If you're the middleman... then why am I buying your tax services? Is it relevant that I'm buying your tax services?
Advertisement
by Xerographica » Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:42 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:32 am
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:
Yes, there is. Tesla provides the trailer hitch. Blizzard (or another video game company, but presume blizzard) provides the video games.
I'm the middle man.
Try again.
If you're the middleman... then why am I buying your tax services? Is it relevant that I'm buying your tax services?
by Ardrentt » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:39 am
by The Holy Therns » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:20 am
Xerographica wrote:If people's Netflix ratings are untrustworthy, then what does that say about democracy?
Gallade wrote:Love, cake, wine and banter. No greater meaning to life (〜^∇^)〜
Ethel mermania wrote:to therns is to transend the pettiness of the field of play into the field of dreams.
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:42 am
Galloism wrote:Xerographica wrote:If you're the middleman... then why am I buying your tax services? Is it relevant that I'm buying your tax services?
You buy Netflix streaming services. You disregard that, so...
I guess it's irrelevant? You've marked it irrelevant before. If it's relevant that you're buying my tax services, then it's relevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services. If it's irrelevant that you're buying my tax services, it's irrelevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services.
Run it both ways.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Chestaan » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:48 am
Allanea wrote:A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.
What does 'value a product correctly' mean?
by Lady Scylla » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:50 am
by Chestaan » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:59 am
Xerographica wrote:Chestaan wrote:If you wanted content to be valued at it's "correct" market value then you would have to charge for each individual episode/movie watched. The thing about this more traditional type of market is that it FORCES us to decide if we value it more or less than its price. With Netflix, I will pay the subscription if the utility derived from everything I can watch in the month is worth more than the price of the subscription.
But how can you truly know the value of a movie before you watch it?Chestaan wrote:Now if we could allocate our subscription to various shows, what is my incentive to ensure I allocate it correctly? For example, I might value one show at $3 and another at $7. But what's to stop me allocating all my money to the show I value at more? Because, and here's the critical thing, by allocating the $10 to one show, I don't lose it. I can still get access to both shows, but I might simply decide that I will give all my money to my favorite show despite the fact that I have positive valuations for other shows.
You clearly realize that how you spend your fees won't have any effect on the present supply of content. So why spend $10 on a show that you only value at $7?
Also, with the current system... how many of your dollars does Netflix spend on the show that you value at $7 dollars? If Netflix spends $10 or $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars then there wouldn't be any improvement to allowing you to spend your fees. If Netflix spends anything between $10 and $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars... then allowing you to spend your fees would make you worse off. But how in the world would Netflix know that you value the show at $7 dollars?
You're the only one who can truly know how much you value things. Even if you can choose how you spend your Netflix fees, and you spend $7 dollars on a show, there's no way that I can truly know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know the degree to which you're misleading and misinforming producers. Only you can know whether you perceive it's worth it to deceive beneficial producers to any degree.Chestaan wrote:A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.
Consumer surplus and shortage (buyer's remorse) means that the amount of money that consumers spend on things rarely accurately communicates their true valuation.
In other words, one price really does not fit all.
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:46 am
Ardrentt wrote:You can acknowledge that the thing you like doesn't imply that you think it's the greatest shit ever, but simply that you enjoy it, right?
I like a lot of dumb things and my interests in music have shown recently to mix in odd ways (Having the song Grace Kelly be stuck next to My Girls), but I'm not sure about how that implies that I value them equally in terms of whether I think they're any good or not.
Though who the fuck knows, maybe I'm just virtue signalling right now by saying that or whatever the fuck. If I am, then to a larger extent we're all doing that because so much of the shit that we do is ultimately not going to be very important anyways and yet we do them so damn consistently and if we allow ourselves simply to be judged by the aggregate of literally everything we do, then we look like zombified slobs at the end of the day.
It is these needs which are essentially deficits in the organism, empty holes, so to speak, which must be filled up for health’s sake, and furthermore must be filled from without by human beings other than the subject, that I shall call deficits or deficiency needs for purposes of this exposition and to set them in contrast to another and very different kind of motivation. — Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:51 am
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:04 am
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:You buy Netflix streaming services. You disregard that, so...
I guess it's irrelevant? You've marked it irrelevant before. If it's relevant that you're buying my tax services, then it's relevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services. If it's irrelevant that you're buying my tax services, it's irrelevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services.
Run it both ways.
In any case, it sure doesn't make sense to purchase a bundle that includes...
1. tax services
2. Tesla hitch or video games
It's a crazy bundle. I hate crazy bundles. Crazy bundles make me crazy. Because... crazy bundles really don't make any sense. They are nonsensical. Crazy bundles make the world nonsensical. They make me nonsensical. They make everything nonsensical.
Stop the crazy bundles!!!
by Juristonia » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:05 am
Ifreann wrote:Indeed, as far as I can recall only one poster has ever supported legalising bestiality, and he was fucking his cat and isn't welcome here any more, in no small part, I imagine, because he kept going on about how he was fucking his cat.
by Galloism » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:08 am
Chestaan wrote:Xerographica wrote:But how can you truly know the value of a movie before you watch it?
You clearly realize that how you spend your fees won't have any effect on the present supply of content. So why spend $10 on a show that you only value at $7?
Also, with the current system... how many of your dollars does Netflix spend on the show that you value at $7 dollars? If Netflix spends $10 or $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars then there wouldn't be any improvement to allowing you to spend your fees. If Netflix spends anything between $10 and $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars... then allowing you to spend your fees would make you worse off. But how in the world would Netflix know that you value the show at $7 dollars?
You're the only one who can truly know how much you value things. Even if you can choose how you spend your Netflix fees, and you spend $7 dollars on a show, there's no way that I can truly know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know the degree to which you're misleading and misinforming producers. Only you can know whether you perceive it's worth it to deceive beneficial producers to any degree.
Consumer surplus and shortage (buyer's remorse) means that the amount of money that consumers spend on things rarely accurately communicates their true valuation.
In other words, one price really does not fit all.
You can't know the value of a movie before you watch it. However, if you were to let me into the cinema in order to view a movie and charge me afterwards based on what I value the movie what do you think would happen? I would have an incentive to to understate my value.
With your netflix example, I have no incentive to state my correct value. Firstly my valuation if I buy a netflix subscription is almost certainly greater than $10 per month and I have absolutely zero incentive to pay more than that, so all valuations will be false firstly on that basis. Secondly, some of the value I derive from a netflix subscription will be based on content I might like to watch but haven't watched. I may value the fact that I have the ability to watch it in the future or if some unforseen event occurs pushes me to watch it. How would I include those values?
And as well as all that it is really really hard for someone to decide on the exact value to them of a particular product. How would you actually go about figuring that out? It would take time and effort. Time and effort are costs. What incentive have I to undertake these costs in order to give an accurate valuation?
And I don't understand your point on CS. A market in the presence of 1st degree price discrimination has the exact same supply demand and welfare, all else being equal, as one in which a single price is charged. Transferring all welfare to the producer doesn't result in a net gain, it just means that the producer is happy with the trade and the consumer is indifferent to it.
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:53 am
Chestaan wrote:Xerographica wrote:But how can you truly know the value of a movie before you watch it?
You clearly realize that how you spend your fees won't have any effect on the present supply of content. So why spend $10 on a show that you only value at $7?
Also, with the current system... how many of your dollars does Netflix spend on the show that you value at $7 dollars? If Netflix spends $10 or $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars then there wouldn't be any improvement to allowing you to spend your fees. If Netflix spends anything between $10 and $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars... then allowing you to spend your fees would make you worse off. But how in the world would Netflix know that you value the show at $7 dollars?
You're the only one who can truly know how much you value things. Even if you can choose how you spend your Netflix fees, and you spend $7 dollars on a show, there's no way that I can truly know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know the degree to which you're misleading and misinforming producers. Only you can know whether you perceive it's worth it to deceive beneficial producers to any degree.
Consumer surplus and shortage (buyer's remorse) means that the amount of money that consumers spend on things rarely accurately communicates their true valuation.
In other words, one price really does not fit all.
You can't know the value of a movie before you watch it. However, if you were to let me into the cinema in order to view a movie and charge me afterwards based on what I value the movie what do you think would happen? I would have an incentive to to understate my value.
Chestaan wrote:With your netflix example, I have no incentive to state my correct value.
Chestaan wrote:Firstly my valuation if I buy a netflix subscription is almost certainly greater than $10 per month and I have absolutely zero incentive to pay more than that, so all valuations will be false firstly on that basis.
Chestaan wrote:Secondly, some of the value I derive from a netflix subscription will be based on content I might like to watch but haven't watched. I may value the fact that I have the ability to watch it in the future or if some unforseen event occurs pushes me to watch it. How would I include those values?
Chestaan wrote:And as well as all that it is really really hard for someone to decide on the exact value to them of a particular product. How would you actually go about figuring that out? It would take time and effort. Time and effort are costs. What incentive have I to undertake these costs in order to give an accurate valuation?
Chestaan wrote:And I don't understand your point on CS. A market in the presence of 1st degree price discrimination has the exact same supply demand and welfare, all else being equal, as one in which a single price is charged. Transferring all welfare to the producer doesn't result in a net gain, it just means that the producer is happy with the trade and the consumer is indifferent to it.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:15 am
Juristonia wrote:Ridiculous premise.
Just because I watch more of something, doesn't mean I don't actually like other things more.
A lot of my favourite shows get cancelled after a season or two, because I like shitty unpopular scifi stuff.
Meanwhile, I'm on season 5 of Arrow and season 12 of Supernatural, despite not really liking either of them very much.
I watch them because it gives me something to laugh at, there's not much else on, and I might as well see where it goes now.
So statistically, I supposedly like things I don't like more than I like my favourite shows, purely because there's more of them.
Then there's not always being in the mood to watch my favourites.
I like Wes Anderson flicks, but I need to be in the mood to watch them, so I don't watch them very often.
Meanwhile, there's a world of throwaway movies I'll check out when I'm pulling an all nighter and don't have anything else to do.
Does that mean I like that stuff better just because I've had it on more often? Of course not.
Comes down to length, quantity, availability (seriously, our Netflix selection sucks) and mood.
Not necessarily virtue signalling.
And trying to tie that to democracy somehow is entirely bonkers by itself.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:17 am
Xerographica wrote:But what's your incentive to state your incorrect value? Clearly it doesn't allow you to spend more money on clothes or food!
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:32 am
Galloism wrote:Xerographica wrote:But what's your incentive to state your incorrect value? Clearly it doesn't allow you to spend more money on clothes or food!
I'm not sure what the incentive is to state any value or bother with it at all or even waste 5 seconds time on it. There's no personal gain or personal sacrifice in doing so.
Some guy told me that was important.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Lady Scylla » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:47 am
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:
I'm not sure what the incentive is to state any value or bother with it at all or even waste 5 seconds time on it. There's no personal gain or personal sacrifice in doing so.
Some guy told me that was important.
You'd spend your fees to help people decide which content to consume. You'd spend your fees to help Netflix and other producers decide which shows to continue rather than cancel.
You'd spend your fees to positively reinforce beneficial behavior. You'd spend your fees to empower the most beneficial creators.
It's called specific and substantial civic engagement. Of course it would be entirely optional.
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:50 am
Lady Scylla wrote:Xerographica wrote:You'd spend your fees to help people decide which content to consume. You'd spend your fees to help Netflix and other producers decide which shows to continue rather than cancel.
You'd spend your fees to positively reinforce beneficial behavior. You'd spend your fees to empower the most beneficial creators.
It's called specific and substantial civic engagement. Of course it would be entirely optional.
Netflix gets shows based on contracts. Often times when things get pulled, it wasn't Netflix's fault but the people that actually own the show. Secondly, as pointed out before, I couldn't care less what you want me to watch. If someone walked up to me and was like 'you should watch this' -- I'd tell them to go fuck themselves with a cactus. Do this enough times and I might just downvote something out of pure spite.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Lady Scylla » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:50 am
Xerographica wrote:Lady Scylla wrote:
Netflix gets shows based on contracts. Often times when things get pulled, it wasn't Netflix's fault but the people that actually own the show. Secondly, as pointed out before, I couldn't care less what you want me to watch. If someone walked up to me and was like 'you should watch this' -- I'd tell them to go fuck themselves with a cactus. Do this enough times and I might just downvote something out of pure spite.
You're going to downvote a show that lots of people spent lots of their fees on?
by Galloism » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:56 am
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:
I'm not sure what the incentive is to state any value or bother with it at all or even waste 5 seconds time on it. There's no personal gain or personal sacrifice in doing so.
Some guy told me that was important.
You'd spend your fees to help people decide which content to consume. You'd spend your fees to help Netflix and other producers decide which shows to continue rather than cancel.
You'd spend your fees to positively reinforce beneficial behavior. You'd spend your fees to empower the most beneficial creators.
It's called specific and substantial civic engagement. Of course it would be entirely optional.
by The Holy Therns » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:56 am
Xerographica wrote:Lady Scylla wrote:
Netflix gets shows based on contracts. Often times when things get pulled, it wasn't Netflix's fault but the people that actually own the show. Secondly, as pointed out before, I couldn't care less what you want me to watch. If someone walked up to me and was like 'you should watch this' -- I'd tell them to go fuck themselves with a cactus. Do this enough times and I might just downvote something out of pure spite.
You're going to downvote a show that lots of people spent lots of their fees on?
Gallade wrote:Love, cake, wine and banter. No greater meaning to life (〜^∇^)〜
Ethel mermania wrote:to therns is to transend the pettiness of the field of play into the field of dreams.
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:04 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Lady Scylla » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:17 pm
by Xerographica » Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:25 pm
Lady Scylla wrote:Xerographica wrote:Let's say that people could choose where their taxes go. If lots of people spent a lot of taxes on public healthcare, would you vote against the government supplying healthcare?
If they could do that without telling me where I should stick it, then no. Otherwise, yes. I'm a spiteful person, irritating me is never a good idea.
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: Celritannia, East Leaf Republic, Emotional Support Crocodile, Epic bannana, ML Library, Omnicontrol, Shrillland, Stratonesia, The Emphotopiaistan, Tungstan, Yanitza
Advertisement