Sorry, Comrade, but Price Controls Don���¢�¢â�š�¬�¢â�ž�¢t Work

[Straw_Hat]

we don't know how many trades does it take or not take to move the price

 

i can say for sure sara and armadyl godsword does not get sold often but the market price will probably be in the same area day by day

 

maybe up to 10 successfully get sold a day

 

 

 

where as some people may want a few hundred blood runes on ge at minimum because i put up 1k and some got sold but the price was lowered since release.

 

 

 

whether it has to do with amount being sold or ratio to amount buying and selling which seems like a smart thing to do, we have no idea what system they implemented.

 

 

 

i'm sure you believe you're smarter than jagex staff, but lets be honest. they've been working on ge for months, maybe years and you think up of a better idea in a day or two? ya ya you've probably taken econ 2301 in college, but i'm sure they have too :roll:

 

 

 

i like the update, even if they are trying to control prices then who cares? just because you can't sell your seeds the whole update was a failure?

 

 

 

game + thinking = no way, i'm off to wow

[Sly_Wizard]

Do I need to list other examples in the real world where the government attempts to moderate change to take place more slowly to avoid deleterious side effects? Ever heard of the federal reserve?

 

 

 

The federal reserve is a banking system. It has nothing to do with setting prices of goods and services.

 

 

 

Subsidies for industries hit by technological change?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

[Sly_Wizard]

Why do you think the British controlled 1/4 of the land in the world at one point?

 

 

 

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

[quitthegame]

Do I need to list other examples in the real world where the government attempts to moderate change to take place more slowly to avoid deleterious side effects? Ever heard of the federal reserve?

 

 

 

The federal reserve is a banking system. It has nothing to do with setting prices of goods and services.

 

 

 

Are you a total incompetent? The Federal Reserve's main goal is limiting inflation. Does that ring a bell? Prices of goods and services? Did you even read my post? "government attempts to moderate change to take place more slowly to avoid deleterious side effects" That's not price controls, you most unsly wizard, that's exactly what I gave examples of! Seriously, where do you people come from? I guess I didn't provide enough links to wikipedia, I needed about 10 more to educate you about basic facts like this.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Thank you for two completely irrelevant sentences. What does what you said above have to do with how governments use subsidies to avoid the deleterious side effects of sudden change? That's right, not a godforsaken thing. I guess in an indirect way, since you quoted the inefficiencies inherent in subsidization yet admitted it does exist, you did imply that the benefits and rationale I'd pointed to must be valid or they wouldn't exist, but that's not really enough to justify saying anything, since just saying nothing would have also implied you agreed with me.

 

 

 

 

 

What about the insurance industry?

 

 

 

Yes, indeed, what about the insurance industry? Do you know what it is? Is that why you put that question in its own paragraph? Do you know anything about economics at all? All good questions, but I find them quite boring. So I'll wait until you display evidence of rational thought about the insurance industry to educate you further.

 

 

 

I don't usually agree with Qeltar, but all your points fail. Any economists will tell you that price supports do NOT work.

 

 

 

Sadly, for you that is, price supports working WASN'T one of my points, so I'm going to have to disregard you saying my points fail until you show some evidence of actually knowing what they are.

 

 

 

Never have, never will. Free trade is vastly superior-- And preferred-- To controls and limitations.

 

 

 

You sound like some 14 year old who's fallen for some conservative propaganda. Newsflash: the real world doesn't work that way. Economics is one of the most backwards areas of study, and there's a reason for that, which you are too dense to see. Even if I were to grant your simplistic and puerile suppositions about free trade in the real world, it's so obvious that the benefits of free trade do NOT transfer by analogy to runescape, that I laugh at the fact that you dare to make it without even considering the possibility that they don't. (I'll give you a hint: the main benefit of free trade is maximizing production through comparative advantage -- this is TOTALLY irrelevant in RS as production rate is not determined solely by physical limitations and human strategies to deal with them but mainly by decisions Jagex makes about their game world)

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

It seems that in most cases it's a price floor, not a ceiling, but the term isn't exactly accurate in any case. It would be more accurate to call it a "temporary transactional limitation that happens to function as an extremely short term price floor", but perhaps that's more words than you can keep in your mind at once.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yea, that's what I said, except you used 5x as many words and threw in some incorrect observations in the middle. The actual reason for the decline in the price is not loss minimization, but is a natural occurrence of the fact that the decrease in the unitary transactional time cost has been massively decreased by the GE, which has increased the number of sellers and therefore prices.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

No, the massive decrease in transactional cost means that the GE will see an increase in usage over time as the prices settle down, although of course whenever items change in price more rapidly than the GE allows they will be traded mainly off the GE. This is something that will mostly happen when game updates change the demand or supply for items drastically though, so it should not be very common.

[Shadowcheval]

Why do you think the British controlled 1/4 of the land in the world at one point?

 

 

 

Ummm not exactly the way you're painting it. The Brits had gained direct political control of about two fifths of the world's [then] population and about one quarter of its land area, and hegemony over nominally independent areas such as parts of China and South America.

 

 

 

The British Empire is generally considered to have arisen as a result of Britain's trade objectives rather than an attempt to establish military dominion.

 

 

 

In their extremism against Empires, many people forget a few things - the British Empire was not a force of evil for those it conquered, it was a force of good. The Pax Britannica made the 19th century comparitively peaceful and safe compared to the centuries that preceded it, and it was possible to travel the globe and visit all continents [except maybe Antartica :wink: ] using just one currency, speaking one language and all without worry of molestation. [mostly]

 

 

 

Britain took its obligations seriously, however: It did not try to extinguish the cultures of other nations, but rather to bring them alive in a framework of fairness. The only cultural artifacts it imposed were simple principles of morals. Where native religions were opposed to even simple moral behaviour, they would introduce Christianity in order to right the wrongs of paganism and allow these peoples to flower.

 

 

 

Of course, this did kind of fall by the wayside when people with more money than actual experience/compassion/ethics/morality bought their way into positions of influence/power. We Brits have made some howlers with regards to some colonies/conquered nations. (Middle East - though American interference/manipulation there was more to blame than British mishandling) Ireland is all our own work though. That's what you get when the wrong people are making the decisions.

 

 

 

In the western hemisphere, compare Haiti, settled by the French, to the Bahamas, settled by the English. I know that when I do my civic duty and donate blood, stepping foot in Nassau does not make my blood a type IV pathogen.

 

 

 

In Asia, compare Singapore and Indonesia. One of these countries is a high tech Asian wonder, the other is slaughtering infidels. Guess which one was civilized by the British, and which one by the Dutch.

 

 

 

In Africa, compare English civilized Egypt with Italian civilized Libya. Which one is a world pariah, and which one is a force for moderation in the Arab world.

 

 

 

So, British Colonies are moer economic expansion than military, thought for either, one needs both :P

 

 

 

In that post I did not present a bias that the British were evil or any variance thereof. What I was referring to was the brilliant use of the economies of foreign nations to gain speres of influenece, and eventually control, of these overseas powers. And Sly Wizard, you can't develop a great steel industry without economic controls.

[Chippy_PK]

actually the economy isnt stable with over 5 mil+ players who r u to say? because soon there will be someone or a group of people with so many of a certain item they could manipulate the price so much that they could sell something for 1m if it cost 700k or some1 could sell something that cost 50k for 200k! think! it could happen!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[Chippy_PK]

i'm sure you believe you're smarter than jagex staff, but lets be honest. they've been working on ge for months, maybe years and you think up of a better idea in a day or two? ya ya you've probably taken econ 2301 in college, but i'm sure they have too :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

lol can you say BOOYA!!!!! lol nice 1 :thumbsup:

[Shadowcheval]

actually the economy isnt stable with over 5 mil+ players who r u to say? because soon there will be someone or a group of people with so many of a certain item they could manipulate the price so much that they could sell something for 1m if it cost 700k or some1 could sell something that cost 50k for 200k! think! it could happen!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

 

 

I think what you described was a potential side effect of a free market economy...if only I could understand bad grammar better...

[Sly_Wizard]

Are you a total incompetent? The Federal Reserve's main goal is limiting inflation. Does that ring a bell? Prices of goods and services? Did you even read my post? "government attempts to moderate change to take place more slowly to avoid deleterious side effects" That's not price controls, you most unsly wizard, that's exactly what I gave examples of! Seriously, where do you people come from? I guess I didn't provide enough links to wikipedia, I needed about 10 more to educate you about basic facts like this.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Thank you for two completely irrelevant sentences. What does what you said above have to do with how governments use subsidies to avoid the deleterious side effects of sudden change? That's right, not a godforsaken thing. I guess in an indirect way, since you quoted the inefficiencies inherent in subsidization yet admitted it does exist, you did imply that the benefits and rationale I'd pointed to must be valid or they wouldn't exist, but that's not really enough to justify saying anything, since just saying nothing would have also implied you agreed with me.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Yes, indeed, what about the insurance industry? Do you know what it is? Is that why you put that question in its own paragraph? Do you know anything about economics at all? All good questions, but I find them quite boring. So I'll wait until you display evidence of rational thought about the insurance industry to educate you further.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Sadly, for you that is, price supports working WASN'T one of my points, so I'm going to have to disregard you saying my points fail until you show some evidence of actually knowing what they are.

 

 

 

Funny... Didn't you bring up subsidies? You must suffer from short-term memory loss.

 

 

 

You sound like some 14 year old who's fallen for some conservative propaganda.

 

 

 

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... ;)

 

 

 

Newsflash: the real world doesn't work that way. Economics is one of the most backwards areas of study, and there's a reason for that, which you are too dense to see.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Even if I were to grant your simplistic and puerile suppositions about free trade in the real world, it's so obvious that the benefits of free trade do NOT transfer by analogy to runescape, that I laugh at the fact that you dare to make it without even considering the possibility that they don't. (I'll give you a hint: the main benefit of free trade is maximizing production through comparative advantage -- this is TOTALLY irrelevant in RS as production rate is not determined solely by physical limitations and human strategies to deal with them but mainly by decisions Jagex makes about their game world).

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

It seems that in most cases it's a price floor, not a ceiling, but the term isn't exactly accurate in any case.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

It would be more accurate to call it a "temporary transactional limitation that happens to function as an extremely short term price floor", but perhaps that's more words than you can keep in your mind at once.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yea, that's what I said, except you used 5x as many words and threw in some incorrect observations in the middle. The actual reason for the decline in the price is not loss minimization, but is a natural occurrence of the fact that the decrease in the unitary transactional time cost has been massively decreased by the GE, which has increased the number of sellers and therefore prices...

 

 

 

...No, the massive decrease in transactional cost means that the GE will see an increase in usage over time as the prices settle down, although of course whenever items change in price more rapidly than the GE allows they will be traded mainly off the GE. This is something that will mostly happen when game updates change the demand or supply for items drastically though, so it should not be very common.

 

 

 

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.

[Bobbington]

Away from the direct reason Jagex have given, another major reason why the restraints are there (although I doubt Jagex would ever say) is a concern a brought up before the release of the exchange.... money laundering! where basically a "customer" would put up a worthless item at say 1million GP which then a gold farmer would put a bid on it thus transferring the money to the customer without having to meet, and advantaging them.

 

 

 

 

 

So from that angle I believe some limitations are needed, although I would say that 5% is too restrictive.

 

 

 

Sadly this games population is lazy, and a huge number of people will put up their item at the lowest amount so the sell quicker...... it's only 5% less.... they can cope with it....

 

 

 

Due to this the economy is currently looking at a quite large price drop in most items (probably temporary). the issue is that 5% is too easy..... if the boundary where to be bigger (say 10%) allot more people would come away from selling at the lowest figure, due to that the economy would be more free..... AND probably more stable.

 

 

 

I personally would move the boundary anywhere between 7% and 15% although probably no higher.

 

 

 

I am interested to see what happens when a new desirable item is reduced, and if the boundaries are initially placed on the items... or if they leave it totally free for several days.

[Shadowcheval]

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:

 

 

 

Okay, you're correct in saying that the Federal Reserve regulates the price of money. But you fail to see the next step. When you control the price of money, it's actual value, you also control the price of everything that money can procure. EVERYTHING. No exceptions.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

But he wasn't saying that subsidies are good/bad. He's just saying that they are used by governments as tools to combat economic depression in industries.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

No comment

 

 

 

Funny... Didn't you bring up subsidies? You must suffer from short-term memory loss.

 

 

 

Misunderstanding here. You don't see the point that he's making.

 

 

 

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... ;)

 

 

 

Pretty sure he's referring to McCarthyism here.... :roll:

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

No comment

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

It's hard to minimize rares when there's a large market associated with them. And the uproar over the Duel Arena was also a sign that rares are not something that can be trifled with unless handled with extreme care. The fact of the matter is, however, that you do not take into account bots. If tons of bots continue selling the vast supply of various raw materials, very few, if any, people will want to do it themselves when they could simply buy very cheaply. So the bots could potentially have a monopoly on raw materials.

 

 

 

Price floors occur above equilibrium price, just so you know. The GE prices are actually well below their market prices, meaning it's a price ceiling, not a floor.

 

 

 

It very much differs case to case. Some items or too cheap, others too costly.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If you're praising World 2 in this way, why do you care if some people decide to use the GE insead?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

He's referring to the time it takes. While you could, of course, stand around and hope for the best, you could just stick your items into the GE, and go and do whatever the hell you feel like doing.

[quitthegame]

 

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.

 

 

 

Oh, dear Gods and Goddesses. Since you're amazingly confused, let me call you the fool that you are. "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. " --Obvious fact that everyone knows and is irrelevant #1. "Contrary to what you believe, inflation isn't the price of goods and service." --Baldly unsupported lie #1, I never said that. "Inflation measures the change in a price index (Such as the CPI) from Year-X to Year-Y. " --Obvious fact that everyone knows and is irrelevant #2. I'm going to skip quoting your next 2 sentences and just note that they are obvious and irrelevant facts #3 and #4.

 

 

 

Seriously, your lack of reading comprehension has got to be crippling--is English your second language? If so, can we please stop arguing, it's just not fair.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Just so you know, cite is spelled with a 'c' not an 's'. Here's an example for you to learn from: "Wikipedia is a credible site to cite, as its review process has been shown under review by independent scholars to make it both more detailed and more accurate than other encyclopedias. Of course in a scholarly work Wikipedia isn't appropriate, but in that case no other encyclopedia is either." Get it?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The most common argument for the existence of subsidies is to reduce dependence on foreign countries. Your paeans to free trade would seem pretty useless if the countries that we shipped all of our manufacturing industries to decided to go to war with us. There are about 20 more reasons, but I'll let you go look them up somewhere more reliable then wikipedia. Anyways, the WHOLE REASON they're irrelevant sentences is that I wasn't defending subsidies in my post, you have no idea what anything I've said means. Let's recap: A whole bunch of people say any government regulation of the economy is bad. I point out that all governments regulate their economy, so it's nuts to call Jagex communistic for doing so in a way that's not dissimilar to current capitalist practice. You post a bunch of stuff about how subsidies is bad. Your post is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the argument I'm actually making. In addition to being irrelevant, your points are also wrong, which is why no government in the actual real world follows your edicts, but that's getting offtopic.

 

 

 

Furthermore, I wonder why you brought up the point of subsidies, since no one in Runescape is actually receiving any kind of assistance from Jagex.

 

 

 

Of course you do. Amazing how long you've gone on about subsidies considering you have absolutely no idea why I mentioned them...eh?

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

No, this is how I flame idiots. Good job not figuring that one out yet. (Hint for your research: Look up insurance and banking industries, focusing on heavy regulation, reasons for)

 

 

 

Funny... Didn't you bring up subsidies? You must suffer from short-term memory loss.

 

 

 

Dang, you're still on about subsidies. Wow.

 

 

 

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... ;)

 

 

 

I don't know what country you're in, in the U.S. where I live conservatives support free trade. It's been in the Republican Party platform at least since Goldwater. Check http://www.gop.com, supporting free markets is #2 on the list. What country are you from?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Lol, wouldn't want to lose all credibility with you, would I? That would be horrendous. Considering your lack of ability to understand the simplest of things I've said, there's really no chance of me explaining how economics is a backwards field. If you go read up on complex dynamical systems, and the limitations of the attempts to model them with simple linear differential equations, then perhaps I could digress on how economics, with the most complicated dynamical systems, tried the hardest to believe that their simple diffy q's reflected some absolute truth, but until you did you'd have no idea what I was talking about. I will grant that it's catching up recently, the recent work on the irrationality of individual economic decision making processes is a sign that the last classicist generation has finally passed. However, I've seen no evidence that the economic theory you attempt to rely on is recent, so in that sense my earlier assertion was spot on.

 

 

 

Free trade refers to the trade of goods and services between or within countries flow unhindered by government-imposed restrictions. This allows to market to control itself by

 

 

 

Do you ever get tired of spouting irrelevant and obvious facts? How have you not gathered by now that I know the basic theory much better than you do?

 

 

 

Price floors occur above equilibrium price, just so you know. The GE prices are actually well below their market prices, meaning it's a price ceiling, not a floor.

 

 

 

What? No they're not. The whole point of this thread is about the GE prices being above the market price... sigh. That's funny.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The transactional cost is time. GE sells in 5 seconds what would take longer that to sell over forums or in world 2, at least it will when the prices stabilize. Seriously, which items are underpriced in GE? I've seen people complain in these forums about 50-60 different items that are overpriced in GE, not a single item underpriced. So which are they? Some items have had their market price go down, true, but that's not the same as GE price < market price.

[qeltar]

Flammacor, have you, uh, 'debated' with Sly Wizard before? This is what happens. Don't let him get you flustered. It's simply not worth it.

[quitthegame]

Psh, what you call flustered, I call highly motivated. One time in a turn-based MMOG in a futuristic setting, I got so 'motivated' by a similar exchange that I wrote a 2 page satiric medieval fantasy to mock the other person's arguments. I'm pretty sure everyone would have thought I was crazy, but I'd won the previous two rounds, which meant I could only be eccentric. Personally, I think it's just getting funnier as it goes on, especially the conservatives being against free trade thing.

[death666bl00ms]

Hey all,

 

 

 

Since there seems to be alot of people with a strong economic background on this thread (or at least, pretend to have a strong economic background :mrgreen: ), any chance any of you can look over my homework, and tell me if I am on the right track? I made a post in the general section:

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=720294

 

 

 

Thank you sooo much. I am kinda lost on the last bit.

 

 

 

(Especially hoping for some help from Flammacor or qeltar )

[Sly_Wizard]

Oh, dear Gods and Goddesses. Since you're amazingly confused, let me call you the fool that you are. "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. " --Obvious fact that everyone knows and is irrelevant #1. "Contrary to what you believe, inflation isn't the price of goods and service." --Baldly unsupported lie #1, I never said that. "Inflation measures the change in a price index (Such as the CPI) from Year-X to Year-Y. " --Obvious fact that everyone knows and is irrelevant #2.

 

 

 

I'm going to skip quoting your next 2 sentences and just note that they are obvious and irrelevant facts #3 and #4.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

Seriously, your lack of reading comprehension has got to be crippling--is English your second language? If so, can we please stop arguing, it's just not fair.

 

 

 

English ain't my first language, but I read and understand it just fine.

 

 

 

Just so you know, cite is spelled with a 'c' not an 's'. Here's an example for you to learn from: "Wikipedia is a credible site to cite, as its review process has been shown under review by independent scholars to make it both more detailed and more accurate than other encyclopedias. Of course in a scholarly work Wikipedia isn't appropriate, but in that case no other encyclopedia is either." Get it?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The most common argument for the existence of subsidies is to reduce dependence on foreign countries.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Your paeans to free trade would seem pretty useless if the countries that we shipped all of our manufacturing industries to decided to go to war with us.

 

 

 

You'd be surprised how unwilling to go to war with each other countries are when they're economy are intertwined.

 

 

 

Anyways, the WHOLE REASON they're irrelevant sentences is that I wasn't defending subsidies in my post, you have no idea what anything I've said means.

 

 

 

...Really? Man... I had NO idea... #-o

 

 

 

Oh, and since you're grammatically retentive, anyways ain't a word ;)

 

 

 

Let's recap: A whole bunch of people say any government regulation of the economy is bad. I point out that all governments regulate their economy, so it's nuts to call Jagex communistic for doing so in a way that's not dissimilar to current capitalist practice. You post a bunch of stuff about how subsidies is bad.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Your post is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the argument I'm actually making.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

In addition to being irrelevant, your points are also wrong, which is why no government in the actual real world follows your edicts, but that's getting offtopic.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Of course you do. Amazing how long you've gone on about subsidies considering you have absolutely no idea why I mentioned them...eh?

 

 

 

*Points upwards a couple of responses*

 

 

 

No, this is how I flame idiots. Good job not figuring that one out yet. (Hint for your research: Look up insurance and banking industries, focusing on heavy regulation, reasons for).

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I don't know what country you're in, in the U.S. where I live conservatives support free trade. It's been in the Republican Party platform at least since Goldwater. Check http://www.gop.com, supporting free markets is #2 on the list. What country are you from?

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

Lol, wouldn't want to lose all credibility with you, would I? That would be horrendous. Considering your lack of ability to understand the simplest of things I've said, there's really no chance of me explaining how economics is a backwards field.

 

 

 

If you go read up on complex dynamical systems, and the limitations of the attempts to model them with simple linear differential equations, then perhaps I could digress on how economics, with the most complicated dynamical systems, tried the hardest to believe that their simple diffy q's reflected some absolute truth, but until you did you'd have no idea what I was talking about.

 

 

 

*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).

 

 

 

Do you ever get tired of spouting irrelevant and obvious facts? How have you not gathered by now that I know the basic theory much better than you do?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Price floors occur above equilibrium price, just so you know. The GE prices are actually well below their market prices, itself by

meaning it's a price ceiling, not a floor.

 

 

 

The transactional cost is time. GE sells in 5 seconds what would take longer that to sell over forums or in world 2...

 

 

 

No. No, it doesn't. Obviously you haven't tried using it.

 

 

 

...at least it will when the prices stabilize.

 

 

 

Which is no time soon.

 

 

 

Flammacor, have you, uh, 'debated' with Sly Wizard before? This is what happens. Don't let him get you flustered. It's simply not worth it.

 

 

 

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 :)

[quitthegame]

 

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.

 

 

 

It's not just that your facts are so obvious, it's that you present them as amazing pearls of wisdom, and in a context where they add nothing to the discussion as they aren't relevant. For example, your sentence above--"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. " So what? It's certainly true, but no one said it wasn't, so who cares? You're just wasting everyone's time. "Anyway... I noticed how you didn't respond to anything I actually said, rather choosing to label whatever you can't refute as irrelevant." That's false, your obvious and irrelevant facts I label as such, your false statements I call false. See, I just called another of your statements false, whoop ti do.

 

 

 

Oh, and it's spelled badly, not baldly (Since you're sooo grammatically retentive).

 

 

 

Well, actually that sentence is correct with the word baldly, and nonsensical if badly is inserted instead. Will you go look up the word 'baldly' or do I have to do that for you as well?

 

 

 

English ain't my first language, but I read and understand it just fine.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you don't... let's wrap this up then, this isn't a fair fight.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I do know, which is why I specifically mentioned that it's not appropriate for that use. Why don't you try reading my posts, instead of responding to them?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If the industry isn't vital to national interests, then that's a bad argument. I would agree that's it's common though.

 

 

 

You'd be surprised how unwilling to go to war with each other countries are when they're economy are intertwined.

 

 

 

Right, like how the countries in the past two world wars didn't engage in trade with each other. Or the hundreds of civil wars that have occurred in the past 500 years.

 

 

 

Oh, and since you're grammatically retentive, anyways ain't a word ;)

 

 

 

It's in the dictionary, although I wouldn't use it in a paper.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I already answered that question, try reading my posts instead of replying to them.

 

 

 

Amazing how you still haven't gotten around to proving how price controls are a good thing.

 

 

 

The gist of my response is that the things that are being called price controls AREN'T ACTUALLY PRICE CONTROLS. Amazing how you still haven't gotten around to understanding that.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I see you've missed that my entire point is Qeltar's point is wrong, but then again I'd already seen that.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

You'd know that idiot's back in style if you were a native speaker, so I'll cut you some slack on that one.

 

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

Education and healthcare are big priorities, trying to privatize them that is. You're wrong about conservatives not supporting free trade, but that's such a messy topic let's just agree to disagree here, since I'm not responding again anyways.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

Mathematics is deductive and not subject to change from new information, so is a counterexample to your first claim above. Leaving that aside, your first sentence above doesn't support your second sentence, at all. Using your exact logical structure, I could say "No person is infallible, since each functions on induction and is subject to changes of opinion as new information is introduced. To call flammacor inane is just inane." Hoist on your own petard there, eh? The fact that nothing is perfect doesn't mean that it's absurd to make comparisons between imperfect things. It doesn't even come close to meaning that. It could hardly be farther from meaning that. Clear?

 

 

 

I'm sure that you'll respond again with another round of badly written attempts of refutations, but since I learned you're not a native speaker the sport has gone out of it. Here, I'll respond in advance to however many posts you care to make. Your first paragraph is true but I never said anything to the contrary, your second paragraph is a grammatical attack but the word you said wasn't a word actually is a word, and the third paragraph is a response to something I said that I never actually said. For paragraphs 4 and onwards, just take the paragraph number modulo 3 and apply as above.

 

 

 

Salutations and goodnight.

[Karvinen]

Currently the Grand Exchange "market price" of cooked lobsters is the same as the lowest possible price. 201 gp, if I remember correctly. No 5% range.

[o_knames]

Currently the Grand Exchange "market price" of cooked lobsters is the same as the lowest possible price. 201 gp, if I remember correctly. No 5% range.

 

 

 

The 5% limit is truncated when it would fall below alch or store buy value. That was explicitly stated when the Grand Exchange was released.

[Artificial_Doom_Flavor]

Currently the Grand Exchange "market price" of cooked lobsters is the same as the lowest possible price. 201 gp, if I remember correctly. No 5% range.

 

 

 

The 5% limit is truncated when it would fall below alch or store buy value. That was explicitly stated when the Grand Exchange was released.

 

 

 

Which is ridiculous. Just look at gold bars.

[Ravenkana]

Has anyone thought that, due to these nifty price ceilings and floors, the benefits of no bots is offset by the artificially low prices for the goods once produced by bots being kept into practice in the GE?