Market Discussions

I'll just have to quote Wikipedia, which caters to the lowest common denominator and is not subject to much interpretation regarding academics backed with texts.

"Chrematistics (from Greek: χρηματιστική) according to Thales of Miletus is the art of getting rich.

Aristotle established the fundamental difference between economics and chrematistics. The accumulation of money itself is an unnatural activity that dehumanizes those who practice it. Like Plato, he condemns the accumulation of wealth. Trade exchanges money for goods and usury creates money from money. The merchant does not produce anything: both are reprehensible from the standpoint of philosophical ethics.

According to Aristotle, the "necessary" chrematistic economy is licit if the sale of goods is made directly between the producer and buyer at the right price; it does not generate a value-added product. By contrast, it is illicit if the producer purchases for resale to consumers for a higher price, generating added value. The money must be only a medium of exchange and measure of value."

All of the market players basically indulge in the most lame, degenerate and corrupt form of economy there is. It's actually self-evident. I, for one, felt dirty each time I did it, and really don't see the point anymore. Doing it is just being a hurdle in the way things pass from hands to hands. It is being a parasite leeching on the life-force of goods exchanged, on the life-force of the market.

What's really depressing is that for most, such truths cannot be experienced, so tainted their souls are.

Greek philosophers were self-righteous and preachy

But it's not socialist, I'm actually a libertarian

However, libertarianism only works when people demonstrate common decency, which illicit chrematistics don't belong in.

I think I found the hole in your theory.

Very true, but supermarkets do provide a transportation and convenience service. It's not purely playing on goods to earn a profit without providing anything to the community.




There is some truth in that also, but you cannot rule out people who will buy all of x good in an area, to resell it at a higher price. Said good is then only available at a higher price.

I think I love you

There's a lot of short sight in that statement (made by you or Aristotle does not matter).

Traders on a macro scale infuse liquidity in the system, that's their "goods".
They make so that the added value actually decreases due to competition.
Check illiquid markets, spreads are huge and thus prices are not "right" as you state above.

Liquid markets - and they are liquid also because of traders - have small spread so the end consumer pays less added value.

Notice the "less" term: don't delude yourself, even direct sales have added value, sometimes well superior than identical large scale commoditized items. By Aristotle there'd be no licit trading, I know no one who would knowingly sell at a loss or at pure "right price".

How is buying and reselling something that would be bought anyway -at a lower price-, adding liquidity, grease, and flexibility to a market?

I'm merely asking how parasitic inflation of the prices, without any convenience added to the goods or their delivery of, adds grease and flexibility to a market?

So when someone puts its good on the market, and someone buys them to resell them, it makes them faster to buy?

An added step means a quicker service?