The bogus �¢â�¬��economy�¢â�¬�

[Holymyth]

Rares play a part in the economy (as we saw they dropped at the introduction of construction), but they definately don't control it.

[paulhartman]

Skyoknight says: You claim that rares mean nothing and are useless and you dont care to ever own one and blah blah blah...Then WHY put so much time and effort into these posts and trying to make people believe the same? The fact is you are jealous.

 

 

 

Get over the fact that you cant afford a rare because they rise faster then you can attempt to make money. Drop the subject, they are hear to stay. shocker isnt it!

 

 

 

My reply: I looked through my entire post. Maybe there was something to this effect that was in it yet forgotten by me. No. Not there.

 

 

 

If you would actually just read it, instead of going off after some imagined slight, I did not badmouth rares in any way. I just explained their lack of a role in the Runescape economy.

 

 

 

I am interested in countering the misinformation that I have seen on these forums about the rares being equated with the runescape economy. I overlooked it for as long as I could stand. My intent in this post was simply to put the sword to that lie. I am sorry that you let your own preconceived ideas about what I was saying keep you from actually reading what I said.

[paulhartman]

N64jive says: if there was no rares in the economy, 2 things might happen.

 

 

 

1. Everyone would spend more money on everything else.

 

 

 

2. there would be a lot more 99's

 

 

 

My reply: I would like to apologize for my inability to make myself better understood. My original post failed. Everyone could not spend more money on everything else because rares do not take any money out of the economy. That, in summary, is what I said. The market in rares just moves money from one person to another. In fact, the opposite of what you said may be true. Since people engage in activity to earn and save money to buy rares, there may very well be LESS, not MORE money being spent on everything else if rares were absent from the game. As to there being a lot more 99s, I donâââ‰â¢t really see a connection. In fact, again, the existence of rares may encourage people to level up their skills to earn enough to buy a rare.

[paulhartman]

Nick says: Without rares there will be huge inflation, causing everything going up in price. Rares "hold" a lot of money. There is say x gp worth of rares. Without rares, it will be the current gp+ x gp= BIG NUMBER.

 

Inflation=higher prices=Bad

 

 

 

My reply: Nick, you did not read my post did you? Admit it. My original post demonstrates why rares do NOT hold down inflation at all, in fact have nothing to do with it. Go back, try again.

[rkolegendkil]

When will you just quit dude? Rares will never leave runescape so I'm sorry you'll just have to stay jealous of the people fortunate enough to work their butts off to afford one.

[paulhartman]

Captainant says: Some people in reality do make their living off of selling collectables.... One of my immediate family members being one of them....

 

 

 

My reply: OK, you are going to need to help me out here. Can you show me just where it is that I actually claim otherwise? I donâââ‰â¢t remember making that claim.

 

 

 

Captainant says: Also, like duke said, rares act as a buffer for economic crisises. When POH came out, what took the biggest hit in prices? RARES! Yes, some items that were pretty pricey (EX- Verac Armor, 6 mil to 5 mil!) dropped in prices, but all the other things stayed pretty level.

 

 

 

My reply: Rares, and other high dollar items, took a hit in price at the release of construction because if you are going to raise big money, you sell the high dollar items. To call this a crisis however is grossly overstating it. All that happened when people wanted to raise money for construction is that the market received more people wanting to sell than buy. This is just simple supply and demand economics. This is just the way markets work.

 

 

 

Captainant says: It's always just changing percentages around from what gets the most money; the percentages are always there, rares really are helping the economy if you think about it instead of bashing them saying that they're sucking up all the money in the RS world!

 

 

 

My reply: Captainant, you need to help me once more. Just where was it that I based rares. You guys keep saying I said this or that; I keep going back, and canâââ‰â¢t find it. But, yes, I did as you suggested. I thought about it. And I came to this conclusion. You are wrong.

[genju24]

I'll address the reply you had for my post, I have issues with pretty much all your replies but not enough time to address them all.

 

 

 

You did not demonstrate anything with your original post, as your logic is flawed and simplistic. You reduce the money flow to a trivial matter, which it is not. You banalize the influence that banked money has on economy, as if it was simple to turn 250m into raw goods to work on your skills.

 

 

 

As a very small example, I'm not a rich player, but I have right now about 4-5 million GPs in raw goods in my bank, and simply not enough time to use all of it.

 

 

 

And no, your example does not demonstrate that the inflation on rares has no influence on wether the whole market suffers inflation or not. Given any small part of a problem, trust me, one can demonstrate anything. But it's when we try to fit in the whole picture that problems show up, and you didn't.

 

 

 

I have a name for discussions with people like you.

 

Pointless.

 

 

 

edit: by the way, you've once again avoided the original question put to you. Why should rares go?

[SaidinWoT]

Simple summary of your post:

 

For rares are the economy:

 

Based on usefulness, not collectability

 

For rares are an outlet:

 

The money is transferred

 

 

 

Now, to reply in more simple statements:

 

First of all, I will agree that rares are not the entire economy. The sales of rares make up a small percentage of the daily sales. Now that's one way to look at it, here's another: There are significantly less rare items at any given time than, say, Rune Platebody (random item).

 

Rune Platebodies are produced daily, and can be purchased from a stock supply to bring even more into the daily trading. Logic follows that there are a lot more of them to trade, and a lot more trades involving them will occur on a daily basis. In addition, some people purchase rares for the purpose of keeping them to display their wealth, drawing more out of the stock available for daily trading. As such, I would expect significantly less trades involving rares than Rune Platebodies, and would find items such as Rune Platebodies to be a much larger part of the economic balance in terms of how often money changes hands based upon them. This would be true of any number of items in the game, because there are so many of them, they are traded more often. As such, yes, rares are not the entire economy; it is much more complex than simply the rares. However, they are still a part of it.

 

 

 

Onto part number two:

 

Alchemy brings in millions per day. This money has to go somewhere. The "alchers" proceed to buy something from the below list, and then the money they paid is passed on when used to purchase something else. Now, at each transaction, it can go to a number of places:

 

*Rare Items

 

*Consumables

 

*Skill Raising Items

 

*Alternative Displays of wealth (i.e. Dragon Hatchet)

 

*Semi-Permanent belongings (i.e. Armor intended to be kept)

 

We'll address it from bottom up:

 

Semi-Permanent belongings - A one-time deal, or multiple times depending on how often you lose these items (such as dieing while slaying, etc.) These are usually intended to be kept for a while for constant use, and, as such, the same player will not constantly buy this item over and over (unless they're really unlucky with those monsters...)

 

Alternative Displays of wealth - Very much like rares, except they have another function in the game (such as the Dragon Hatchet being able to cut trees). However, they are simply much more expensive versions of something which can do exact same thing (Dragon Hatchet = Rune Hatchet in woodcutting ability).

 

Skill Raising Items - These items will raise a skill, and then, likely, the result will either be "alched" or sold; if "alched", more money will be brought in. Vicious cycle, isn't it?

 

Consumables - Generally the end product of a skill, such as runes, arrows (somewhat), food, logs (if burned), etc.

 

Rares - I doubt we really need a definition of what happens when rares are sold, since you obviously showed exactly how it's done...

 

 

 

Now then, in all of my examples, I'm assuming they pay another player for an item. This isn't always the case, they can buy things from stores in the game, taking out a bit of money compared to the money brought in. However, a LOT of the money will go to player-player transactions. In each case, money changes hands. As you stated it, Player A transfers money to Player B. Now what is Player B to do with it? Why, of course, invest it in one of those 5 items or buy something from a shop! So, yes, rares are an outlet for players with lots of money. It allows them to transfer money to each other for something that represents value. Then, yes, they can spend that 250 million gold pieces from your hypothetical situation on something else. But then that gold is simply spread in a number of hands instead of concentrated. It's all still there, though, until someone in that long chain buys something from a store, the only real money sink in the entire game (I consider NPCs such as the Sawmill Operator to be stores selling a product for gp AND supplies).

 

 

 

In closing, you're right, rares are not the entire economy, though they are an alternative outlet for players with lots of money, no matter how you look at it. GP will always change hands, in every transaction not done with a store. You're just worried about when it gets up into the hundreds of millions and it's just not logical (to you).

 

 

 

Forgive me for any convoluted logic, it's been a long day :roll:

 

 

 

BBCode is evil I tell you! Evil! :cry: :lol:

 

 

 

Edit: Fixing the error that made my conclusion contradict the rest of my post :)

[sykoknight]

Skyoknight says: You claim that rares mean nothing and are useless and you dont care to ever own one and blah blah blah...Then WHY put so much time and effort into these posts and trying to make people believe the same? The fact is you are jealous.

 

 

 

Get over the fact that you cant afford a rare because they rise faster then you can attempt to make money. Drop the subject, they are hear to stay. shocker isnt it!

 

 

 

My reply: I looked through my entire post. Maybe there was something to this effect that was in it yet forgotten by me. No. Not there.

 

 

 

If you would actually just read it, instead of going off after some imagined slight, I did not badmouth rares in any way. I just explained their lack of a role in the Runescape economy.

 

 

 

I am interested in countering the misinformation that I have seen on these forums about the rares being equated with the runescape economy. I overlooked it for as long as I could stand. My intent in this post was simply to put the sword to that lie. I am sorry that you let your own preconceived ideas about what I was saying keep you from actually reading what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

True, you may not have badmouthed rares in THIS post, but it is clearely obvious that this post stemmed from the reaction due to your last topic, which DID badmouth rares.

 

If you tryed writting this as a completely seporate topic from your previous one, then im sorry. But I will tell you that there is absolutely no way anyone that read your previous post will be able to view them seporate. As said before it seems that with these two topics, one after the other, it seems like you are on a crusade out to rally everyone against rares....

 

 

 

As far as your points on rares and the economy...In my opinion as already said, they take most of the inflation.

 

I personally dont care to go on about it and make a huge arguement or discussion as other people have covered the points already.

 

 

 

In anyway, my rares hold no monitary value to me as they were all obtained on drop days by me myself, therefore i will NEVER sell them. This is the only account they have ever seen and this is the only accound they will ever see. Rares could be worth 1gp or 100 billion, mine stay with me forever.

[Duke_Freedom]

My reply: Clearly you did not understand what I was saying...

 

 

 

The fact that people are willing to pay huge amounts of money for something does not make it what I call utilitarian.

 

 

 

Clearly you do not understand that utility is an economically defined concept, which you can't just give a definition you like.

 

 

 

You can read more about the real definition of utility here on wikipedia. In case you decide to actually learn something.

 

 

 

So the money being saved is out of circulation for a period of time. So what?

 

 

 

For that time, the money is not taking part in the economy. It's as simple as that.

 

 

 

And in this case it is true that I do know what I am talking about because my statements are actually based on economics

 

 

 

As I just pointed out, you're using wrong self-defined definitions for perfectly well-defined economical concepts. That's not making statements based on economics, that's just making stuff up.

 

 

 

You actually did not refute a single thing I said -

 

 

 

Correction you do not even consider my arguements and just put them down like I have no idea what economics is about.

 

 

 

I am interested in countering the misinformation that I have seen on these forums about the rares being equated with the runescape economy.

 

 

 

All you're doing right now is creating misinformation yourself.

 

 

 

let me add you would have to refute a considerable amount of economic theory to do so, so I am not the least be surprised

 

 

 

We're not just a bit full of ourselves are we? :roll:

 

 

 

Lastly - I am not claiming that the rares market IS the economy or anything ridiculous like that. It is undeniable, however, that rares play a big part in RuneScape's economy as well and are one of the most interesting items in RuneScape to observe from an economical point of view, as they have fluctuating prices, in opposite to the material markets who have practically constant prices and the pseudo-rares market that have continous-dropping prices.

 

 

 

Unless you're going to take my arguments more seriously and be open for other people's opinions, I probably won't post on this thread again.

[lawrencekill]

Well to your first post about person A and B.

 

 

 

If I have a planium bar out of a thousand or so(hypothetically), does that mean my planium bar does not play a big role if I can sell it to someone for a million bucks?

[Evrae]

Duke Freedom, I'm afraid you are looking like (how do I put this nicely?) a bit of a wally.

 

 

 

You have described PaulHartman as an idiot without in any way saying where he is wrong, and what the correct alternative is.

 

 

 

Paulhartman said 'Utilitarian'. If you are going to claim that that is the same as the economic term 'Utility', then you have an exceedingly poor grasp of the English language.

 

 

 

where is PaulHartman wrong? So far you just seem like an empty gasbag, ready to insult and criticise, but with no alternative theory. You have not made any arguments to refute.

[jimbob9999]

The Runescape economy is not identical to the one we have in real life.

 

 

 

One of the reasons utilitarian producst make up most of the economy is because they are essential, we *need* to eat, but our runescape characters don't.

 

 

 

I'm not going to bother arguing any more points, because you probally know far more about economics than me, but by the looks of it your really just trying to get rares taken out of the game, i can see no good reason for this. The economy is fine as it is (not perfect, but fine) why take out rares and risk throwing the balance?

[Evrae]

I agree with that - everything is fine at the moment (partly because we dont need to eat etc.) If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

 

 

The main point of this topic never was about whether rares should go though. I gather from other posts that the original author is anti-rares, but that never seemed to come into his point at all. While they might do no good, they dont seem to do any harm.

[monkeymike]

Economy: a system of producing, distributing, and consuming wealth.

 

 

 

And your arguement: Rares are not the economy

 

 

 

Verdict: true

 

 

 

there are many other factors affecting the economy of runescape apart from rare items.

 

 

 

Producers: mainly primary skillers: miners, fishers, woodcutters, farmers.(drops from monsters too)

 

Distributers: Merchants, also secondary skillers: smithers, cookers, alchemists.

 

Consumers: before construction the major consumer of wealth was the party hat.

 

along with magic combat and some quest and shop items.

 

 

 

this is why rares are so expensive as the "system" is out of balance, many producers, people turning this into cash, lots of cash = inflated prices...

 

 

 

without the rares (phats especially) there would be masses of spare coin and items in the game, therefore paul hartman's utility items would increase in value. = not good, lots more work for producers.

 

Party hats = good for "utility" economy.

 

 

 

Construction: where does this fit in?

 

 

 

well because of the system inbalance jagex decided to "consume" some of the additional cash, makes perfect sense, however there is so much value held in phats that even construction hasnt had the desired effect, at least not yet, of curbing phat inflation.

 

 

 

yes paulhartman has sound ideas some can be argued against, this is all theory and no right or wrong (within reason), however he took a long time to say not a lot...

 

 

 

flame me away! 8-)

[Evrae]

without the rares (phats especially) there would be masses of spare coin and items in the game

 

 

 

That is completely against PaulHartman's second point - the money does not just disappear, it changes hands, thats all. whether the seller keeps it in their bank or not is another matter, but there is no money being sucked out of the game.

[Duke_Freedom]

Paulhartman said 'Utilitarian'. If you are going to claim that that is the same as the economic term 'Utility', then you have an exceedingly poor grasp of the English language.

 

 

 

uÃâ÷tilÃâ÷iÃâ÷tarÃâ÷iÃâ÷an (y-tl-tÃÆâr-n)

 

1. Of, relating to, or in the interests of utility: utilitarian considerations in industrial design.

 

2. Exhibiting or stressing utility over other values; practical: plain, utilitarian kitchenware.

 

3. Of, characterized by, or advocating utilitarianism.

 

 

 

And in case you are wondering about the definition of utilitarianism:

 

 

 

uÃâ÷tilÃâ÷iÃâ÷tarÃâ÷iÃâ÷anÃâ÷ism (y-tl-tÃÆâr--nzm)

 

1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.

 

2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

 

3. The quality of being utilitarian: housing of bleak utilitarianism.

 

 

 

Apparently you want to join Paulhartman by saying I have no idea what I'm talking about? :roll:

[Evrae]

Yes, the normal usages of Utilty and Utilitarian are very similar. You, however, reffered to the economic term. Could youy please explain how the definitions you have quoted are linked to your own use of the word utility?

 

 

 

From your Wikipedia link:

 

utility is a measure of the happiness or satisfaction gained consuming goods and services

 

 

 

Your own usage, and link to the term, give a meaning completely at odds with the commonly used meaning and sense of the word, and thus its link with utilitarianism.

 

 

 

 

 

Accusing PaulHartman of misusing an economic term begins to seem a bit foolish when he was not actually intending to use an economic term. He was actually reffering to yew logs and suchlike actually being useful. Nothing to do with the pleasure gained from them.

 

 

 

You still have not pointed out where PaulHartman has gone wrong.

[dogfever]

Yes, the normal usages of Utilty and Utilitarian are very similar. You, however, reffered to the economic term. Could youy please explain how the definitions you have quoted are linked to your own use of the word utility?

 

 

 

From your Wikipedia link:

 

utility is a measure of the happiness or satisfaction gained consuming goods and services

 

 

 

Your own usage, and link to the term, give a meaning completely at odds with the commonly used meaning and sense of the word, and thus its link with utilitarianism.

 

 

 

 

 

Accusing PaulHartman of misusing an economic term begins to seem a bit foolish when he was not actually intending to use an economic term. He was actually reffering to yew logs and suchlike actually being useful. Nothing to do with the pleasure gained from them.

 

 

 

You still have not pointed out where PaulHartman has gone wrong.

 

 

 

Some confusion here. The notion of utilty is strictly defined in economics. However the term utilitarian also relates to utility in that utilitarianism is the belief that utility functions both cardinal and ordinal can be used to direct strategy, be it fiscal or otherwise governmental such as welfare economics.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

 

 

 

It would seem from the heavily economic flavour of PaulHartman's post that he was indeed referring to Duke's more rigorously defined notions of both utility and utilitariansim.

 

 

 

I can see some logic in PH's post but it does rather simplify macroeconomic theory. He is right that rares, in isolation, are not the RE and that the simple trading of rares does not impact upon inflation. However, utility derived from non-classical economic propositions such as happiness and satisfaction skews the market price of rares with the knock-on effect of altering spending patterns amongst the top players reducing spending and thus proliferation of wealth downwards hence limiting price inflation.

 

 

 

df

[Evrae]

Ooops! :oops: :oops: :oops:

 

 

 

i've just reread PaulHartMans first post for more Flame Fodder, and realised that he does use the term Utility in its economic sense.

 

 

 

Aah well, sometimes your right sometimes your wrong! many apologies all. Though I must say that Duke Freedom's definitions were at odds with each other, but i've made the bigger mistakes here. Oh well, no hard feelings eh?

[paulhartman]

Genju says: by the way, you've once again avoided the original question put to you. Why should rares go?

 

 

 

My reply: Man, read my post a little more carefully. I specifically said that it was not for or against rares. Geeeeeeeeeeeee

[paulhartman]

SaidinWot says: In closing, you're right; rares are the entire economy, though they are an alternative outlet for players with lots of money, no matter how you look at it. GP will always change hands, in every transaction not done with a store. You're just worried about when it gets up into the hundreds of millions and it's just not logical (to you).

 

 

 

My reply: I am assuming you just misspoke and meant to say âââ¬Ãâyouâââ‰â¢re right; rares are NOT the entire economy.âââ¬Ã

[paulhartman]

Sykonight says: As far as your points on rares and the economy...In my opinion as already said, they take most of the inflation.

 

 

 

My reply: If you are right, and it is not an increase in the money supply that causes inflation, but just the buying and selling of collectables, then all the economic textbooks need to be rewritten. I shall immediately begin calling economic professors and warn them of their error. Would you be available to consult with them during their rewrites?

[Bloodveld]

STOP TRIPLE POSTING AND LEARN TO USE BOTH THE QUOTE AND EDIT BUTTONS!!!

 

 

 

That had to be said.

[paulhartman]

Duke Freedom says: Lastly - I am not claiming that the rares market IS the economy or anything ridiculous like that. It is undeniable, however, that rares play a big part in RuneScape's economy as well and are one of the most interesting items in RuneScape to observe from an economical point of view, as they have fluctuating prices, in opposite to the material markets who have practically constant prices and the pseudo-rares market that have continous-dropping prices.

 

 

 

My reply: Maybe you are not. However, I have seen posts of yours in the past discussing the Runescape economy and you were only talking about rares, ignoring the thousands of other items in this game. And, maybe you are not, but others are. This line of discussion is not just about you. I agree that rares play a part in the economy, although the same as bronze mediums, which have more practical utility than rares. And, I do not deny that they are interesting. All these straw men you put up just to ignore the most important point I made: that rares do not hold down the prices of other items in the game. I see you do that address that at all, but take me to task for things that I actually agree with you on.

 

 

 

Duke Freedom says: Unless you're going to take my arguments more seriously and be open for other people's opinions, I probably won't post on this thread again.

 

 

 

My reply: When these opinions of others, such that it is rares and not the money supply that determines inflation in Runescape, are ideas that are completely at odds with all economic thought, am I supposed to be open to that? What if someone said that gravity did not work where they lived, and everyone floated on the ceiling? Am I supposed to be open to that? I am just applying economic theory to this game. And, if you donâââ‰â¢t post on this thread again, I have lost nothing. Be my guest. If this game is not going the way you want it to, take your ball and go home.