by Xerographica » Thu May 05, 2016 4:03 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Aparatix » Thu May 05, 2016 4:10 pm
by Xerographica » Thu May 05, 2016 4:17 pm
Aparatix wrote:“Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn’t see the difference.” - Francis J. Underwood
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Bogdanov Vishniac » Thu May 05, 2016 4:19 pm
by Aparatix » Thu May 05, 2016 4:28 pm
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Premise B seems to assume that there's only a finite supply of money in the world (and therefore influence), leading to the idea that for someone to gain a lot of influence someone else has to lose it. Or, perhaps more fundamentally, that the economy doesn't actually grow, but instead is a zero-sum game as well. Neither premises are true.
by Xerographica » Thu May 05, 2016 4:30 pm
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Premise B seems to assume that there's only a finite supply of money in the world (and therefore influence), leading to the idea that for someone to gain a lot of influence someone else has to lose it. Or, perhaps more fundamentally, that the economy doesn't actually grow, but instead is a zero-sum game as well. Neither premises are true.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 5:39 am
Hydesland wrote:I don't think you're using the right terminology at all with 'mutually exclusive'. It's closer to something like 'zero sum game'.
Hydesland wrote:Their desire for welfare (as expressed via their ballot votes) overrides their desire for the goods they buy in the private sector (as expressed via their dollar votes).
No, I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.They give their dollar votes to Ronald McDonald and their ballot votes to Elizabeth Warren. Warren then takes some of their dollar votes from McDonald and gives them to Mr. Unemployment.
Again, not mutually exclusive. They're not giving money for the purpose of Ronald McDonald to more efficiently allocate that money. They just want a burger. The only 'vote' happening when they buy a burger is a vote that Ronald's burgers taste better than Burger King's etc..., it's not a 'vote' on Ronald being the most efficient allocator of money.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Alvecia » Fri May 06, 2016 5:58 am
the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 6:52 am
Alvecia wrote:Hence, an increase in influence in one person/thing does not neccesitate a loss in another.
Edit: In fact I think Hydesland was on point with zero sum game
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Alvecia » Fri May 06, 2016 6:56 am
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 6:59 am
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 7:03 am
Alvecia wrote:Xerographica wrote:These two statements are mutually exclusive.
*rolls eyes*
My post wasn't that hard to understand.
The second statement is agreeing that the term you should be using instead of mutual exclusivity is zero sum game.
The first statement was disagreeing with the notion that influence is a zero sum game
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Alvecia » Fri May 06, 2016 7:06 am
Xerographica wrote:Alvecia wrote:*rolls eyes*
My post wasn't that hard to understand.
The second statement is agreeing that the term you should be using instead of mutual exclusivity is zero sum game.
The first statement was disagreeing with the notion that influence is a zero sum game
You maybe argued that influence is not a zero sum game. But I'm pretty sure that you didn't argue that economic influence is not a zero sum game. Might want to reread the OP a few more times.
by Lady Scylla » Fri May 06, 2016 7:10 am
Xerographica wrote:Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Premise B seems to assume that there's only a finite supply of money in the world (and therefore influence), leading to the idea that for someone to gain a lot of influence someone else has to lose it. Or, perhaps more fundamentally, that the economy doesn't actually grow, but instead is a zero-sum game as well. Neither premises are true.
So influence is not mutually exclusive? You can gain influence without anybody else losing influence?
If we're talking about a pie... then here are the two issues...
A. The size of the pie
B. The size of the slices
I agree that the size of the pie can become larger (and smaller)... but it should be pretty straightforward that, no matter how big the pie is, more pie for me means less pie for you.
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 7:12 am
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 7:18 am
Lady Scylla wrote:Xerographica wrote:So influence is not mutually exclusive? You can gain influence without anybody else losing influence?
If we're talking about a pie... then here are the two issues...
A. The size of the pie
B. The size of the slices
I agree that the size of the pie can become larger (and smaller)... but it should be pretty straightforward that, no matter how big the pie is, more pie for me means less pie for you.
It sounds more like you're oversimplifying and forming a correlation that's not really there. The more money you have, against your negative costs (such as bills) is what determines your purchasing power. No matter how much the currency reserve grows, you'll still have the same amount of money. It will affect your purchasing power, however, since currency devalues the more the reserve grows. So, with your pie analogy.
If you're given 10 units of a 100 unit pie, you have 1/10th of that pie, leaving 9/10ths of potential pie for everyone else. If that pie grows to 200 units, you still have 10 units but now you own only 1/20th (your units have devalued by half). Everyone else, however, has 19/20th of potential pie. The problem with the analogy is that the size of the pie never remains the same. While it may hold true for a moment, your share will devalue or increase constantly compared to the reserve.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Kelinfort » Fri May 06, 2016 7:20 am
Xerographica wrote:Kelinfort wrote:But currently the money supply is increasing. Besides while currency may be finite in paper form, it may grow many folds over in digital form.
Sure, the supply of money can increase... but we're talking about proportions here. And/or ratios. And/or percentages. Regardless of how large the pie is... a larger slice of the pie for the DoD means a smaller slice of the pie for everybody else.
So... perhaps it's technically incorrect that money equals influence. But I think that people get the general drift. The alternative would have been to say something about the proportion of the money equaling influence.
by Alvecia » Fri May 06, 2016 7:25 am
Xerographica wrote:Lady Scylla wrote:
It sounds more like you're oversimplifying and forming a correlation that's not really there. The more money you have, against your negative costs (such as bills) is what determines your purchasing power. No matter how much the currency reserve grows, you'll still have the same amount of money. It will affect your purchasing power, however, since currency devalues the more the reserve grows. So, with your pie analogy.
If you're given 10 units of a 100 unit pie, you have 1/10th of that pie, leaving 9/10ths of potential pie for everyone else. If that pie grows to 200 units, you still have 10 units but now you own only 1/20th (your units have devalued by half). Everyone else, however, has 19/20th of potential pie. The problem with the analogy is that the size of the pie never remains the same. While it may hold true for a moment, your share will devalue or increase constantly compared to the reserve.
The size of the pie never remains the same... therefore....influence is NOT a zero sum game?
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 7:25 am
Kelinfort wrote:Xerographica wrote:Sure, the supply of money can increase... but we're talking about proportions here. And/or ratios. And/or percentages. Regardless of how large the pie is... a larger slice of the pie for the DoD means a smaller slice of the pie for everybody else.
So... perhaps it's technically incorrect that money equals influence. But I think that people get the general drift. The alternative would have been to say something about the proportion of the money equaling influence.
Or influence can be infinite and not pegged to currency.
POTUS makes around $250,000 a year, but has a huge amount of influence independent of his income.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 7:26 am
Alvecia wrote:Xerographica wrote:The size of the pie never remains the same... therefore....influence is NOT a zero sum game?
Well, technically yes. Because the size of the pie is ever increasing, to try and make it a zero sum game you'd have to take a snapshot of a moment to prevent the increase, but as soon as you try to take from one slice to give to another you have to unpause the snapshot,, and the pie continues to increase.
It's functionally infinite.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Alvecia » Fri May 06, 2016 7:30 am
Xerographica wrote:Alvecia wrote:Well, technically yes. Because the size of the pie is ever increasing, to try and make it a zero sum game you'd have to take a snapshot of a moment to prevent the increase, but as soon as you try to take from one slice to give to another you have to unpause the snapshot,, and the pie continues to increase.
It's functionally infinite.
So... you're going to paypal me $10,000 dollars?
by Xerographica » Fri May 06, 2016 7:33 am
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, Bombadil, Corporate Collective Salvation, Eahland, Google [Bot], Khilapha, Levantin, Nusan-tara, Petronellania, The Black Forrest, Washington Resistance Army, Washington-Columbia, Zancostan
Advertisement