Sly_Wizard

Irrelevant. That's not the point being made. Also irrelevant and had nothing to do with anything I typed out thus far. Since you missed the point being made, I'll try to simplify: AXIOMS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SELF-EVIDENT. THEY'RE NOT TRUE BECAUSE THEY NECESSARILY ARE TRUE, BUT RATHER THEY'RE TRUE BECAUSE WE TAKE THEM FOR GRANTED IN ASSUMING THEY'RE TRUE. From there, we use said axioms to derive logical conclusions regarding just about whatever we want. In other words, by accepting X as true, then Y must also be true. Understand? More irrelevency.

I was going to type out a response, but this guy wins :thumbsup:

This why I don't debate with non-logic/philosphy majors on religious matters. Anywho... "God does (Not) exist" isn't an axiom as you can't presuppose the (non-) existence of God. If I were to say, for example, "God exists because I assume He does", you'd jump all over that argument (And rightfully so), because it's circular. "God does (Not) exist" is the conclusion. In order to derive that conclusion, you use a set of premises. Granted, you could assume just about any premise you want, but that doesn't mean you're argument would be a sound one. This is going to be an extreme oversimplification, but it's only to demonstrate a point. An atheist type axiom would be something like this: The universe was created by the Big Bang. God doesn't exist. Given your initial premise, you conclude that God doesn't exist (This isn't to say you're right, as it could very well be wrong, but rather that your argument is logically valid). Of course, axioms are never this easy to distinguish as Thomas Aquinas (And other major philosophers) have found out. Most atheists seem unable to distinguish between a religious axiom and a conglomeration of religious practices which have accrued over thousands of years. Why do you think we're on a 2000 year old debate about God's existence? As for the issues of faith, I happen to like Kierkegaard's statement that faith only starts by conceeding the limits of human understanding. Granted, this too is a bit of a simplification, but it's the best I can do without typing out paragraphs upon paragraphs. Typically one doesn't respond to a question with a question, but I'll make an exception in this case. Assuming you live in the United States, why do you accept the following statement to be true? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I'll make this really simple for you; Accepting the basic axioms of Christianity-- Or any other religion for that matter-- To be true, then God exists (And before someone decides to say "But religious axioms can't presuppose the existence of God!", I'd like to point out that "God exists" isn't a religious axiom. Religious axioms are NEVER that obvious; Just ask Mr. Aquinas). Also, contrary to popular belief, science doesn't aim to prove anything, but rather to disprove the null hypothesis. By definition, God can never be proven through scienfitic means as it's impossible to disprove an unknown. It'd be akin to making a concrete statement regarding the existence of aliens based on the fact that one has never been observed.

What would be the point of the Federal government enacting any laws then? And what would stop, say, Florida from declaring war on another state or country?

If you're going to mention logic, then it'd help to argue logically. Logic is built on assumptions, as assumptions are necessary in order to construct arguments. Since you didn't read my first post, then I suggest you read this: http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/han ... fense.html Oh, and since you mentioned it, 'prove' that the Bible wasn't inspired by God ;)

Human understanding is limited, hence the fallacy in trying to argue God's non-existence in a natural sense. Time is a system created by those whose lives end in death. It has no meaning to those things which have no beginning nor an end. Edit: Since no one read my first post, I'll simplify it: Evil exists because God wants it to exist (See: Job). Since good and evil are relative, one would never know 'good' unless it had a comparitive equal.

Everyone knows the universe was created by the big bang... Of course, big bangs are preceeded by big crunches, which are caused by the effects of a big bang, which is the result of a big crunch and so on and so forth in a never ending game of "Which-came-first?-The-chicken-or-the-egg" argument on a cosmic scale. It's amazing how many people accept such intellectual cop-outs as the example above to explain how/why the universe exists, yet argue against against the existence of God due to His existence being paradoxal.

All right. I'll bite. People should read Platinga's "Free Will Defense". It's a good ontological argument, with no inherent flaws. Of course, it'd help to have a little understanding in logic before attempting to read/understand it >_>

Did you make a typo? You say your production function is: Y = K^(2/3) * L^(2/3) Is one of those supposed to be 1/3? Anyway... I'll help you with 1c as you have it written. You're going to have to rewrite your function in terms of the steady state of capital per worker. That'll be: s(K^1/3) = ÃÆýÃâôK Solve for K: (s/ÃÆýÃâô)^3 = K Substite for s and ÃÆýÃâô: (.10/.20)^3 = K K = .125 (Someone double check my work. I probably made a mistake somewhere. I took the question to say that at some unspecified point in the future that depreciation will rise from .10 to .20. Therefore I solved the function as I did in question 1a, but with the increased depreciation rate.)

It's not, as you want to say, irrelevant. For all of your verbosity, you sure know less than you think you know. You say all my facts are self-apparent? Good! As they should be. Anyone with an intro to economics would know that the Federal Reserve doesn't regulate the prices which a firm can and can't charge. Anyway... I noticed how you didn't respond to anything I actually said, rather choosing to label whatever you can't refute as irrelevant. Oh well... I'll just accept that as a sign of defet. Oh, and it's spelled badly, not baldly (Since you're sooo grammatically retentive). English ain't my first language, but I read and understand it just fine. Jeez... You found a spelling error. Congratulations! Anyway, shame on you for believing Wikipedi to be a credible source of information. You should try to get away with citing Wikipedia in under-graduate/graduate/post-graduate work. I do so hope you like F's, 'cuz you'll be seeing lots of them. There's a reason schools are blocking access to the site, you know. No, it's not. The most common argument for the existence of subsidies is to protect domestic producers against cheap foreign imports (i.e., the sugar industry within the United States). Dependence has nothing to do with anything, as no industrialized country is self-sufficient. You'd be surprised how unwilling to go to war with each other countries are when they're economy are intertwined. ...Really? Man... I had NO idea... #-o Oh, and since you're grammatically retentive, anyways ain't a word ;) Lemme' help you out here (Since I'm such a nice guy). No one said government regulation of the economy is bad. You mentioned subsidies, I pointed out how price supports were generally a detriment to economies unless trying to de-monopolize a market and-- To steal a word you're-oh-so-found-of-- Irrelevant to the discussion as Runescape contains no monopololies. Then you try to tell me that you weren't talking about subsidies, so now I ask why bring it up at all? The problem is that you're not making an actual argument relevent to the thread. *Points towards the title* Amazing how you still haven't gotten around to proving how price controls are a good thing. I'm going to start calling you Qeltar (Who I see is cheerleading, as per usual). What do you mean no government in the real world actully follows my edicts? I'm sorry, but where have you been since, like, the end of WWII? *Points upwards a couple of responses* You're not very good at flaming. The word idiot is so played out. Troglodyte's all the rage now :D Anywho, thanks for the research but am I supposed to be looking something up? From? Nigeria. Live in? The United States. Anywho, #3 says education and healthcare while #6 also says foreign relations, but we know how well that's worked out. Contrary to what you seemingly believe, Democrats are generally the biggest spenders in the United States and make more gains towards interntional trade than their counterparts (Though the current administration bucks the trend, due to GB's love of China). *Yawn* No field of study involving some basis in math and science makes the claim of being absolute and/or infallable, since each functions on induction and is privvy to change as new information is learned. To call economics backwards is just innane (But not surprising, considering who it came from). But, you see, that's the thing. You don't know basic economic theory better than I do (Boy, this has the ominous feeling of a "Yes, I do!"/"No, you don't!" kind of shouting match), so I feel as if I hve to dumb these down so you'll understand. meaning it's a price ceiling, not a floor. No. No, it doesn't. Obviously you haven't tried using it. Which is no time soon. This coming from the guy who spends most of his time maintaining a site about Runescape sucks and why everyone is wrong and he's right... *Shrugs* Love you too, sweetie :)

It's rather simple. If the item isn't selling, as I'd surmise they aren't, then the price won't change. This is why the whole "Minimum/maximum" cap should be done away with, as most prices won't change until people start buying them at their "lows".

Oh, dear God... Since you're confused, let me help you out. The Federal Reserve regulates interest rates (The price of money) and controls the flow of money through an economy in an attempt to regulate inflation. Contrary to what you believe, inflation isn't the price of goods and service. Inflation measures the change in a price index (Such as the CPI) from Year-X to Year-Y. The Federal Reserve is unable to dictate the prices at which a firm can and can't sell it's products. It doesn't set tariffs, subsidies, price floors, price ceilings etc.; That's the jurisdiction of the US Government, typically the President. By the way, Wikipedia isn't a very credible source to site, as anyone can edit it (Just so you know). ...But I'm sure you knew that :wall: They're not irrelevant sentences by any means. Subsidies are never a good thing, unless you're trying to de-monopolize a market (That is, the government is supporting the fringe firm). However... In Runescape it's entirely IMPOSSIBLE to monopolize any market (Except for maybe the rare market, but even that is near impossible) as their are an infinite supply of any resource and virtually no barriers to entry. Furthermore, I wonder why you brough up the point of subsidies, since no one in Runescape is actually receiving any kind of assistance from Jagex. ...But I'm also sure you knew that as well :wall: Yup, I know what the insurance industry is and no, I've no idea what you mentioned it for. One typically doesn't make a point by posing a question without elaborating on it. Is this how you write your research papers: "Go find the information for yourself." :roll: Funny... Didn't you bring up subsidies? You must suffer from short-term memory loss. I can't believe I'm actually going to respond to this... Conservatives don't typically support free trade, as they argue that domestic producers are hurt by outsourcing jobs and cheap imports. But I digress... ;) Did you just call economics as a study backwards? I'm sorry, but you lose all credibility with this idiotic claim. How is it backwards? Why doesn't it work that way? Just because you say so doesn't make it true, you know? Free trade drives the market towards equilibrium. Producers provide as much as consumers are willing to purchase and they sell at the price which consumers are willing to buy for. No one can monopolize the market, because someone will always try to undercut you. No intervention by Jagex and everything works out as it should. See how easy that was? And I did it without being verbose :D Price floors occur above equilibrium price, just so you know. Some of GE prices are actually well below their market prices, meaning it's a price ceiling, not a floor (As I said in my last post). There are no transactional limitations, as you want to call them. You can log into world 2 (Or still use the forums) to sell for a higher price than that you would get using the GE and complete your transaction in a shorter amount of time than if you tried using the GE. What transactional costs? Log into world 2, stand around and wait to sell your item for a higher price than that you can get using the GE. Simple.

A budding steel industry. That stuff is useful in producing guns and cannons.

The federal reserve is a banking system. It has nothing to do with setting prices of goods and services. Subsidies can be described as government payments which encourage the production of goods, either by restricting the number of suppliers in a given market or by raising the price of goods supplied by producers. They're generally inefficient, as they drive the price of raw goods higher than they would be under free trade, usually raising producer surplus at the cost of consumer surplus. What about the insurance industry? I don't usually agree with Qeltar, but all your points fail. Any economists will tell you that price supports do NOT work. Never have, never will. Free trade is vastly superior-- And preferred-- To controls and limitations. Let's look at what happened when the GE came out. What Jagex has done is implement a price ceiling. The max price people can currently charge for their items is, in many cases, lower than market equilibrium. Rule #1 in economics: "Lower prices = Lower supply". Before someone says it, there's currently an excess supply of goods versus people buying them, but I surmise this is because of people trying to unload their goods in order to minimize their losses. In the long run, however, you'll start to see the demand for certain goods rise whilst the supply of them fall. Normally, this would be followed by a rise in price of the goods demanded followed by more people willing to supply those goods because of a price increase, but because Jagex has dictated that the market can only respond at 5% per day, this process might-- And will-- Take a while to correct itself. Of course, there's also the possibility of people ignoring the GE all together and selling their items on world 2, which is probably what will happen.

Oh joy... A duel arena update. All this means is that instead of dealing with one x-logger, now you have to deal with up 63 of them. :shock:

Doubtful. Once the novelty wears off people'll go back to crafting via the abyss, as that's where the profit lies.

2/6 Yeah. I'm cool 8-)

I can tell most of you guys (And gals) didn't play RSC where you could be attacked by god-knows-how-many mages/rangers at once >.> Still, I like this update. No more x-loggers with flowers =D>

I made this suggestion loads of times on the forums. I guess Jagex finally listened 8-)

*Grumbles* Leave it to Jagex to release a GOOD update the weak I start graduate school. ...I still haven't logged on since the update.

I got close to getting a large from mithril dragons. It was a helm and it was dragon, but unfortunately it was a med. Anyway, I started to wonder if you had a better chance from getting a dragon large from chewed bones than you actually do from mithril dragons, but I don't think Jagex would do something like that. ...Or at least, I'm hoping they wouldn't.

I can't stop lol'ing. Proof that CS is run by illiterate monkeys.

I just had a thought. What if the Godsword is like a bowsword except able to cast magic? ...Oh well. A guy can dream, can't he?

If you were lured before the ditch, chances are you're still going to be lured after the ditch. You can't fix idiocy, no matter how hard you try. Anyone who is, was, and will be lured is a moron and shouldn't be protected. Period. Read the warning signs and don't trade two steps away from the wilderness. How hard is that? Really... By the way... I was ranging black dragons and thig guy said he'd grab my arrows for me. Well, he kept them and laughed at me. I think I'm gonna' report him under 'item scamming', as he lied to me for personal gain.