Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: I'm not the 1 believing in magic spells, which are basically laws and regulations. The free market inheritly has regulations, and they are much better than almost any you can come up with. That is the point. Yet you fail, for some time now, to give even a single example or any evidence of any of that. The difference is that an educated person can make their own choices. As soon as you artificially distort the market, your choices drop. The major difference between you and I, is that you think using force is valid, and I do not, unless I've/you've been agressed against The problem is that a lot of people, educated or not, make choices that hurt others. Having slightly less freedom to do as you see fit is a small price to pay to put a halt to that if you ask me. Most laws and regulations are completely abitrary. They are just opinions. So, you are forcing other people to adhere to your opinions on what is better, or for their own good. This ideology is extremely dangerous, as it can lead to any kind of evil possibilities, not to mention all the corruption it invites. If you don't allow for arbitrary and excessive rules and regulations, then the politicians have nothing to barter with. Most laws are arbitrary? Up to a point, yes. Say the speed limit is 65 mph. A lot of people would argue they wouldn't hurt anyone driving 70 mph, some would argue they wouldn't hurt anyone driving 200 mph. The fact is with a 70 mph speed limit, there would be more casualties, with 60 mph less. Arbitrary? Kind of, although I'd say it's more about finding a healthy balance between freedom and safety. They are by no means "opinions". The drug laws are a prime example of the corruption that goes on, and how devistating it is to allow for such social controls. Yet, the laws still apply, and people have been put into cages for many decades now, destroying an untold amount of lives. Despite all the evidence about how bad these laws are, we sit here and have to debate with people about how these laws are for our own good. What I read is: "drugs laws are bad, drug laws are bad, drug laws are bad." Not something easy to reply to. I don't think you mean the corruption leads to innocent people behind bars. Maybe you do, but it's not clear to me. I certainly don't agree with how the US treat the average pot smoker. I can't understand how it's possible a civilised country has 1% of its population in jail. Maybe that's proof the country isn't civilised at all. I know there is corruption in every layer of civilisation, but that's the case in a communist as well as a pure free market society, so that's a non argument to me. See, you seem to think that ONLY good laws and regulations will be enacted, but the true reality is that the only good laws are those that people adhere to voluntarily, and every1 agrees to. Not at all. I am convinced that the pros outweigh the cons by a mile though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: My point about not being about to go with my dad today is that the tools were dangerous. We used air compressors and air tools. I wasn't just handing him tools. I worked all day with him out on the road. Imagine how tired a 9 year old can get moving around tires that are larger than him. There would be many things for some do gooder to object with. Yet you were allowed to do it and would still be allowed to do it today. I guess either that do-gooder hasn't been around for all these years or maybe just maybe the so called do-gooder used his brain and made sure the law didn't restrict cases like yours, but did restrict minors being exploited. That is the point again. The law is arbitrary and made up of opinions As I said it's about finding a balance. That by definition means nobody will be getting exactly what they wanted, some will think it's too strict, some will think it's too loose a rule. At the end of the day we luckily do not have the scenario where most people have the exact opposite of what they want. What if a father wanted to have his son to goto school half the time and work with him the other half? Why is that bad? Because some people have different opinions? Should we really allow people to write laws for our own good? Is it even possible for them to know what is in our interest? That's bad because we need a certain level of education to be able to keep up with the rest of the community. Laws aren't in your best interest directly, but they are in society's best interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 As to drug laws, I don't think it follows from "some drugs should be legalised" that "there should be no regulation of dangerous drugs." This is partly because, while I'm pretty sure that providing people who are addicted to some drugs, like opiates, with a safe and legal supply is a better idea than making them buy the drugs on the black market, I'm not so sure that a similar solution is a good idea for people addicted to amphetamine derivatives, simply because, while I know that people can function very well at maintenance doses of opiates, I'm not sure the same is true of amphetamines. Furthermore, I don't see what's wrong with regulating the drugs trade in the sense that I think laws about product labelling and purity, sale of goods and so on should certainly apply. That is, if someone chooses to buy some morphine at n% strength, that's what he should get, and not risk (as is the case at the moment) ending up with some wierd and wonderful cocktail of unknown ingredients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Innula Zenovka wrote: Furthermore, I don't see what's wrong with regulating the drugs trade in the sense that I think laws about product labelling and purity, sale of goods and so on should certainly apply. That is, if someone chooses to buy some morphine at n% strength, that's what he should get, and not risk (as is the case at the moment) ending up with some wierd and wonderful cocktail of unknown ingredients. I can see the ethical issues there. It's certainly a difficult subject. Here in the Netherlands we (used to) have free testing of drugs at house parties. I think that works pretty well. I don't think that was government controlled, but it was a layer of "protection from above" nonetheless. Completely regulating drugs can be seen as a form of approval, I don't think that works really well. On the other hand, free trade in drugs, including quality issues, won't work very well either. Did I mention balance already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 This has nothing whatever to do with the value of Bitcoins but I thought this story about Newsweek possibly identifying the creator of the bitcoin might be interesting. It has the promise to generate massive forum drama on the bitcoin forums, and who better to enjoy that than us? http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26469895 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I am convinced that the pros outweigh the cons by a mile though. Hmm, I wonder what the weight of a mile is.. oh well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I never said No regulation. The point is, like you said, what is sensible. What is sensible to some, is writing tens of thousands of new laws every single year, which is what is going on now. I'm also talking about the federal government, not local cities or states within the US. Each city or local community should decide what regulations they need, and what benefits them. They should never be mandated by the federal government. Of course, the US is a bit different, as it is a collection of states that cover a vast area. We aren't talking about a country like Germany. It would be more like the EU tells Germany what it can or can't do. So, I think when people hear me say something they think is extreme, it's really just their perspective that is skewed because the US is thought to be 1 country. My point about laws being arbitrary goes beyond just something like a speed limit, which is not a law but most are just city ordinances. Part of written law's arbitrary nature has to do with language itself. The language is almost always subjective to the reader. Child labour laws have subjective language. Take, for instance, child neglect cases that have made the news. There was a prosecutor, not long ago, that was prosecuting a mother for allowing their child to play in the backyard unsupervised. I mean, come on now. When I was 7, I would get on my bike and not come home until it was getting dark. Mom didn't know where the heck I was all day, and that was what we all did. OMG, we rode bicycles without helmets! All our parents should be in jail for neglect. We even rode in the back of the open bed pickups too. Take a look at what is going on in Colorada and Washington. Yeah, they are legalizing pot, but the regulations have gone far beyond what any rational person that understands markets would ever allow. The ridiculous part about all of that, is that they are only hurting themselves by over regulating. They hurt themselves by all the money that is wasted on the regulations, the money that will be lost to the underground market, and the money lost in all the new businesses that would be created, if not for the regulations. These regulations will ultimately create monopolies around the pot growing business, just like any other highly regulated market. The regulations keep the smaller businesses from competing against the mega producers, as that is really what they are meant to do. It is always the largest corporations in an industry that goes to the government and asks for regulations to limit their competition. That is why regulations would be better served more locally than federally. In a completely free market, regulation would be far superior. In many industries, standards get created and agreed upon by most of the workers in that industry. The industry eventually creates a seal of approval, or a certification. Sellers within the industry are not required to have the certificate, or whatever, but their is some benefit to doing so as their customers might feel better about the product. Again tho, these people, unions, boards, or what nots, many times will goto the government and have the government create a law that every seller in the industry must be a member of their union or whatever. There are many areas of business where it is against the law to engage in that type of trade without being a member and paying dues to some organization. Do you see what I mean tho, when you have this central authority that will take brides for favors, it will happen, and it will destroy your nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Point of information about the EU. As part of the Single European Market, we have common standards in areas like product labelling, health and safety legislation and so on, partly to ensure that manufacturers in different countries are operating on a level playing field and partly so that, wherever a manufacturer is based in the EU, he's only got to worry about one set of rules for labelling his goods for sale in the EU, one set of rules for permitted food additives and so on, rather than 27 in lots of different languages. That is, if anything it reduces the number of regulations a German company needs to worry about, since they don't have to worry about different regulatory regimes in England, France, Italy, Poland etc, and also they know anything they import from any of those countries will meet German standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What I find extremely interesting, is seeing how those same forces, that greatly affect real life markets, affect the SL market. We see the same types of pushes. The whole SL market is completely unregulated. There are almost no restrictions at all. There are constant battles within specialized markets resulting in many options for the consumer, and much lower prices. Imagine if the clothing industry in SL was controlled by a few major designers. Yes, there are big designers, but they are big because they are good, prolific designers. We have seen many calls for regulations of many sorts, and all but a few implimented by LL. You do see big reputations and standards tho. Standard sizing was 1 that cropped up and was completely brought about by a group of creators. As much as I was against it, It really was the only valid way to make mesh clothing. To me, SL is a libertarian's dream world. You can almost do anything or make anything without too many restrictions. It proves that fairly unregulated markets can work. Yes, some people do get screwed. That amount of people, is far less than when government screws every1 with their regulations. Some many people called SL the wild west in the beginning. Every1 that spends any amount of time in SL gets scammed by some1, at some point. Did we all just stop doing business here? Some random scammer I can easily deal with, and he/she can't destroy me. The people that can destroy me, you and any1 else, are those that work in government and write laws. They are the people to fear. Not some random criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Innula Zenovka wrote: Point of information about the EU. As part of the Single European Market, we have common standards in areas like product labelling, health and safety legislation and so on, partly to ensure that manufacturers in different countries are operating on a level playing field and partly so that, wherever a manufacturer is based in the EU, he's only got to worry about one set of rules for labelling his goods for sale in the EU, one set of rules for permitted food additives and so on, rather than 27 in lots of different languages. That is, if anything it reduces the number of regulations a German company needs to worry about, since they don't have to worry about different regulatory regimes in England, France, Italy, Poland etc, and also they know anything they import from any of those countries will meet German standards. Like I said, I'm not against all regulations. Labeling is an interesting subject tho, so let's touch on that. I'm actually against mandated labeling. I do not see it as the government's job to dictate to any producers how to sell their products. Note, that I'm not saying that I'm against labeling. Good honest companies would label their products regardless of the laws, unless they were so small that they could not afford it. It should be up to the customer to decide at what level they want or need labeling, and for each market to figure that out on their own. A good example of this is in the GMO, MSG, and artificial sweetener markets. Thousands of people across the US rally to have GMOs labeled. Oh, I feel similarly to them, but I don't think I need government to do it. If they won't label them, I just won't buy from producers unless they say they don't use GMOs. See, when the producer has nothing to hide, labeling is a promotional tool, and they voluntarily label the package. In these cases of products with no GMOs, it says right on the can NO GMOs, or NO MSG, or NO asparatame. See, it's a marketing tool. Campbell soup has MSG in almost every can of their soups. I will never buy from them ever again, no matter what they change. Labeling does not stop Campbell Soup from putting MSG in their soups, only the consumers can do that by not buying their products. Using government, large food corporations can also use the labeling laws to hide their toxic additives, by setting the amount that is allowable. Now, they are trying to buy up every healthy brand on the market, cause they are losing market share fast. Today, we have the ability to test our own food. It's more than cheap enough. People that make healthy foods their life's work can easily raise money to have foods tested. With the internet, those groups can verify and back up other tests from around the world in independent labs. Instead of having 1 central authority dictating what is safe and what is not, which many times they are grossly wrong, you would have thousands of independent labs verifying results from every1 else. No corporation could buy off politicians or labs, or the FDA, to hide their crimes. The amount of money that we all spend on those government systems, could easily pay for hundreds of independent labs around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 On a related note: Japan Says Bitcoin Not a Currency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: I never said No regulation. Indeed you pretty much started out with saying that. However, in that very same post you also say "Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive." Doesn't that imply that according to you, all regulation is counterproductive? Or were you assuming that I couldn't come up with an example that wasn't counterproductive? Or did you really mean "most/all regulations have drawbacks" instead of all of them being "counterproductive"? That's quite a difference. I'm also talking about the federal government, not local cities or states within the US. Each city or local community should decide what regulations they need, and what benefits them. They should never be mandated by the federal government. OMG, we rode bicycles without helmets! All our parents should be in jail for neglect. Let me point out that (not) having to wear bicycle helmets is state law, not federal law. They should never be mandated by the federal government. Of course, the US is a bit different, as it is a collection of states that cover a vast area. We aren't talking about a country like Germany. It would be more like the EU tells Germany what it can or can't do. So, I think when people hear me say something they think is extreme, it's really just their perspective that is skewed because the US is thought to be 1 country. Bad example, since Germany s a federation of independent states, just like the US. I get the point though, Germany is a lot smaller than the US. Then again, 80 million people is still a quarter of number of residents of the US, not exactly your typical US state amount. Free market and a lack of EU involvement are causing quite a bit of issues in Western Europe. People from "the east" will work for lower wages than those from "the west". Life is a lot cheaper over there than it is here. Employers also take advantage of the situation and station their headquarters in "the east" to cut costs. Then there's the big issue with exploitation of these cheap laborers. In some cases it's so bad at the end of the working period, employees have to pay the employers. Thank you free market. My point about laws being arbitrary goes beyond just something like a speed limit, which is not a law but most are just city ordinances. Part of written law's arbitrary nature has to do with language itself. The language is almost always subjective to the reader. That was just an example to point out how I view the arbitrary nature of laws. The laws being open to interpretation, which I see as something different, is not a bad thing by itself, although it gives the (richer) party with the longest breath a big advantage in court. Say your father was charged with child employment when you were a kid. It wouldn't take a genius to point out to the judge you weren't there as an employee, but just to help out and spend some time with pops. The tighter you set those laws, the more complicated they get, you'll have to make exception after exception after exception. That's the opposite of what you'd like to see I think. Child labour laws have subjective language. Take, for instance, child neglect cases that have made the news. You're talking about child labour law and give an example about child neglect. I can't follow your logic there. These regulations will ultimately create monopolies around the pot growing business, just like any other highly regulated market. The regulations keep the smaller businesses from competing against the mega producers, as that is really what they are meant to do. It is always the largest corporations in an industry that goes to the government and asks for regulations to limit their competition. I don't know the regulations regarding cannabis in those two states, so I can't comment on that. You don't give anything to go by either, other than saying it's overregulated. I view things quite differently than you here though. Regulations here make sure big companies can't create a monopoly, which is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. Recently, a supermarket chain bought some other chains (surprise, free market) and was forced to sell a part of them, so their market share wouldn't get too big. I've seen what this free market policies did here in the past decades. Supermarkets lowering their prices (again free market) below cost price in many cases, so smaller businesses couldn't compete anymore. They went out of business so supermarkets either lowered their service or raised the prices again. You can hardly find a proper butcher or greengrocer anymore. What you can find is a fourteen year old who doesn't know a potato from a carrot. In a completely free market, regulation would be far superior. In many industries, standards get created and agreed upon by most of the workers in that industry. The industry eventually creates a seal of approval, or a certification. In which case the industry is open to corruption just as much as the government would have been if they had set the standard. Do you see what I mean tho, when you have this central authority that will take brides for favors, it will happen, and it will destroy your nation. So we are back where I started this post. You implying that all regulations (by a central government) are bad. I know politicians don't always play fair, plenty of examples here in the Netherlands. That doesn't mean it will destroy this nation. It also doesn't mean the alternative of having no government regulation at all would be better. Some people will simply always exploit the system, no matter what system that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 A post about SL:) Medhue Simoni wrote: What I find extremely interesting, is seeing how those same forces, that greatly affect real life markets, affect the SL market. We see the same types of pushes. The whole SL market is completely unregulated. And for a great part it's run by hobbyists who don't expect a return from their investment, since their fees aren't investment at all, but just funds for having some fun, and IP thieves. Not exactly a good platform to compare to the RL economy/society. Standard sizing was 1 that cropped up and was completely brought about by a group of creators. As much as I was against it, It really was the only valid way to make mesh clothing. Which, if you want to make the comparison, resulted in something kind of workable at best. Now that LL (our SL government) set the standard with fitted mesh, things should be a bit better. I do agree they are far from perfect, but not as far as 5 standard sizes. The people that can destroy me, you and any1 else, are those that work in government and write laws. They are the people to fear. Not some random criminal. I don't fear any Linden. They could put me out of business tomorrow if they wanted to. All they have to do is cancel my account. LL, our government, set up the SL world in such a way I indeed do not really have to worry about some SL criminal. Worst thing they do is asking for a "replacement" when they really want "an extra copy". It's still possible to ruin someones business if you set your mind to it. I'm not going to offer ideas here other than the idea that it is possible. Just give it two minutes of thought and I think you'll think of ways too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: Qie Niangao wrote: Presumably because it makes bitcoin advocates feel good about themselves. Which, in fact, isn't a bad reason to do it. The customer is always right, etc. It's just a question of whether there are enough bitcoin afficionados feeling gratified enough to justify the overhead of accepting bitcoin. (And media attention notwithstanding, trade in bitcoin for goods and services is about as popular as bartering pork bellies.) What overhead? When I signed up to accept bitcoins, I clicked 1 button from the business that does all my transactions. Then, I had to create a bitcoin wallet on my pc. Gosh, that was so much harder and more work than ........ sleeping. Oh, no, I hope I can make up the cost of ZERO. Seriously people, I fail to see why so many are so against bitcoins, and yet know NOTHING about it. I've been away for a week or so, and just beginning to catch up. Anyway, back when the first flurry of these bitcoin threads appeared (possibly in the scripting forum? I can't remember now), I tried to get from the OP what sort of transaction processing he was proposing to offer because he specifically wanted to offer it for in-world payments. Short of some pretty significant programming (i.e., somehow reimplementing BitcoinJS in LSL), I couldn't come up with any secure way to make that happen. The simplest way I could devise was to use a bitcoin payment processor, which seems to be what you're doing. The thing is, to use that for accepting in-world payment, the interface to the payment processor -- the "button" code to be embedded -- needs to be exposed in-world through the usual kludgy means (MoaP, probably, and/or llLoadURL). and then some programming would be needed to relay the transaction success back in-world to trigger product delivery or service provisioning or whatever was being paid-for. And I have to say, I'm still not convinced that this "simplest way" can ever be made perfectly secure (quite independent of any bitcoin currency risk, or risk of failure or fraud by the transaction processor). It just looked less perilous than actually taking on any deeper bitcoin protocol processing in an LSL script. But it seems that, unlike that earlier poster, you're not actually talking about accepting bitcoin in-world, unless it's by some means I don't understand (specifically, "the business that does all my transactions" would be... if in-world, Linden Lab, which doesn't accept bitcoin, so that's not it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: A post about SL:) Medhue Simoni wrote: What I find extremely interesting, is seeing how those same forces, that greatly affect real life markets, affect the SL market. We see the same types of pushes. The whole SL market is completely unregulated. And for a great part it's run by hobbyists who don't expect a return from their investment, since their fees aren't investment at all, but just funds for having some fun, and IP thieves. Not exactly a good platform to compare to the RL economy/society. Well, you can think they, we, are all hobbiests, but when LL last released numbers in 2010, I calculated that I was in the top 5% of businesses that profitted off of SL. Now, I know my own circumstances, and income. So, I wouldn't say that a bunch of hobbiests some how magically supplies LL with millions of dollars of profits every year. Are there hobbiests? Of course! Is every hobbiests dream to do it full time? For most of them, yes. Do they have expenses to pay? Yes. Do they own a sim? Maybe. Do they pay for that with lindens they earned. Probably. OMG, we have professionals, making millions. We have thousands of creators squeaking out a living. We have tens of thousands of hobbiests, which are easily paying rent. OMFG, we have a dang economy. And the crazy parts is, after every1 takes their cut, like magic, thru the most free market that ever existed, LL makes out like a bandit. Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I don't fear any Linden. They could put me out of business tomorrow if they wanted to. All they have to do is cancel my account. LL, our government, set up the SL world in such a way I indeed do not really have to worry about some SL criminal. Worst thing they do is asking for a "replacement" when they really want "an extra copy". It's still possible to ruin someones business if you set your mind to it. I'm not going to offer ideas here other than the idea that it is possible. Just give it two minutes of thought and I think you'll think of ways too. Imagine if LL decided to impose it's will more into the economy. Every time it does touch something that is part of the economy, they pretty much ruin it. The success that SL has gotten, it gets inspite of LL's mistakes, and because of the free market that it has created. We talked about corruption and fraud before. Yes, it goes on in SL, but people get wise to it. Other people talk. The scam gets around. No need for some big major rule, just because of 1 scam. If you do your research, you won't really get scammed or defrauded. When it does happen, it's rare, because people understand that scams can only last so long. When you have government step in to protect every1, you are pay much more for the protection than not having the protection at all. Instead of society actually fixing the problem on it's own, we use government force, which results in more harm than the initial problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: Well, you can think they, we, are all hobbiests, but when LL last released numbers in 2010, I calculated that I was in the top 5% of businesses that profitted off of SL. Now, I know my own circumstances, and income. So, I wouldn't say that a bunch of hobbiests some how magically supplies LL with millions of dollars of profits every year. You lost me here. Whether you are in the 0.5% or 5% range, it's still the people paying tiers who put bread on the LL table. The buyers, not the sellers. I never said we are all hobbyists, I said many of us are. That means you can't compare the SL economy to the RL economy. In RL I need to make a living, in SL I don't. You can't participate in a RL society by making a loss month after month, year after year, which is what many people in SL do. Those are the people paying the LL staff. Unlike what Philip Rosedale said, SL is entertainment, not a new country. Are there hobbiests? Of course! Is every hobbiests dream to do it full time? For most of them, yes. Do they have expenses to pay? Yes. Do they own a sim? Maybe. Do they pay for that with lindens they earned. Probably. OMG, we have professionals, making millions. We have thousands of creators squeaking out a living. We have tens of thousands of hobbiests, which are easily paying rent. OMFG, we have a dang economy. And the crazy parts is, after every1 takes their cut, like magic, thru the most free market that ever existed, LL makes out like a bandit. I can only speak for myself. I have plenty of hobbies, I don't think I'd like to have any of them as my full time job. And my RL job, as much as I enjoy it, I probably wouldn't want to have as a hobby. Not "every1 takes their cut" in SL. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of users makes a loss. If that's not the case, we're headed for disaster, since if somehow everyone pulls money from SL, there won't be any left in SL itself to go around. Imagine if LL decided to impose it's will more into the economy. Every time it does touch something that is part of the economy, they pretty much ruin it. The success that SL has gotten, it gets inspite of LL's mistakes, and because of the free market that it has created. I don't know, but much like the child labout law, the situation might be that the rules make so much sense, you don't get the idea they are there. Did you ever read the ToS (law)? Have you ever tried uploading something (tax)? Did you ever build something? (building code)? Let's take the last one, building, the thing that makes SL SL. People can build and sell pretty much whatever they want. I'll be the first to acknowledge that makes SL a very special place and is one of the main reasons I am still around after all these years. However, if you compare a 3D game with SL, you can't get around the fact that performance in SL is a lot, lot lower, unless you have a top of the line computer and internet connection. Even then it's mediocre overall. If LL would stop limiting the polycount/triangle count for uploaded objects and the amount of objects we can use on a simulator, SL would grind to a halt in notime. We wouldn't see any gamelike objects anymore, just objects meant for static renders. Why? Because people do not know or do not want to know what harm those objects cause. Because an object with 10 times (optimistic thinking) the geometrical detail looks so much better in a side by side comparison with a game-ready one. Look at avatar attachments, some avatars are wearing as much polygons as an entire sim can hold. It doesn't stop people buying them. Maybe if they did some investigation (which they can, I agree), they would buy something else. Unfortunate fact of the matter is, most people don't investigate, they just look and buy. Don't get me wrong, I believe in a market where people can compete and try out new things, just not a 100% free market. Boundaries need to be set and adjusted continuously to keep the system working. In a virtual world without any of the risks of RL, those boundaries don't have to be that strict so the market can be more free. You can't kill anyone, so we don't need any rules for safety. You can't go bankrupt in SL, not in a way you can go bankrupt in RL. In SL you usually pay up front. If you can't pay, you won't get any goods or land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Not "every1 takes their cut" in SL. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of users makes a loss. If that's not the case, we're headed for disaster, since if somehow everyone pulls money from SL, there won't be any left in SL itself to go around. Yeah, and that's putting it mildly. Every L$ that gets cashed-out, plus every fee paid to L$ sinks*, plus (especially) every estate fee and Mainland tier payment -- every bit of that -- comes from RL money infused into the SL economy by folks paying-in more than they take out of SL. Merchants may suppose that they're spending and cashing-out L$s earned in-world -- and, indeed, they earned those L$s in-world, but every single one of those L$s must ultimately derive from RL funds injected into the SL economy. Otherwise, the entire L$ supply would be exhausted quickly, like a leaky balloon. Certainly merchants and creators generate revenue for LL and expand the SL economy, but they do so only indirectly, by luring others to spend their hard-earned RL money on virtual goods and services in SL. There may be an invisible hand, but there's no free lunch. *L$ sinks are slightly messy because not all L$s ultimately derive from LindeX purchases from Supply, which are RL money infusions; rather, some L$s are sourced from stipends, which are ultimately paid for by membership fees -- again RL money infusions, but the stipend is just part of the value purchased with those membership fees, so the accounting isn't quite precise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaskyaClaren Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Qie Niangao wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Not "every1 takes their cut" in SL. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of users makes a loss. If that's not the case, we're headed for disaster, since if somehow everyone pulls money from SL, there won't be any left in SL itself to go around. Yeah, and that's putting it mildly. Every L$ that gets cashed-out, plus every fee paid to L$ sinks*, plus (especially) every estate fee and Mainland tier payment -- every bit of that -- comes from RL money infused into the SL economy by folks paying-in more than they take out of SL. Merchants may suppose that they're spending and cashing-out L$s earned in-world -- and, indeed, they earned those L$s in-world, but every single one of those L$s must ultimately derive from RL funds injected into the SL economy. Otherwise, the entire L$ supply would be exhausted quickly, like a leaky balloon. Certainly merchants and creators generate revenue for LL and expand the SL economy, but they do so only indirectly, by luring others to spend their hard-earned RL money on virtual goods and services in SL. There may be an invisible hand, but there's no free lunch. *L$ sinks are slightly messy because not all L$s ultimately derive from LindeX purchases from Supply, which are RL money infusions; rather, some L$s are sourced from stipends, which are ultimately paid for by membership fees -- again RL money infusions, but the stipend is just part of the value purchased with those membership fees, so the accounting isn't quite precise. This is very much to the point, and why it is reductive to suggest that the SL economy really reflects, or could every reflect, the RL economy. Governments may often be wasteful and inefficient, but they are not (in non-corrupt countries anyway) profit-making enterprises. LL, on the other hand, has to be, or at least has to pull enough out of the SL economy to keep its infrastructure running and its employees paid. When a government reinvests its tax revenues, most goes back into the economy (minus debt payments), but how much of SL's revenues do? Some, of course. But there's a great whack that goes into the RL economy instead. That's why people like Edward Castronova are so interested in virtual economies: not because they really model existing economic systems, but because they represent a new kind of economic and financial system, built to some degree on the voluntary contributions in cash and -- this is important -- labour of their "citizens." Arguably, the same can be said of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter: they provide a platform, but their users provide the content that makes them viable. I owned for a number of years in SL a small bookstore featuring digital versions of writing by women. I sold my books for between L$1 and L$5 each. I never turned a profit, nor did I ever expect to: that wasn't the point. My own financial investment in the business was small -- what was not small was the labour involved, which was, actually, quite immense. That labour may have added only a tiny bit of value to Second Life as a whole, but it was representative of that contributed by a great many other than myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Qie Niangao wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Not "every1 takes their cut" in SL. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of users makes a loss. If that's not the case, we're headed for disaster, since if somehow everyone pulls money from SL, there won't be any left in SL itself to go around. Yeah, and that's putting it mildly. Every L$ that gets cashed-out, plus every fee paid to L$ sinks*, plus (especially) every estate fee and Mainland tier payment -- every bit of that -- comes from RL money infused into the SL economy by folks paying-in more than they take out of SL. Merchants may suppose that they're spending and cashing-out L$s earned in-world -- and, indeed, they earned those L$s in-world, but every single one of those L$s must ultimately derive from RL funds injected into the SL economy. Otherwise, the entire L$ supply would be exhausted quickly, like a leaky balloon. Certainly merchants and creators generate revenue for LL and expand the SL economy, but they do so only indirectly, by luring others to spend their hard-earned RL money on virtual goods and services in SL. There may be an invisible hand, but there's no free lunch. *L$ sinks are slightly messy because not all L$s ultimately derive from LindeX purchases from Supply, which are RL money infusions; rather, some L$s are sourced from stipends, which are ultimately paid for by membership fees -- again RL money infusions, but the stipend is just part of the value purchased with those membership fees, so the accounting isn't quite precise. Got to love all that book keeping. From a practical point of view, LL only manages the Lindex for the benefit of the users. It would not surprise me if on paper the Lindex actually exists as it's own entity simply owned and managed by LL. 4.6 "......You acknowledge that the LindeX exchange has been created to enable users of our products to enhance their experience using the Service with the ability to transfer license rights to other users of the Service, and that the terminology used is solely for the purpose of enabling this use of the Service." http://lindenlab.com/tos#tos4 And do we even know what the total supply of L$ is any more or the last time Supply Linden had to infuse L$ directly into the Lindex to stabilise it? As you pointed out, there are the stipends. And LL has even done creative things like when they "gave" people $10L for a Valentine Gift. That had to add up to a couple of million $L. People sometimes question why LL simply doesn't credit people who have had their accounts compromised with the L$ they lost. They miss the point that L$ can be sold for US$. There is 'real' money involved and I like to say that "Linden Dollars don't grow on trees." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 This thread has turned into what looks like a Libertarian catfight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Let's imagine that, in the future, all our basic needs are taken care of. Isn't this what the ideal leftist ideology consists of? Really tho, this is very doable in the future with robots and other technologies. From this, people speculate that society will get worse, as no1 will have a job, or produce income from themselves. That is what I'm talking about. The SL economy is a reflection of that future. It makes sense that people will all become creative in some sense or another. Yeah, I guess every1 would simply be a hobbiest as you wouldn't need much after all your needs are taken care of. Essentially, we would all become prosumer. Producers and consumers. The fact that we can't physically harm others in SL, is simply a reflection of what we would all prefer. Here is an interesting video from many years ago that tried to predict the future. Of course, my ultimate point about bringing up SL, is to show, a little, how a completely nongovernment regulated market works. People get together and form standards. They regulate themselves. In the future, we won't need regulator and centrally controlled panels to approve things. We'd all be those regulators. Even today, technology has advanced to the point that any1 can pay to have their food tested. Any1 can have the soil analyzed. Any1 can buy devices to check for radiation. We don't need those regulators anymore. Technology makes this possilbe. When you look at the cost of employeeing all those regulators, and the impact they have on the economy, it becomes even more obvious that we are basically burning money, which means wasting our productivity, so we can have corrupt people decide what is legal. As if we were children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullperm Alpha Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Hey Medhue, the for the good Bitcoin Information ! Are you accepting Bitcoin in your Shop ? If yes, i am going to spend some at your Shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Sudoquai Wonder wrote: Hey Medhue, the for the good Bitcoin Information ! Are you accepting Bitcoin in your Shop ? If yes, i am going to spend some at your Shop. Thanks, but I only accept bitcoins on my website. www.medhueanimations.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now