Please note that my aplutism is
motivated by self interest, like any other economic theory. I doubt the
existence of money, mine or anyone’s, in the hope of keeping around what little
there might be.
I invented aplutism as a satire, a
conscious absurdity; and it works as a satire, for it reveals that its opposite
– plutism – is an unconscious
absurdity! For I put it to you that there is no such thing, intrinsically, as
money, because there is no such thing as a free lunch, and intrinsically
valuable money would be a free lunch.
That’s the plutic fallacy. If money
existed in itself, then money would breed money; a free lunch.
Why did ten hundred thousand million
dollars softly and suddenly vanish away? Because a gang of well-paid men
thought that financial manipulation created value. They were plutists, in both
senses; they had money, and they thought that their money was valuable in
The brokers trusted the Magic of the
Marketplace to create wealth from money alone; and as a sign of this mystery
they moved their money in a circle. Lo and behold, the Magic of the Marketplace
did indeed manifest; and it manifested in a price; and the price was given by a
mystic symbol; and the mystic symbol was the circle they moved their money in;
and what number does the mystic circle symbolize?
Does money exist? Either
philosophically, or on a personal level? Money exists philosophically if and
only if its alleged movements make sense; that is, if the money system, which
is a self-referential arithmetical accounting system, is consistent. Can it
prove itself to be consistent? According to Goedel’s Second
Incompleteness Theorem, consistency is jinxed; any self-referential
arithmetical system that can prove its own consistency is not in fact consistent.
Since the existence of money is
equivalent to a jinxed property - namely, the consistency of one’s arithmetic -
it follows that money’s existence inherits the jinx. That is, if a money system
can prove that its money exists, then
its money does not in fact exist.
Money exists on the personal level
only if its alleged presence can be documented; any doubts in the matter must
be taken seriously; and despite such systemic skepticism, money always comes
short anyhow. Therefore it is folly to assume, let alone deduce, that you have
any money. Account for it, directly, yourself, and then you can be sure, but
not until. If you foolishly assume that your money exists, then you and it will
soon be parted.
The same doubts apply on the public
level. If you wisely doubt that the money game makes sense, then the books
might balance anyhow; but if you foolishly believe that money has value in
itself, then ten hundred thousand million dollars can softly and suddenly
Therefore it is wise to doubt that
money exists, either in the public or the personal sense. That’s soft aplutism,
a.k.a. agnostic aplutism, or ‘agnoplutism’. (Suggestions for superior
neologisms are welcome!) By Goedel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem,
consistency is jinxed; therefore so is the existence of money; so if the money
system is valid, then its validity must remain in doubt. Money ‘scarcely’
exists; its existence is uncertain - as befits a measure of scarcity.
But given all this self-doubt, in
what can we have faith? Self-faith, of course, as Loeb’s Theorem
implies. Provability is charmed; so if your accounting system can prove that
your accounting system is valid, then it is indeed valid, at least within its
own terms. If the books balance, then even if the money it’s counting is
fictional, then it’s still a balanced fiction. It might sum to nothing, but
that would be an honest nothing. Thus we return to credo, or faith, as the
foundation of credit!
By Goedel’s Second
Incompleteness Theorem, existence in general is jinxed, so in particular
money’s existence is jinxed; it might not exist, and if the money system can
prove that its money exists, then that money does not in fact exist. By Loeb’s Theorem,
validation in general is charmed, so in particular validating one’s own
accounts is charmed. Though money may not exist, still a balanced book is a
balanced book, and it can prove it.
Money scarcely exists, as befits a measure of scarcity. Money might not
exist, both yours and the banker’s; don’t take anyone’s word for it; yet honest
book-keeping justifies itself. This is metamathematical economics, yet it is
also plain common sense.