StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

SirNitram wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote: When I reer to emand, I refer to the ability and willingness to pay for a good or service. In order for that to work, the item in question mut exist. Before that time, people WANT a cure for cancer, but cannot demand it.

There are many rich people with cancer. They have the ability to pay for the good, and a definate willingness. You are purposefully trying to change the definition(Even the one you quote) to try and fit this ridiculous law.

Again. Supply alone does not create demand. There's this thing called observable evidence against it.

Supply in the economic sense does not mean a product on a shelf. it means the act of producing a good or service and subsequently selling it.

Can you demand something that does not exist? Walk up to a phamacy and demand a cure for cancer. You will be laughed at. You WANT a cure for cancer. to be ABLE to pay for something, it must exist for you to be able to pay for it.

Now you're redefining the term 'ability'? Or is this level of fallacious logic employed throughout 'economic theory'?

That is what Says Law actually means. It means that in order for you to be able to demand(in the economic sense) you just have something to trade for it.

A rich person does have something to trade for it. We've covered this.

Thus Supply(your production of a good or service that gets traded for money) creates its own demand(if you have successfully supplied something, you will demand Something with the money you made)

I cant make it any clear without going back to my old economics class and cracking open a book.

If your arguments are indicative of the contents of such books, I'd be forced to retire from the argument due to fits of laughter that people get paid for such tripe.

Actually it is basic high school economics... Did anyone here pass the class???

Stormbringer wrote:

SirNitram wrote:I'm actually wondering how ships which propel themselves by means of a gravity field held in front of them can avoid mine hits; wouldn't they be dragged towards the ship?

Because whatever technobabble is used to generate the wedge the effects don't seem to propogate far beyond the wedge itself. (Chalk up another David Weber science blooper).

And the fact that they deploy a good deal of ECM helps them to avoid hits. I'm presuming these aren't contact mines so that's going to throw off their aim.

There are, actually, a few contact mines among with the traditional ones. A remnant of the Rael Wars. They're an odd little trade off: They're unlikey to actually hit in open space(So the Overseer reserves them for likely hyperlanes, to increase his chances), and, since they're not using sensors or anything, just drifting towards metallic objects by means of magnetics, they're damn near impossible to detect. You won't hit MANY even under the best of circumstances, but they are among the things the Overseer deploys, and it's not always wise.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actually it is basic high school economics... Did anyone here pass the class???

Was not offered. I'm quite glad in retrospect; the arguments presented are textbook fallacies as they redefine terms in ridiculous ways(Up to and including the word 'ability'!).

econ is required in my state...

Maybe I could get a cheap computer and Netzero for Mr. saunders..

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Supply in the economic sense does not mean a product on a shelf. it means the act of producing a good or service and subsequently selling it.

What about stuff that gets produced but not sold? It just disappears?

Can you demand something that does not exist? Walk up to a phamacy and demand a cure for cancer. You will be laughed at. You WANT a cure for cancer. to be ABLE to pay for something, it must exist for you to be able to pay for it.

There can be demand for a concept even if there is as yet no good or service that can fill the niche. In the early 1980's there was demand for something like crack cocaine--that's why it was developed and why it became an instant success.

That is what Says Law actually means. It means that in order for you to be able to demand(in the economic sense) you just have something to trade for it.

Your definition of this law keeps changing.

Your reasons for demanding something come from, as Thirdfain said, your own personal choice. If you dont want something, you wont demand it.

However, if you have supplied something to someone else and they paid you for it, you ARE going to demand SOMETHING. However, if you have not, you are not in the position to demand anything.

Thus Supply(your production of a good or service that gets traded for money) creates its own demand(if you have successfully supplied something, you will demand Something with the money you made)

I cant make it any clear without going back to my old economics class and cracking open a book.

You've finally made it clear, and it's fairly indisputable. Unfortunately it doesn't support your position that lower taxes will always make an economy stronger. To a certain point, yes, lower taxes accelerate growth. But beyond that point the commensurate reduction in government services will retard economic growth.

SirNitram wrote:Was not offered. I'm quite glad in retrospect; the arguments presented are textbook fallacies as they redefine terms in ridiculous ways(Up to and including the word 'ability'!).

Part of what Alyrium is talking about is quite right. I think you may be misunderstanding part of what he's saying, because he's not saying it very clearly.

Basically--
A businessman produces the supply, and, because he has thus made a profit, he is in a financial position to demand a second (unrelated) product.

The problem in Alyrium's reasoning is that he is, for some reason, including the act of selling the product in with the supply part of the equation. Sales are a function of demand.

What about stuff that gets produced but not sold? It just disappears?

Landfill...

There can be demand for a concept even if there is as yet no good or service that can fill the niche. In the early 1980's there was demand for something like crack cocaine--that's why it was developed and why it became an instant success.

There was a desire for the concept, however, no demand in the economic sense.

Your definition of this law keeps changing.

Mainly because I cant explain it in the awe-inspiring clarity of my econ teacher. I know what it means, but cant describe it.

You've finally made it clear, and it's fairly indisputable. Unfortunately it doesn't support your position that lower taxes will always make an economy stronger. To a certain point, yes, lower taxes accelerate growth. But beyond that point the commensurate reduction in government services will retard economic growth.

Well, I have conceeded a few points and compriomised on the local run schools and a few anti-trust laws... Problem is, we ahve no idea where that point is where the lack of government intervention actually hurts things.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Was not offered. I'm quite glad in retrospect; the arguments presented are textbook fallacies as they redefine terms in ridiculous ways(Up to and including the word 'ability'!).

Part of what Alyrium is talking about is quite right. I think you may be misunderstanding part of what he's saying, because he's not saying it very clearly.

Basically--
A businessman produces the supply, and, because he has thus made a profit, he is in a financial position to demand a second (unrelated) product.

The problem in Alyrium's reasoning is that he is, for some reason, including the act of selling the product in with the supply part of the equation. Sales are a function of demand.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Because he makes supply he has profit? Again, the Dreamcast comes to mind. Massive supply. No profit at all.

Or is it a jackassed way of saying 'If a business man is successfully meeting his local demands with supply, he can create demand of his own'?

Alyrium Denryle wrote:There was a desire for the concept, however, no demand in the economic sense.

You're playing a semantic game, then. What about when a pre-existing product is sold out? There's no supply anymore, but there's still demand.

You're saying that what we're describing isn't really demand, because it's the wrong color. A white horse is still a horse.

Well, I have conceeded a few points and compriomised on the local run schools and a few anti-trust laws... Problem is, we ahve no idea where that point is where the lack of government intervention actually hurts things.

We can be reasonably certain that that point doesn't lie in the libertarian section of the curve, nor in the socialist section. It's in the middle, probably near where the United States runs it's economy.

SirNitram wrote:That doesn't make a lick of sense. Because he makes supply he has profit? Again, the Dreamcast comes to mind. Massive supply. No profit at all.

Well, we're making the assumption that people were willing to buy his product--an unwarranted assumption; you have a good point. On the other hand, the factory workers who made money by producing dreamcasts spent their paychecks and contributed to the economy themselves. So the process didn't completely fall apart. Then again, many of them got laid off.

Economics is a complex issue which can't be reduced to an idea like "Libertarian r best." I think that's what we're trying to argue

Or is it a jackassed way of saying 'If a business man is successfully meeting his local demands with supply, he can create demand of his own'?

Hmm... I think that's it.

The Invader's Guide to the Diaspora is up, in it's entirety. If anyone disapproves of the names I've chosen for the assorted treaties, please say as much.

You're playing a semantic game, then. What about when a pre-existing product is sold out? There's no supply anymore, but there's still demand.

Then you have a shortage and have set your price to low If that is the case, the prduct still exists you just dont have any n stock. You should order more and charge a higher price.

You're saying that what we're describing isn't really demand, because it's the wrong color. A white horse is still a horse.

Using the defintion in my old econ book... It was a little more specific than the laypersons definition. Much like scientific theory and layperson theory.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

SirNitram wrote:That doesn't make a lick of sense. Because he makes supply he has profit? Again, the Dreamcast comes to mind. Massive supply. No profit at all.

Well, we're making the assumption that people were willing to buy his product--an unwarranted assumption; you have a good point. On the other hand, the factory workers who made money by producing dreamcasts spent their paychecks and contributed to the economy themselves. So the process didn't completely fall apart. Then again, many of them got laid off.

Economics is a complex issue which can't be reduced to an idea like "Libertarian r best." I think that's what we're trying to argue

I describe it thus: Economics works on human belief. Not human wishes, belief. Belief that a dollar is worth something, etc, etc. Since humans often don't know what they actually belief, it's somewhat akin to the latter part of Pyramids.

Most economic theory is BS, hence why I go with observational evidence when talking about it.

Or is it a jackassed way of saying 'If a business man is successfully meeting his local demands with supply, he can create demand of his own'?

Hmm... I think that's it.

Then I give it the Tahalshia Award For Most Asininely Deceptive Description Ever.

Thirdfain wrote:The Invader's Guide to the Diaspora is up, in it's entirety. If anyone disapproves of the names I've chosen for the assorted treaties, please say as much.

Are you still building ships in Jormugandar (sp?) since that is rather forbidden.

oops, a holdover from the 1st half. I just added to the first part, which was written before you returned to the STGOd.

Thirdfain wrote:oops, a holdover from the 1st half. I just added to the first part, which was written before you returned to the STGOd.

Darn, no pretext for smiting them.

I figured it was that but I wanted to be sure since it was a bit different.

What would an Ouster do if a screen starts flashing a message in a language they've never seen before at them? Red and black, alternating the colours between the symbols and the background....

What would an Ouster do if a screen starts flashing a message in a language they've never seen before at them? Red and black, alternating the colours between the symbols and the background....

Probably ignore it and keep goung. They are basically under orders to destroy all resistance, and then dissassemble and remove any computer nodes they find. They've examined machine wreckage, so they know what your computer systems look like, and they have engineers with them for that very purpose. There's also a shit lot of them, and they are quite ready to die for the Diaspora.

My tentative flag:


It's supposedly a rune representing the nine worlds of norse mythology.

It's supposedly a rune representing the nine worlds of norse mythology

.

I like it. Sort of weird, and the icon is a little small, but it looks cool.

Alyrium Denryle in the Game Thread wrote:only a sentient race would recognize prime numbers and the fibonaci sequence. And in order to give them an embassy, we must have talked to them is that not correct? They mastered english faster than any organic mind ever could, faster than the best universal translator. It really is more of an inference that it is a sentient AI.

On our tech scale, a pocket calculator could learn English and work with numbers in that fashion.

We could all just have babel fish That really streamlines the process.

Is there still some overseer facilities in orbit one can bombard? Or some ships still working?

Pablo, if you are thinking what I think you nare thinking, Elanie is going to be pissed.