PLEX is too cheap


(Teckos Pech) #202

Of course. Prices are an emergent phenomena that contain information and part of that is expectations. And I’d be careful with “irrational” what exactly is that? Man is rational but fallible. Man may not use the optimal strategy due to various constraints, but most will use heuristics that can get the job done…usually.


(zluq zabaa) #203

You might want to read some Karl Marx.


(Salvos Rhoska) #204

Citation needed.


(Teckos Pech) #205

This is hilarious nonsense…you are pure comedy gold.

You assume that economics is about predictions, when it is more about describing. This is where your “every economist should be a billionaire if economics were true” nonsense fails. It is like because one understands probabilities they should be able to win at roulette.


(Salvos Rhoska) #206

I have.
I prefer Nietzsche.

Economics is the science of being wrong, and explaining how you weren’t, after the fact.

Its an utter DOS field.


(zluq zabaa) #207

Nietzsche is good, but a bit of a dreamer. Then again, a guy who shuts out the world because he can’t accept the cruelty done to one horse, is somewhat heart-warming. I don’t remember him beeing very analytical when it comes to economy (not markets, they’re only a small part anyway).


(Salvos Rhoska) #208

Marx was a dreamer wrecked by Nietzsche.


(Whitehound) #209

We weren’t talking about prediction. We’re still only talking about prices and all that was said is that the markets regulate themselves, which is common knowledge.


(Salvos Rhoska) #210

This is simplistic.
The real issue is how the market regulates itself, and how that is exploited by big market movers.


(Whitehound) #211

There are no issues here.


(Teckos Pech) #212

See…Salvos loves that idea of a single person determining market outcomes. So much so there is a shadowy cabal…Just yesterday they made Salvos buy 3 PLEX then sell 2 of them!


(Salvos Rhoska) #213

Nowhere have I said a single person determines the market.


(zluq zabaa) #214

Modern Economic studies or fields of theory are mostly about tickling the balls of the rich. Many writings are laughably unscientific (no wonder the Bank of Sweden and not Alfred Nobel created the “Nobel Prize” for Economics). Part of the “applied Mathematics” are interesting, but that’s about it. The rest are shallow hermeneutics build upon other shallow hermeneutics, some circular logic, some magical thinking, numerology and a lot of bullsh*t to cover the fact that it’s unscientific, wishful thinking and in the end mostly propaganda for what is. This happens mostly when it the viewpoint starts at markets.

However, Economics can also be the analytical approach to economy, as the general term for how humans use work and natural ressources to organize the necessary energetic exchange and the management of it with the surrounding nature. Like, looking at the stuff that actually matters for human survival and growth. If one starts there and afterwards looks at markets and their functions, there is much less danger of having a big wet fart in the brain.


(Teckos Pech) #215

No, just this elite group that controls you.


(Whitehound) #216

Did you know Red Frog is a market mover? I use them almost daily to send freight around and most often to Jita. Yep, they sure are market movers … Best there is. :+1:

27 courier contracts so far this month and 93 last month.


(zluq zabaa) #217

Ha, not even remotely. Nietzsche was a moralist whose place in life allowed him to be one. Despite him claiming the lack of self-understanding (Selbsterkenntnis auf Deutsch, however this would be translated), he ultimately failed to do so himself, by not understanding how the very practical surroundings, the preconditions of life, the necessity for energetic and material exchange have an influence on us and our thinking.

Nietzsche did some good stuff, but this was just lazy old german pseudo-Hegelianism.


(Salvos Rhoska) #218

As opposed to Marx “fixing” the entire world in his lifetime by his actions?
Yeah, no…

Calling Nietzsche a moralist, is like calling a hammer a nail.


(Zachri) #219

Correct. And well observed. But it does provide insight into the dynamic in which such processen function and on which stimuli they are based on / guided by. As such, it allows for - in fact requires - the belief that functioning according to established goals on EVE’s markets requires replicating behaviour established in the real world with exposure to or participation in markets there.

Now in the real world there is no such thing as self-regulation. No market is free. While we have set up belief systems in relation to definitions of functionality, this does not change the nature of markets in their own right.

This does not mean that there is no relation between supply and demand. On the contrary, in EVE it is very easy to establish this correlation. It is however but one such relation present within the emergent behaviour on those markets. The real question here is whether supply and demand are the biggest deciding conditional variable, so to speak.

Some people say there is nothing but this. Well, CCP exists. Players exist. The foundation elements of EVE are the same as those in the real world. Ergo, there’s other relations as well. Which isn’t hard to demonstrate, in behavioural ability to create or influence demand. I’m sure someone remembers the oddity of suddenly everyone using Warrior II’s for a certain activity. Influence yields impact.

Exactly. Economics isn’t just the study of economic behaviour in its technical aspects. Remember, once upon a time we decided to seperate the human sciences in to classes of hard and soft matters. In doing so we created ecosystems of value based on participation. The economist gets a return from advocating the curriculum :slight_smile:

What most people, particularly since the '80’s of the previous century, appear to forget is that economics is a decided-upon system. Made complex based on interests and with dependancies to safeguard. As humans we then overcompensate and overcomplicate. We think of terms, concepts, constructs, models and formulae.

Try to think of markets as nothing but another type of human interaction. The same evolutionary and social psychology which guides and provides our choices apply there like anywhere else. We have just put it in boxes with classifications and captured it in belief systems of agreements for required behaviour.

This indeed functions very well. But not because it utilises complexity better than other approaches. But because we’ve created boundaries and requirements which very strictly guide behavioural options.

What you refer to as local knowledge is just data, available to any type of mechanism of human interaction. It’s only because we’ve created these little boxes that we put that kind of thing in the box of “economics”. It doesn’t mean that other approaches are invalid, in fact they can be far more productive. For example influencing a market by means of introducing a perception problem, and then letting people’s predictability of belief in concepts like supply and demand provide the conditions for you to insert interests.

Anyway, this is rapidly becoming a something which can all too easily go way off topic. Suffice to say that what we consider markets to be is an extension of agreed upon necessity, for which rules and stimuli are established. As I said, there is no such thing as a free market, even when you go down to the penultimate roots of barter and exchange of trust there’s always agreement, boundary, sanction, and so forth.

Supply and demand works quite well in EVE. CCP has created something which not only serves to replicate what we know from our belief systems in the real, what they created allows for the exact same wider approaches than those arbitrary classifications.

PLEX is an absolutely wonderful element in all this. Very much like the functioning of various iterations of Golden Standard concepts in the real. Now my point is that supply and demand influences price curves, but within specific constraints set and controlled (and influenced, or sometimes intervened in) by CCP. But even more so by basic human behaviour, of which the application of concepts like supply / demand is but a part of.

Here’s a thought. Humans are not rational. They can rationalise, but make the assumption that this is the same as reasoning and equivalent to rational behaviour. Human rationality is a construct of thinking, cumulative and internalised in cultural elements.

Getting back to the focal point. The idea that markets are self regulating requires a belief that markets are their own entity in the overall interaction. Funny how that resembles concepts of divinity :stuck_out_tongue: In our modern (modern is good, right?) thinking that is a little uncomfortable, so we prefer to package it up in constructs of rationality and technical models. Yet at the end of the day, supply/demand is but one - small - aspect of it, by no means self guiding, and by no means immune to influence of many kinds. In truth, beyond the technical and ideological scopes of economic sciences we accept that supply/demand is a behavioural derivative.

The idea that markets self-regulate is part belief, part escapism, part accumulated perception. It is real enough to those who partake of these. Which is fine, this serves purpose. But stating that this is all that matters, or exists, is simplistic and blind.


(zluq zabaa) #220

No one claimed that. However, Marx visited a vast amount of countries to do some actual economic research. Together with his best buddy Friedrich who brought in some expertise as the son of a factory owner. Together also with his wife and their daughter and some others. He did the footwork, he went to places were things were happening and he was one of thousands of people who worked on the continuation of what the commune de paris wanted with the French Revolution. In that sense he’s been part of an important movement towards democratization.

Also, he created the core of the analysis of our current economic system.

Also, you never read him, otherwise you wouldn’t even insinuate he tried to “fix” anything. He knew about the strengths and advantages of capitalism. He clearly saw how it’s much better than previous economic systems. But he also saw it’s inner flaws, he researched them during several crisis back then and came to the conclusion that capitalism can’t fulfill it’s own promises. It’s an in-between state, not the best economic system we can have.

But yeah, be a Nietzsche boy if that makes you feel better. I doubt you’re anywhere close to the Übermensch he envisioned.


(Salvos Rhoska) #221

You like Marx.
I like Nietzsche.

Lets get back to topic.