Revalue the L$ -> $1US = L$100

[CaithLynnSayes]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I fail to see...

Exactly...

Like i said, you don't understand economics.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I fail to see...

Exactly...

Like i said, you don't understand economics.

Apparently you fail to see correct debating methods.  They don't include snipping part of someone's comment to deliver some whammy you think is so cool.

[CaithLynnSayes]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Apparently you fail to see correct debating methods.  They don't include snipping part of someone's comment to deliver some whammy you think is so cool.

I don't think it's " a cool whammy". Like i said before, i'm slightly worried about you. I actually meant that. Your whole reply is still there for anyone to read. I wanted to bring emphasis on the fact that you didn't see how this is a bad idea.

I get the feeling you feel attacked. I'm not trying to attack you. If you feel that way, then that's your choice. It doesn't take anything away from what I've been trying to tell you.

But speaking of "failing to see". I don't really see the point in taking this much further. You've got your opinion on it, as do i. We'll most likely never agree on much, and that's fine. You do you.

[JUSTUS Palianta]

@CaithLynnSayesYour avatar picture does look like she is in attack mode actually.  

Can you guys stop fighting this should be a interesting thread. Thanks

[CaithLynnSayes]

Just now, JUSTUS Palianta said:

@CaithLynnSayesYour avatar picture does look like she is in attack mode actually.  

Can you guys stop fighting this should be a interesting thread. Thanks

Who says we're fighting? And what does my Liberal Barbie avatar pic have to do with any of this? lol.

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, AmeliaJ08 said:

...I fully agree that there is value in experience and the amount I spend here is a reflection of that but you have to consider the whole and when it comes to virtual goods in virtual worlds I think prices are going to be low and a very limiting factor as far as making a real living on them.

This is likely true for some (that virtual goods are not as valuable because one can't actually own them), but I don't believe it's true for the majority.

I think it more likely that when people get things cheaply they don't really value them as much. I'm sure there are exceptions, but typically what is gotten cheaply is disposed of quickly. What we put our energy into (typically that energy consists of earned income we sweated a bit over)  then becomes more important.

So making content cost more would automatically raise it's value, and people would be willing (if they had the means) to pay more for it.

Add to this the flooding of the market (it seems everyone and their grandmother has a store these days) and it's no wonder it's difficult to make money with your creations.

In my Reiki training I was taught to always charge for sessions, as people simply did not value the session or do the work required to grow when it was given to them without charge. There needed to be a fair energy exchange when possible, even if the one needing a treatment brought only chickens and apples from their garden. They had some examples to prove this.  I don't expect all people would react this way to a free session, but I think a good number would.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

I won't speak for anyone but myself here..

They can fiddle with it all they want..It's not gonna get anymore money out of me than I'm willing to spend for this world..

If premiums go up, I'll drop two of the three I have, maybe all of them. If value goes down and prices go up, I'll stop looking in certain places like I do already..

I work really hard for my money and i'm not a fool when it comes to spending it.. Some may see this world as where they live.. Myself it's just entertainment and a place to unwind..

I have a limit that I spend  and a value in my head of what's worth  it and what isn't..

So they can adjust away if they want.. It's no skin off my butt.

[Coffee Pancake]

12 minutes ago, JUSTUS Palianta said:

@CaithLynnSayesYour avatar picture does look like she is in attack mode actually.  

Can you guys stop fighting this should be a interesting thread. Thanks

Oh these forums, lol .. not a chance.

Half the regulars are only here to troll each other within an inch of the rules.

[Kathlen Onyx]

25 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Oh these forums, lol .. not a chance.

Half the regulars are only here to troll each other within an inch of the rules.

OH please. You knew exactly what you were doing. As usual you post a thread and Luna hijacks the whole darn thing making it all about her.  I've taken a nap in between this debacle and it's still going strong.  

[Love Zhaoying]

39 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Half the regulars are only here to troll each other within an inch of the rules.

Et tu, Brutus?

lol!

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

OH please. You knew exactly what you were doing. As usual you post a thread and Luna hijacks the whole darn thing making it all about her.  I've taken a nap in between this debacle and it's still going strong.  

It was all fine until Luna lost it and just started attacking.

Soo, sooo disappointing.

 

[Modulated]

53 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

This is likely true for some (that virtual goods are not as valuable because one can't actually own them), but I don't believe it's true for the majority.

I think it more likely that when people get things cheaply they don't really value them as much. I'm sure there are exceptions, but typically what is gotten cheaply is disposed of quickly. What we put our energy into (typically that energy consists of earned income we sweated a bit over)  then becomes more important.

So making content cost more would automatically raise it's value, and people would be willing (if they had the means) to pay more for it.

Add to this the flooding of the market (it seems everyone and their grandmother has a store these days) and it's no wonder it's difficult to make money with your creations.

In my Reiki training I was taught to always charge for sessions, as people simply did not value the session or do the work required to grow when it was given to them without charge. There needed to be a fair energy exchange when possible, even if the one needing a treatment brought only chickens and apples from their garden. They had some examples to prove this.  I don't expect all people would react this way to a free session, but I think a good number would.

 

The gist,  easier content creation has created competition (which you don't seem to like) and a whole lot of choice for consumers, are you anti-consumer? Sure seems like it.  You either compete with your product or you don't , that is all there is to it.   The part that is really glaring for me is the opinion parading as insight, do us all a favor and just stop. Thank you.

[Luna Bliss]

16 minutes ago, Modulated said:

The gist,  easier content creation has created competition (which you don't seem to like) and a whole lot of choice for consumers, are you anti-consumer? Sure seems like it.  You either compete with your product or you don't , that is all there is to it.   The part that is really glaring for me is the opinion parading as insight, do us all a favor and just stop. Thank you.

What part of this paragraph pertaining to competition that you quoted did you not read? 

"Add to this the flooding of the market (it seems everyone and their grandmother has a store these days) and it's no wonder it's difficult to make money with your creations".

Edited April 2 by Luna Bliss

[Miranda Tretiak]

Not reading it all. I tried, but nope.....

All I have to chime in is this:-

If you're not making what you feel like you should be,  search somewhere else, or just don't do it in here anymore.

And the whole "people not valuing things that they get cheaply" for me is total bullpucky. The dollar value of something doesn't dictate diddly squat to me of how I value it. If it captures me, I don't care how cheap or expensive it is, I'm getting it.

[Luna Bliss]

39 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

As usual you post a thread and Luna hijacks the whole darn thing making it all about her.

A good percentage of the time I disagree with Coffee's ideas...so what in the world are you referring to?

[Dyna Mole]

This would be a good time to take a very deep breath.

Please remember that although spirited discussion and constructive disagreement are welcome, name-calling and airing of grievances are not appropriate in our discussion areas. Participants in the forums are expected to maintain an atmosphere of courtesy and respect for others at all times. 

[Persephone Emerald]

20 minutes ago, Dyna Mole said:

This would be a good time to take a very deep breath.

Please remember that although spirited discussion and constructive disagreement are welcome, name-calling and airing of grievances are not appropriate in our discussion areas. Participants in the forums are expected to maintain an atmosphere of courtesy and respect for others at all times. 

If we celebrate Festivus on the forums, can we air grievances then?

[Tayt3rChip]

My 1 cent, 

If I can afford to put 50 smackaroons into SL that's not going to suddenly change because the Linden value looks different. I will simply change my spending habits to fit the set budget. I'm not suddenly going to have more than 50 smackaroons to spend just because the exchange rate changed. If anything I will be buying from fewer people because my money won't stretch as far as it used to.

The profitable stores on SL all have something in common. They produce a product/service that people want and value. They sell their product/service at a price people are willing to pay. If you are on SL and aspire to make a living you need to make sure you are selling something that holds value for others. People spend money on what they value. If you are not profitable in this economy your business will not suddenly become more profitable when people have less money to spend. If anything small businesses will suffer more because I would rather put money in something that has market credibility than risk it trying something new that I'm unsure of. This feeling is only exacerbated by having fewer Lindens for my money. 

Business and Charity are not synonymous. No one deserves money just because they opened a store on SL. No one deserves money just because they spent hours on end learning a new skill set. No one deserves money just because they put effort into something. Effort does not equate to achievement. Just because you value your own product doesn't mean everyone else is forced to value it in the same way. If your business is not profitable, it doesn't mean your business isn't valuable. It means that your business isn't valuable to others, therefore they are not willing to exchange something they value ( their hard-earned smackaroons), for your product. 

I'm really hoping some of the comments I read are a joke. 

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, Tayt3rChip said:

My 1 cent, 

If I can afford to put 50 smackaroons into SL that's not going to suddenly change because the Linden value looks different. I will simply change my spending habits to fit the set budget. I'm not suddenly going to have more than 50 smackaroons to spend just because the exchange rate changed. If anything I will be buying from fewer people because my money won't stretch as far as it used to.

The profitable stores on SL all have something in common. They produce a product/service that people want and value. They sell their product/service at a price people are willing to pay. If you are on SL and aspire to make a living you need to make sure you are selling something that holds value for others. People spend money on what they value. If you are not profitable in this economy your business will not suddenly become more profitable when people have less money to spend. If anything small businesses will suffer more because I would rather put money in something that has market credibility than risk it trying something new that I'm unsure of. This feeling is only exacerbated by having fewer Lindens for my money. 

Business and Charity are not synonymous. No one deserves money just because they opened a store on SL. No one deserves money just because they spent hours on end learning a new skill set. No one deserves money just because they put effort into something. Effort does not equate to achievement. Just because you value your own product doesn't mean everyone else is forced to value it in the same way. If your business is not profitable, it doesn't mean your business isn't valuable. It means that your business isn't valuable to others, therefore they are not willing to exchange something they value ( their hard-earned smackaroons), for your product. 

I'm really hoping some of the comments I read are a joke. 

We can close the thread now because you hit all the right points and said it perfectly,

[Arwyn Quandry]

I go to DJ events and listen to my own music. Why hasn't anyone tipped me yet?

[Arielle Popstar]

If there was a dramatic rate increase, I suspect it would just backfire as more would make do with what they already have, start learning to create content themselves, shop less and be more selective what they do purchase. Creators would be forced to advertise more and work harder in general to make sales and be more pressured to put out a good product. 

I doubt it would end well or with its intended benefit.

[elleevelyn]

to grow a domestic economy relative to another target (foreign) economy then we devalue our currency relative to the target. We don't revalue it as OP proposes

instead of revalue USD1 = L$100 from USD1 = L$250 then if do anything then devalue USD1 = L$775

the effect of this is the foreign buyers (SL Account holders of USD) are able to obtain more products and services within the domestic SL economy. The ability to obtain more means that the buyers are able to spread their L$ to more suppliers, and/or provide more L$ to fewer suppliers

the issue OP highlights is that the suppliers affected by revaluation/devaluation are foreign suppliers - SL creatives who extract value - USD currency from the SL domestic economy. Following from this, when it becomes uneconomic for foreign suppliers to extract value from a domestic economy then they stop supplying products and services. However, stopping supply only happens when there is a oversupply of suppliers; and/or when there is an undersupply of local currency within the domestic economy

revaluing to USD1 - L$100 creates an undersupply of local currency. This has a far more detrimental effect on the economy than does the movement of foreign suppliers in and out of the market

the fortunes of individual foreign product and services suppliers is of far less importance to the robustness of a domestic economy than is the supply of local currency. Or in other words: Where there is a customer - a supplier can always be found. When there is a supplier - a customer cannot always be found

so if anything was to change then devaluation, not revaluation

 

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Arwyn Quandry said:

I go to DJ events and listen to my own music. Why hasn't anyone tipped me yet?

You need to take over the music stream and put out your tip jar...

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

to grow a domestic economy relative to another target (foreign) economy then we devalue our currency relative to the target. We don't revalue it as OP proposes

instead of revalue USD1 = L$100 from USD1 = L$250 then if do anything then devalue USD1 = L$775

the effect of this is the foreign buyers (SL Account holders of USD) are able to obtain more products and services within the domestic SL economy. The ability to obtain more means that the buyers are able to spread their L$ to more suppliers, and/or provide more L$ to fewer suppliers

the issue OP highlights is that the suppliers affected by revaluation/devaluation are foreign suppliers - SL creatives who extract value - USD currency from the SL domestic economy. Following from this, when it becomes uneconomic for foreign suppliers to extract value from a domestic economy then they stop supplying products and services. However, stopping supply only happens when there is a oversupply of suppliers; and/or when there is an undersupply of local currency within the domestic economy

revaluing to USD1 - L$100 creates an undersupply of local currency. This has a far more detrimental effect on the economy than does the movement of foreign suppliers in and out of the market

the fortunes of individual foreign product and services suppliers is of far less importance to the robustness of a domestic economy than is the supply of local currency. Or in other words: Where there is a customer - a supplier can always be found. When there is a supplier - a customer cannot always be found

so if anything was to change then devaluation, not revaluation

Theoretically, what would happen to the SL economy if LL were to devalue the $L so that $L 500 = $ 1 US?

Suddenly all the lindens people have in their SL account would be worth half as much real money. That wouldn't mean much to those of us who only have a few thousand lindens or less, but this could be devastating for creators who make and transfer out significant sums of money.

I assume the suggestion @Coffee Pancake made would be equally harmful to Linden Lab. Suddenly the lindens people have would be worth more money, so they'd want to transfer them out as real currency to make a profit.

Edited April 3 by Persephone Emerald

[gwynchisholm]

Just up your own scale of spending if you want things to be comparable.

Though for most people, keeping this comparable to irl is not the point of the virtual currency. For a lot of people it’s not a translation of real world value, it’s just a game currency that happens to have real world value. I don’t look at a piece of virtual clothing like it’s worth $0.59 USD or something. The virtual currency operates on its own market and scale. A little plot of land costs under 20k l$ which is under $100 usd. I’d rather that than “oh this prime real estate costs the equivalent of $180,000 USD, or 43 million linden dollars”.

And then it’s all also a matter of personal scale. I’m one to tip 5 grand or dump money into giveaway orbs at clubs because for the few rare times I even go to places like that, $20 is a cheap expenditure for a virtual night out. Pizza Hut costs like $50 all in these days, so I consider linden dollar four figure sums to be cheap entertainment all things considered.

Edited April 3 by gwynchisholm