They can barely inflate it with their monetary policy.
Policies can (and do, surprisingly often) change. |
|
|
|
Round Three: Players: 8 Maximum societal points: 48 Maximum individual points: 9 0 Rassah <--> wdmw 3 Trade
KILL
2 Elwar <--> FenixRD 2 Trade
I am trading with Elwar.
2 FCTaiChi <--> Foxpup 2 Trade
trade
3 Ekaros <--> Cameltoemcgee 0 Round 3... Trade
Kill
Societal total points: 43 Point totals: wdmw: 7 Rassah: 6 FCTaiChi: 6 Foxpup: 6 Ekaros: 6 Elwar: 6 FenixRD: 4 Cameltoemcgee: 2 Round 4 Roster: Rassah <--> Foxpup Elwar <--> Cameltoemcgee FCTaiChi <--> FenixRD wdmw <--> Ekaros |
|
|
|
That sounds fun. Do these type of games take into account people like me who will try to win within the parameters of the game? ie. I would probably trade for awhile and then try and doublecross to jump ahead at opportune times. I like to test boundaries. Does it require a large sample size to even things out?
Well, the later games won't have a pre-set end number of turns. In "War," (and the later games) in fact, I'm going to set a victory condition.  |
|
|
|
You know this reminds me of when I played the Jedi Knight games where you get to choose whether you are going to follow the light or dark side.
I have to say, the dark side was just a lot more fun.
I hear they have cookies.  That went right over my head.  |
|
|
|
Wasn't this basic idea tested in a university study? If i recall correctly they found that the majority of people chose to be trusting.
Yeah, the basic idea has been done dozens of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_gameThe goal here is actually not this prelim game. I have some decidedly not basic variations I want to try out, including, as I said earlier, trying to start a war (and then seeing what can be done to prevent it) |
|
|
|
Godamnit. I was totally expecting Ekaros to pick kill again, too. Now I feel bad.  Oh come on. What's your excuse for the first round then? Not criticising you, I would have probably done the same thing for the fun of it too. Was trying to prove Chaos Theory lol. You know this reminds me of when I played the Jedi Knight games where you get to choose whether you are going to follow the light or dark side. I have to say, the dark side was just a lot more fun. I hear they have cookies. |
|
|
|
Both of you guys seem desperate to avoid any serious discussion of what supports markets, as that might lead to a scary conclusion that you probably won't like: some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets. Not at all. What supports markets? What creates the conditions suitable for their existence? Still waiting. I already gave you the answer earlier. Well, seeing as I missed it, could you quote it? WHYYY??!? That's not the proof. That's the claim. You can't point to your conclusion to support your conclusion. You missed this bit as well: If you want to propose a different answer, you're welcome to back it up with an analysis from first principles, seeing as we'd have to try and imagine how this theoretical government-free world might work. I'm waiting for you to make your case, first. Seems impolite to totally destroy your arguments, before you even have a chance to make them. |
|
|
|
ok i just got punched in the nose by my neighbour i called the police and he got arrested , the cop was super cool and understanding , he was about my age and told me that on tuesday i should file for a restraining order taht way he wont be able to go near me there for he will be forced to move , he wont even be able to personally pack his things one the restraining order comes in effect lol he;ll have to hire movers or get his friends to do it aside from getting a bloody nose today i guess everything worked out for the best  im also glad my laptop didnt catch fire after playing music full blast for 10 hours straight  Now you have a bloody nose and he has to move... this is such an inefficient solution compared to my suggestions a much cheaper solution though. Idk moving can be pretty expensive. Especially compared to a set of quality headphones. |
|
|
|
How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons |
|
|
|
|
"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal." - Friedrich August Hayek.
|
|
|
|
Both of you guys seem desperate to avoid any serious discussion of what supports markets, as that might lead to a scary conclusion that you probably won't like: some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets. Not at all. What supports markets? What creates the conditions suitable for their existence? Still waiting. I already gave you the answer earlier. Well, seeing as I missed it, could you quote it? |
|
|
|
One example of what I was talking about is roads. No one person or enterprise can justify spending money maintaining urban roads. Highways, yes. You could build a toll road, but in the city many people use them and there has to be easy access on and off. No room for toll booths, etc. It's a public good. But no one person or business gets enough benefit from them to be willing to pay for their maintenance. Oh come now, you can't think of any other way to pay for roads than tolls or taxation? Not a single one?  Good thing the market is more than just one person, and there are some pretty innovative thinkers out there. (The paint on the pothole patch reads "Re-freshed by KFC") |
|
|
|
The A choice is identical to your C No it isn't. 1. Even if you assume risk=0 (a poor assumption, if you're looking to model the real world), spreading it out allows weekly instead of monthly income. Easier to budget for. 2. Given that risk ≠ 0, it would be wise for me to spread that risk among as many people as possible. 3. Even if risk = 0 (again, a poor assumption) spreading it out allows for fluctuations due to one person paying off early. Since there are many others, my income is more or less steady, even if people do pay off early. In fact, this makes people paying off early into a good thing, because now all that capital is back in my account, ready to be loaned out again, and I still have the income from everyone else. If I had only one borrower, his paying back early would indeed trigger a scramble to get that money back out and earning me income again. If, instead, I have dozens, one of them paying back early amounts to a nice bonus this week, and maybe a little less this time next month, assuming I can't get it loaned back out. |
|
|
|
Both of you guys seem desperate to avoid any serious discussion of what supports markets, as that might lead to a scary conclusion that you probably won't like: some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets. Not at all. What supports markets? What creates the conditions suitable for their existence? Still waiting. |
|
|
|
I want to know if you have anything specific in your mind, what is such an organization going to look like.
Well, I have no interest in running an adoption agency, nor seeking the adoption of a child (at minimum not for several years, at least, until my girls are old enough to help change diapers), so I'm probably not the best person to ask. I can make some general statements: Funding of this organization should be voluntary. This, actually, should go without saying, but I figured I'd say it anyway. As to the details, they could make their funding from adoption fees, which would help narrow the field of people seeking children to those capable of supporting them, or voluntary donations, or some other way, like selling arts and crafts made by the older kids, or more likely a combination of all of these, plus some ways I haven't thought about. The market will decide what the best set of criteria are, and there will likely be "niche" adoption agencies, but I expect the "baseline" to be simply a loving home, and capability to support the child financially. |
|
|
|
|
Agreed, that is fucked up on a colossal scale.
|
|
|
|
Okay, then how do you think of the [current] policy of interviewing and assessing parents before they are allowed to take a child into adoption? Reasonable or not? The policy is reasonable, it would be stupid not to evaluate the home you give a child. The criteria, on the other hand, often leave quite a bit to be desired. So what kind of an organization should be in charge of such a thing? A government institution paid by taxes or some sort of an orphanage funded by voluntary donations? You really need to ask? Yes, why not Because it's kind of like asking someone you know to be a vegetarian if he'd like the chicken or eggplant parmigiana.  You do know I'm an anarchist, right? |
|
|
|
I'll provisionally agree with that, it depends on what you mean by "equality," though. |
|
|
|
Okay, then how do you think of the [current] policy of interviewing and assessing parents before they are allowed to take a child into adoption? Reasonable or not? The policy is reasonable, it would be stupid not to evaluate the home you give a child. The criteria, on the other hand, often leave quite a bit to be desired. So what kind of an organization should be in charge of such a thing? A government institution paid by taxes or some sort of an orphanage funded by voluntary donations? You really need to ask? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
