I do try to help people where I can, with quests I have done, solving clue scrolls, food when they run short while fighting, anti-poisons, making potions (as long as they provide the herbs), swapping unmade / un-enchanted jewellery for the made up / enchanted stuff, growing herbs, making bows etc etc. Now I freely admit I get something out of it too because for a lot of these things I get the experience, so as far as I am concerned it is a fair exchange. I have made a fair few in game friends this way and many of them have returned the favour ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ all so well and good so far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, trying to be ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâniceÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ also tends to leave you exposed to those that take advantage. Players who ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâborrowÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ things then fail to return them. (ie ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åcan I borrow 3 prayer potions and I will give you the herbs to make themÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

In reply to Dwarfie76, I draw your attention to Ellsworth Toohey. He preached the good of self-sacrifice via a radio program. The parallel's between the radio program Rand wrote about, and this thread, are disturbingly apparent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The giving of items as described by IanBorthwick, is precisely what Ayn Rand discussed in many of her works. The most obvious example would be Rearden metal (cooincidentally similar to rune :lol: ), which Hank Rearden was expected to sign the patent over to the government for the greater good. But even before that, the concept of freely giving Rearden's invention away was discussed. Rearden not only intended not to give it away, he intended to charge every penny for it he could. This was to ensure it was used by the best organizations, in the most efficient manner. Going further than that, Ayn said that giving away his metal would insult the work of every person in that field.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to "putting the means of production into the hands of people just starting out", this is analogous to the copper mines of Francisco D'anconia. That is precisely what they did when they nationalized the mines in the book. This was a critical point to illustrate the flawed thinking that, giving valuable resources to those in need will result in prospering masses, because in fact the resources were squandered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the broadest possible terms, selflessness is flawed, because it has no practical function . I believe the exact terms Rand used were that selflessness was founded on death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tragically I don't have my copy of Atlas Shrugged in front of me, because I would love to cite direct quotes. In point of fact, you've missed the mark on what Ayn Rand was talking about, by such a wide margin, I am stunned. The direct comparisons that can be drawn between the book and this topic are so obvious it's incomprehensible. I'm going to try to get my hands on a copy shortly, so I can go back and revise this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, trickle down economics is the direct opposite of this situation. Trickle down economics state that a reduced tax burden on the rich, will be passed on to consumers through the costs of goods and services bought. This would be trickle up economics, because it's theoretically giving means to the poor, in order to produce greater wealth for the rich, in that they will be producing a larger volume of logs, thereby reducing the cost of logs.

This is a great idea just so long as you go about it properly. Make sure that whoever you give things too doesn't ask for it first. Those are the signs of a beggar and by giving them things they reolize that begging works. If hte person doesn't ask for anything then they deserve it.

As to "putting the means of production into the hands of people just starting out", this is analogous to the copper mines of Francisco D'anconia. That is precisely what they did when they nationalized the mines in the book. This was a critical point to illustrate the flawed thinking that, giving valuable resources to those in need will result in prospering masses, because in fact the resources were squandered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, you're confusing statism with private philanthropy. Nationalising resources has a deleterious effect because, in simple terms, no-one wants to get up at 6am to milk the state's cow. Access to the means of production is not analogous to communism, but we can blame Marx for propogating that particular confusion. Statism leads to a "tragedy of the commons" effect where each individual tries to maximise their own share of the common resource to the detriment of the resource as a whole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you are saying would be true if we were proposing to tax high level woodcutters and redistribute some of their logs among low level wood cutters. But that's not what is being discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the broadest possible terms, selflessness is flawed, because it has no practical function . I believe the exact terms Rand used were that selflessness was founded on death.

 

 

 

Which is fine if facilitating production was an entirely selfless act. However, by facilitating production we increase competition and lower prices meaning that society at large benefits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, trickle down economics is the direct opposite of this situation. Trickle down economics state that a reduced tax burden on the rich, will be passed on to consumers through the costs of goods and services bought. This would be trickle up economics, because it's theoretically giving means to the poor, in order to produce greater wealth for the rich, in that they will be producing a larger volume of logs, thereby reducing the cost of logs.

 

 

 

Not quite. In the absence of any tax system at all, the Reagan model of trickle-down economics has to be put aside in favour of a more philanthropic model where the effect of people achieving success are passed down freely to others enabling those others to achieve success as well. A free axe is not going to make someone successful unless they have the will and dedication to get out and use it.

Whether the resources are given voluntarily, or taken by the state forcefully, makes little difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking at the economic effect of the specific example of handing out rune axes, the effects are negative across the board. Free rune axes reduce the price of axes, that in turn hurts the rune smiths, who can no longer sell their axes at the cost of the raw materials involved. If the raw materials are more expensive than the axe, then the prices they command will drop, in turn hurting the rune and coal miners. In addition to these people, the nature runes used in smelting rune will also lose value, and the merchants who's sole income is made buying and selling rune axes will be adversely affected as well. All these people lose revenue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you claim that the result of all this will increase competition in log sales. The recipients of the rune axes were already buying rune axes however. The only result will be the 15k needed to buy the axe, will not have to be earned in any way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of this contributes to an economic slowdown, which benefits no one. Bottom line, free axes hurt the runescape economy.

Ah, therein lies the problem. You view the objective of the game as being to accrue as much pixel wealth as possible, while I view the objective of the game as being to expand your skill levels and explore all the game has to offer. Ideological stalemate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At any rate, it costs precisely 0gp to mine a rune ore, precisely 0gp to mine 8 coal ores, 0gp to place the ore and coal in a furnace, 0gp to hammer it into an axe on an anvil, 0gp to mine some rune essence, and another 0gp to convert that rune essence into nature and fire runes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet high alching a rune axe yeilds 7,680gp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that this might annoy those who (falsely IMHO) believe that the aim of the game is merchanting is of little consequence. One person handing out a free rune axe in no way disadvantages the next person who is making them for money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your arguments are flawed. The runescape "economy" is not the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I love it that there are educated folks here. I must say I'm not a philosopher, but I can follow what's going on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I must say that I didn't have Lim pegged as a Randian. Self interest as the ultimate morality? Ehhh, not for my taste. :)

It seems we are becoming bogged down in theoretical applications of economics to a simulated world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My giving of free items to people fall along acceptable requirements...ie no selfish or shiftless person profits, and shoul done do so it will be a negligible event. Uncommon to say the least.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument is that it will unbalance item value and discomfit the merchant. Allow me to clear the table to place this in NO uncertain terms. The conditions in Runescape are as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) There are more greedy and happily selfish people in this game than there are those ready and willing to go the extra mile, at least it seems so since this is one of the only threads I could find of its kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) With so few people following altruistic drives it will take a monumental upswelling of community to create a Utopian ideal within the virtual world. Therefore even an army of 100's is dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands on, and cannot be everywhere at once to counter every single profiteer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All arguments to state the otherwise are those who are playing the game with these ideals:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A) I must succeed by any means allowed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B) It is not enough that I succeed unless I can cause otehrs to fail for....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C) I measure my richness by how much others do not have. The distance between our relative monetary capacities must be as great as I can or cause to become normal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So by these standards they feel safe only when they can make an unreasonable virtual living and say they have so much. Were the playing field to become more level it makes their millions seem like less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boo Hoo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TO be frightened by someone willing to work philanthropically...how sick can you get? A B and C are positively rife with Nitzche's rhetoric of the theory of the Superman! He shirked the idea of growing responsibility as one became more rich/intelligent/wise/powerful and embraced a "wisdom" that put others that were weaker into their graves. Hitler loved the idea and used it to its fullest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations, you win the prize for defending the worst possible stance. I applaud your shortsightedness in this more enlightened era.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My goals are not Communism, but the uplifting OF the Community from the bottom up. If I were to supply people for free with some of the most valuable items in the game with minimum fuss and no fee what would really occur?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Possible lowering of the prices of certain items due to an undervaluing because of diminished demand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) The merchant or profiteering will turn to other means to make money that is more work oriented, something that requires greater skills for their character and yields a SLIGHTLY lower profit margin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is, at best, what can occur if my efforts are even WILDLY successful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if you dislike that idea, you'll hate the fullest extent of my fantasy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utopia! Where all one need do is ask and it can be given because everyone truly enjoys the act of giving and helping people achieve their personal goals. Where everyone has a job, but unlike in the book Utopia, one can change and move to other jobs. Whatever suits your ideals or drives at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In all honesty, you fear THAT. You fear losing your measuring stick for how much you have succeeded and others have not. Until man truly becomes brotherly there is no chance of this fantasy occurring ANYWHERE except in a virtual environment. And yet time and again I see it ground under the heels of those few who do what Nitzche espoused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that there are more people out there like myself than you can easily see, but due to the loud minorty of Nitzchians like yourself our presence is uncounted. If we were to simply realize we are legion and find a way to work in concert your way of doing things might just suffer massive changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until then I remain ready to help.

1) There are more greedy and happily selfish people in this game than there are those ready and willing to go the extra mile, at least it seems so since this is one of the only threads I could find of its kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe thats because the rest of them don't make a big deal out of it in order to gain praise. If you are truly helping others purely for intrinsic desires, I see no reason to make a topic about giving out free items. Also, you must not have used the search button, as I have seen many threads about giving new players sets of iron and weapons, or whatnot, even in my short term as a tip.it member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) The merchant or profiteering will turn to other means to make money that is more work oriented, something that requires greater skills for their character and yields a SLIGHTLY lower profit margin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just want to let you know that true merchants make so much more money without using skills; I highlty doubt that its only a slightly lower profit margin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) With so few people following altruistic drives it will take a monumental upswelling of community to create a Utopian ideal within the virtual world. Therefore even an army of 100's is dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands on, and cannot be everywhere at once to counter every single profiteer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, here, and in the first quote you admit that those "following altruistic drives" are a small number dwarved by the supposedly "greedy" majority, yet...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that there are more people out there like myself than you can easily see, but due to the loud minorty of Nitzchians like yourself our presence is uncounted. If we were to simply realize we are legion and find a way to work in concert your way of doing things might just suffer massive changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here all of a sudden the Nitzchians become the minority and you the majority, albeit with the minority louder than the majority. Contradiction? I do believe so.

Maybe thats because the rest of them don't make a big deal out of it in order to gain praise. If you are truly helping others purely for intrinsic desires, I see no reason to make a topic about giving out free items. Also, you must not have used the search button, as I have seen many threads about giving new players sets of iron and weapons, or whatnot, even in my short term as a tip.it member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, how does this sound like a search for praise? Only someone seeking denial of altruism to verify ones own lack character would twist this around a tangent. This thread is what it is...a clarion call to others so they know they aren't alone. I am sad you don't see it as such, but you will take from it what you will regardless of reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said...One of, not the one and ONLY. How convenient of you NOT to notice. LOL!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just want to let you know that true merchants make so much more money without using skills; I highlty doubt that its only a slightly lower profit margin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then your gripe is thety won't make enough pixels, I mean money? And since you are a student of business you understand then that instead of gross margin profits they will instead turn to NET margin profits due to higher bulk selling, which in the end results in more people aquiring more items at a lower price but the dividend for the merchant is the same....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your statement is not thought out. Period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, here, and in the first quote you admit that those "following altruistic drives" are a small number dwarved by the supposedly "greedy" majority, yet...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

English isn't your strong suit I see. "Following" was the key word. Not "Capable Of"...TO make it simple enough for you to comprehend, the ones who would act in a cummunal fashion have little or no reason to follow those motives as they see only negative stimuli regarding it throughout the game and in every place merchants are profiteering. In essence they are given the impression there is no other way and as such do not show their true drives, or express their inner altruist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clear enough for you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here all of a sudden the Nitzchians become the minority and you the majority, albeit with the minority louder than the majority. Contradiction? I do believe so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only in your mind. Unfortunately you lack a serviceable grasp on the English language and philosophy. Add to that a near iron-clad stranglehold on seeing what you want despite what is there. Each paragraph lead cogently to this end, nothing contradictory. Your error can be remedied in a dictionary, a thesaurus and a reading and comprehension text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next time you reach for a computer, crack a few of those instead and perhaps some of your shortcomings won't be quite so apparent to the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again....