even if it hasn't gotten all the way down to the bottom.<br/>
			sure. maybe fiat currency is a little detached from reality. but you can't really fake labor hours or even territory-exclusivity hours. you can't fake people seeing a product that looks to have come from a lot of sourcing hours, competition hours, or craftsmanship hours versus seeing a product that looks to have come from few of those hours. the [[EC:9k/RD/Q28,87\|dragon process]] is quite real, in that the average person can distinguish novel kinds of labor or competition from "AI slop". if exchange value was truly attached to nothing then people wouldn't mind AI books because all they would see is that they'd been repeatedly fed the idea that a particular level of technique is a particular level of valuable. but if you show them an AI book they get mad that you've shown them "{{censor\|crap}}". why? can you explain that?

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Picture is not pipe

2026-08-27T09:14:37Z

Picture is not pipe

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 {{li|I=F2/BM|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Expectations of expectations float around above reality  ->  no.
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 51: / Line 68: @@
 {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Baudrillard isn't a real postmodernist  ->  if he actually distinguishes between reality and simulations enough to accuse the economy of improperly being a simulation, then is he really doing postmodernism? or is this just post-structuralism or something?
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: Fiat currency is a floating signifier

2026-08-27T08:37:44Z

Fiat currency is a floating signifier

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:37, 27 August 2026
Line 37:		Line 37:
	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The economy mostly moves in response to other signals within the system {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> isn't that how all material objects work, though? no acknowledgement of dialectical materialism / special relativity. this is one of the bluest statements I've ever seen.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The economy mostly moves in response to other signals within the system {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> isn't that how all material objects work, though? no acknowledgement of dialectical materialism / special relativity. this is one of the bluest statements I've ever seen.

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ES, MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> all right, technically true.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ES, MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion; it can exist outside media and culture {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> all right, technically true.<br/>
	I do have a silly question though: how can you be a postmodernist and believe that hidden illusions can actually exist and maliciously deceive people if you can't know what's illusion and what's real in the first place? Marx can figure out there are hidden illusions but... for a postmodernist, haven't they already said that the existence of illusions is just their own opinion? how is discovering illusions actually in any way actionable if you view things that way? haven't you set up a framework where it's a perfectly valid "opinion" to be deceived and you can't tell people they shouldn't want to be deceived?		I do have a silly question though: how can you be a postmodernist and believe that hidden illusions can actually exist and maliciously deceive people if you can't know what's illusion and what's real in the first place? Marx can figure out there are hidden illusions but... for a postmodernist, haven't they already said that the existence of illusions is just their own opinion? how is discovering illusions actually in any way actionable if you view things that way? haven't you set up a framework where it's a perfectly valid "opinion" to be deceived and you can't tell people they shouldn't want to be deceived?

			{{li\|I=S2/BM/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is a floating signifier {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> hmm! that's an actually interesting claim. I'm not sure it's true. and I'm not sure this is an economics statement rather than a psychology statement, either.<br/>
			fiat currency actually does {{em\|something}}, however minimal. there's a real difference between a dysfunctional Third World currency that's wildly inflated and the US dollar. the US dollar is doing something the broken currency isn't doing. the ratio between the US dollar and the broken currency reflects some actual relationship between the population with the functioning fiat currency and the population with the broken one. I don't think I can say more than that {{em\|with certainty}}, but I do love to idly think about what might be happening there.

			{{li\|I=F2/BM\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Expectations of expectations float around above reality -> no.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Subjective themes ==		== Subjective themes ==
	~~<!--~~
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">
	</li></ol~~> --~~>
			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Baudrillard isn't a real postmodernist -> if he actually distinguishes between reality and simulations enough to accuse the economy of improperly being a simulation, then is he really doing postmodernism? or is this just post-structuralism or something?

			</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Many of Baudrillard's early works were about economics [dubious]

2026-08-27T08:21:05Z

Many of Baudrillard's early works were about economics [dubious]

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:21, 27 August 2026
Line 24:		Line 24:
	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.<br/>
	truth value: not likely true due to possible category error.		truth value: not likely true due to possible category error.

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Many of Baudrillard's early works were about economics -> this feels like it needs to be tested, and like it could actually be false. find one work by Baudrillard that is supposedly about economics and analyze it, and if it clearly is not saying anything relevant to economics in a serious material way then the probability of all Baudrillard's "early works" not being about economics goes up.

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> it's somewhat fair to slam that one because it doesn't cover things like whether a product is novel versus old, in-print versus out-of-print; something that is highly useful and effective could make next to no profit at all precisely because it doesn't drive growth and speculation.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> it's somewhat fair to slam that one because it doesn't cover things like whether a product is novel versus old, in-print versus out-of-print; something that is highly useful and effective could make next to no profit at all precisely because it doesn't drive growth and speculation.

Reversedragon: Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion

2026-08-27T08:17:10Z

Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:17, 27 August 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy ~~{{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}}~~ -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.<br/>
	truth value: not likely true due to possible category error.		truth value: not likely true due to possible category error.

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> it's somewhat fair to slam that one because it doesn't cover things like whether a product is novel versus old, in-print versus out-of-print; something that is highly useful and effective could make next to no profit at all precisely because it doesn't drive growth and speculation.		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> it's somewhat fair to slam that one because it doesn't cover things like whether a product is novel versus old, in-print versus out-of-print; something that is highly useful and effective could make next to no profit at all precisely because it doesn't drive growth and speculation.

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=BM, ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}postmodern economics ~~{{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}}~~ -> well, I didn't think this was even possible, but the postmodernists showed me I guess.		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=BM, ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}postmodern economics -> well, I didn't think this was even possible, but the postmodernists showed me I guess.

	{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}consumerism (postmodern economics) {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> didn't know this one was a separate motif either! postmodernists are really telling on themselves with these videos.		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}consumerism (postmodern economics) {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> didn't know this one was a separate motif either! postmodernists are really telling on themselves with these videos.
Line 34:		Line 34:

	{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The economy mostly moves in response to other signals within the system {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> isn't that how all material objects work, though? no acknowledgement of dialectical materialism / special relativity. this is one of the bluest statements I've ever seen.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The economy mostly moves in response to other signals within the system {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> isn't that how all material objects work, though? no acknowledgement of dialectical materialism / special relativity. this is one of the bluest statements I've ever seen.

			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ES, MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> all right, technically true.<br/>
			I do have a silly question though: how can you be a postmodernist and believe that hidden illusions can actually exist and maliciously deceive people if you can't know what's illusion and what's real in the first place? Marx can figure out there are hidden illusions but... for a postmodernist, haven't they already said that the existence of illusions is just their own opinion? how is discovering illusions actually in any way actionable if you view things that way? haven't you set up a framework where it's a perfectly valid "opinion" to be deceived and you can't tell people they shouldn't want to be deceived?

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy

2026-08-27T08:09:35Z

It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:09, 27 August 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	<dl class="wikitable hue">		<dl class="wikitable hue">
	{{HueRoster\|P=channel\| {{E:Q618/ES\|SoyGnostic Philosophy}} }}		{{HueRoster\|P=channel\| {{E:Q618/ES\|SoyGnostic Philosophy}} }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=P34\| {{E:Q618/ES\|Q=51,85\|postmodern philosophy}} }} <!-- en: field -->		{{HueRoster\|EP=P34\| {{E:Q618/ES\|Q=51,85\|postmodern philosophy}} \| {{E:Q618/ES\|Q=51,85\|postmodern economics}} }} <!-- en: field -->
	</dl>		</dl>

Line 18:		Line 18:
	<!--		<!--
	== Usage notes ==		== Usage notes ==
			-->
	== Motifs or claims ==		== Motifs or claims ==
	<ol class="hue clean reset">		<ol class="hue clean reset">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/W\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.<br/>
			truth value: not likely true due to possible category error.

	</li></ol~~>--~~>		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> it's somewhat fair to slam that one because it doesn't cover things like whether a product is novel versus old, in-print versus out-of-print; something that is highly useful and effective could make next to no profit at all precisely because it doesn't drive growth and speculation.

			{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=BM, ES\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}postmodern economics {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> well, I didn't think this was even possible, but the postmodernists showed me I guess.

			{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}consumerism (postmodern economics) {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> didn't know this one was a separate motif either! postmodernists are really telling on themselves with these videos.

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Most stock trading is not done by humans but by algorithms {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> so... when people say it's not possible to predict the future, or not possible to predict the economy, why do these exist?

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}The economy mostly moves in response to other signals within the system {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> isn't that how all material objects work, though? no acknowledgement of dialectical materialism / special relativity. this is one of the bluest statements I've ever seen.

			</li></ol>

	== Subjective themes ==		== Subjective themes ==

Reversedragon: copy markup from other nickel

2026-08-27T08:05:53Z

copy markup from other nickel

New page

{{NickelBank| postmodern stock market
|h2 = {{caps|The Death of the Economy}}: Baudrillard's Financial Simulacrum
|nickel = YT/BaudrillardPostmodernStockMarket |Contents=y}}

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueRoster|P=channel| {{E:Q618/ES|SoyGnostic Philosophy}} }}
{{HueRoster|EP=P34| {{E:Q618/ES|Q=51,85|postmodern philosophy}} }} 
</dl>

=== Links ===
* YouTube: {{a|datetime=2026-08-12T19:25:28Z|href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8tIs1QBORo}}


=== Nickel usage or significance ===
* (fill in later)


== Subjective themes ==


[[Category:Nickel links (NickelBank)]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 27 August 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:
	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ES, MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion; it can exist outside media and culture {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> all right, technically true.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ES, MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion; it can exist outside media and culture {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> all right, technically true.<br/>
	I do have a silly question though: how can you be a postmodernist and believe that hidden illusions can actually exist and maliciously deceive people if you can't know what's illusion and what's real in the first place? Marx can figure out there are hidden illusions but... for a postmodernist, haven't they already said that the existence of illusions is just their own opinion? how is discovering illusions actually in any way actionable if you view things that way? haven't you set up a framework where it's a perfectly valid "opinion" to be deceived and you can't tell people they shouldn't want to be deceived?		I do have a silly question though: how can you be a postmodernist and believe that hidden illusions can actually exist and maliciously deceive people if you can't know what's illusion and what's real in the first place? Marx can figure out there are hidden illusions but... for a postmodernist, haven't they already said that the existence of illusions is just their own opinion? how is discovering illusions actually in any way actionable if you view things that way? haven't you set up a framework where it's a perfectly valid "opinion" to be deceived and you can't tell people they shouldn't want to be deceived?

			{{li\|I=F2/BM\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Expectations of expectations float around above reality -> no.

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is a signifier

	{{li\|I=S2/BM/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is a floating signifier {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> hmm! that's an actually interesting claim. I'm not sure it's true. and I'm not sure this is an economics statement rather than a psychology statement, either.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/BM/Aa\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is a floating signifier {{YouTube\|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> hmm! that's an actually interesting claim. I'm not sure it's true. and I'm not sure this is an economics statement rather than a psychology statement, either.<br/>
	fiat currency actually does {{em\|something}}, however minimal. there's a real difference between a dysfunctional Third World currency that's wildly inflated and the US dollar. the US dollar is doing something the broken currency isn't doing. the ratio between the US dollar and the broken currency reflects some actual relationship between the population with the functioning fiat currency and the population with the broken one. I don't think I can say more than that {{em\|with certainty}}, but I do love to idly think about what might be happening there.		fiat currency actually does {{em\|something}}, however minimal. there's a real difference between a dysfunctional Third World currency that's wildly inflated and the US dollar. the US dollar is doing something the broken currency isn't doing. the ratio between the US dollar and the broken currency reflects some actual relationship between the population with the functioning fiat currency and the population with the broken one. I don't think I can say more than that {{em\|with certainty}}, but I do love to idly think about what might be happening there.

	{{li\|I=F2/BM\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}~~Expectations~~ of ~~expectations float around above reality~~ -> no.		{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency "technically" has a referent / 1 dollar bill refers to the value of {{i\|n}} used books / N dollar bills refer to M loaves of bread -> you can't get much for a dollar bill these days but sometimes you can get a used item.

			{{li\|I=S2/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency is able to represent multiple levels of value because numbers (cents; yen or yuan values; etc) are defined relative to each other -> wow. linguists just discovered basic arithmetic.<br/>
			I wouldn't be so sarcastic about this if Deleuze and Guattari hadn't {{em\|really actually}} forgotten how to count. I don't trust linguists to know how to count any more.

			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Fiat currency finds its value on the signifier side of economic language / Fiat currency finds its value on the referential side (signifier side) of the equation ([[E:sign equation\|sign equation]])

			{{li\|I=F2/ES\|tradition=ES onto MN\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Linen refers to nothing / Fiat currency finds its value on the signifier side of economic language in Marxist economics -> I'm going to have to stop you there before you get through the rest of this video. no! I have read enough of {{book\|Capital}} to know that is completely misquoting Marx. Marx doesn't even use fiat currency to describe the values of commodities. he uses abstract units of labor, which are a completely different unit on a different layer of reality. this allows the [[E:surplus value gap\|surplus value gap]] to exist. there may be small amounts of uncertainty associated with determining how much "real effort" goes to how much product in each industry that bubble up into comparisons between industries, but that isn't a big problem. the surplus value gap is the more interesting observation, particularly in regard to Baudrillard's whole "floating signifier" thing. the nether side of that gap is already much closer to reality than he is, even if it hasn't gotten all the way down to the bottom.<br/>
			sure. maybe fiat currency is a little detached from reality. but you can't really fake labor hours or even territory-exclusivity hours. you can't fake people seeing a product that looks to have come from a lot of sourcing hours, competition hours, or craftsmanship hours versus seeing a product that looks to have come from few of those hours. the [[EC:9k/RD/Q28,87\|dragon process]] is quite real, in that the average person can distinguish novel kinds of labor or competition from "AI slop". if exchange value was truly attached to nothing then people wouldn't mind AI books because all they would see is that they'd been repeatedly fed the idea that a particular level of technique is a particular level of valuable. but if you show them an AI book they get mad that you've shown them "{{censor\|crap}}". why? can you explain that?

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>