Research talk:5c/YT/BaudrillardPostmodernStockMarket: Difference between revisions
copy markup from other nickel |
It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy |
||
| 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/ | {{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 == | ||
Revision as of 08:09, 27 August 2026
The Death of the Economy: Baudrillard's Financial Simulacrum
- channel
- SoyGnostic Philosophy ( / ES)1
-1-1 - field, scope, or group [Item]
- postmodern philosophy ( / ES)1
-1-1 - postmodern economics ( / ES)1
-1-1
Links
- YouTube:
Nickel usage or significance
- (fill in later)
Motifs or claims
- It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy [2] -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.
truth value: not likely true due to possible category error. - Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality [3] -> 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.
- postmodern economics [4] -> well, I didn't think this was even possible, but the postmodernists showed me I guess.
- consumerism (postmodern economics) [5] -> didn't know this one was a separate motif either! postmodernists are really telling on themselves with these videos.
- Most stock trading is not done by humans but by algorithms [6] -> so... when people say it's not possible to predict the future, or not possible to predict the economy, why do these exist?
- The economy mostly moves in response to other signals within the system [7] -> 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.