Global economics discussion

[Bakkster_Man]

Alright, let's bring the TOTALLY off topic flame wars here, so the other threads can go back to normal.

[Bakkster_Man]

its not life, its capitalism and greedy publishers.

They would have enough money to release for free, but they DONT NEED to make profit, they just WANT to, thus to rip us off more (not HMX here EA) for their shareholders.

Ummm, how would the developers, publishers, recording artists, studio engineers, and everybody else involved in making the content put food on their tables?

You could work for free, but you DONT NEED to make paycheck, you just WANT to, thus to rip them off more.

Doesn't sound so good the other way around, does it?

[Bakkster_Man]

ur arguement doesn't work. they'd have enough profit from the physical products (e.g. the game) to have free songs, but they won't do it for more money.

1)Let's make a couple of basic assumptions:
Each copy of RB has a fixed profit when sold (not quite true, but pretty reasonable)
Each copy of a DLC song has a fixed cost to produce, provide, and distribute (again, simplifying the lump sum of development, licensing, and distribution)

So say EA/HMX makes $100 on each copy of RB, and each DLC song costs $0.50. This means they could break even if they produced exactly 200 DLC songs and gave them out for free. This limits the amount of DLC before HMX begins losing money on RB.

As for making a profit, this is what keeps companies able to expand. If EA never made a profit on a game, they would have no more money than they started out with or investors (who in your view would never have money from profits to invest) gave them. This means they would likely not be able to publish more than one game at a time, if any at all. Profit is not meant to simply make you richer, it is meant to protect you from risk (profit from one product protects you from losses on another) and allow you to expand.


And ur second, even more stupid arguement is, the whole REASON why we need the paycheque* is because of this corrupt system. The whole reason why money is more important than humanity is this system. Why there's the 3rd world, why you have to take out a mortgage to pay for your house, why you have to work long for nothing, but David Beckham is getting £150,000 a week for kicking a football around for 90mins.

While you may think it is corrupt, I believe it works quite well in most cases. Your income should, and usually is, an indicator of worth that you are creating. This does two things: it rewards people for providing products and services of value, and it motivates people to produce increasingly valuable items/services.

A house has a lot of value in it: materials, skilled labor, unskilled labor, and property. This high value means that the house does, and should, cost a large amount. In fact, the value of a house is often more than a single person's extra worth, and for good reason. Multiple skilled and unskilled laborers put value into that house, so it's only right for the buyer to reward them for that value. The loan is a way to reward them immediately for their work while ensuring that you will reward them in full at some point.

The reason David Beckham makes large amounts of money is that he provides value to his team. His talents provide an increased demand for to view him, which increases the worth of his team. He is justly compensated in relation to the value he provides.

[LoneSteele]

ur arguement doesn't work. they'd have enough profit from the physical products (e.g. the game) to have free songs, but they won't do it for more money.

And ur second, even more stupid arguement is, the whole REASON why we need the paycheque* is because of this corrupt system. The whole reason why money is more important than humanity is this system. Why there's the 3rd world, why you have to take out a mortgage to pay for your house, why you have to work long for nothing, but David Beckham is getting £150,000 a week for kicking a football around for 90mins.

My god you're a moron kid. I'm sorry. I hate people who flame others on the internet, I really do, but Jesus Haripod Christ, kid. Is it really possible for someone to be so god damn ignorant and downright stupid, as you seem to be?

First of all, you British twits invented the English language, ****ing use it properly!

I'd also like to know where you took your economics classes, because your complete lack of grasp on any singular economic or political concept has me wondering if even bothering to try teaching todays spoiled youth such things serves a purpose as you clearly have no interest in seeing what reality has plainly laid in front of you.

You are a hypocrit. If you TRUELY believed any of the drizzle you've been spewing onto these boards the last few days you wouldn't be here in the first place. It is capitalism that affords you everything you have available to you, whether it be your xbox 360, your electricity at home, your internet access to post on these boards. If you truely reject capitalism, you must reject all these ammenities it provides you with. You can say you support communism and globalism all you like, but you're only fooling yourself.

If you ever decide to take a look in your history books, turn to the page on failed states, and tell me what governmental system reers its ugly head time and time again. I would also suggest you read George Orwell's Animal Farm, perhaps under the metaphorical guise of talking farm animals you'll finally see what everyone else is trying to show you.

[Bakkster_Man]

I would also suggest you read George Orwell's Animal Farm, perhaps under the metaphorical guise of talking farm animals you'll finally see what everyone else is trying to show you.

I don't care who you are, everyone should read Animal Farm. It's not even such a long book as to give you an excuse not to read it.

[lithiumkc]

gh2master has proven several times over that he is nothing but a loudmouth know-it-all who doesn't know anything. Dont even waste your time, he most likely hears things from his dad when he watches the news and tries his best to repeat them without understanding the content at all.

[gh2masterwellalmost]

I'm not gonna do too long a post on here, so I'll keep it nice and sweet and then unsubscribe off the thread.

First off, my IDEAL is communism. However, communism requires people to share which, because this isn't possible, capitalism flourised. Now you either force it down people's throats, i.e. the totalitarian systems of the USSR and China, or you get it democratically elected, but as people are already reaping the rewards of capitalism while those in Africa are the victim of your merciless assault for "profit", you're not going to win in an election.

Little side note here: there was one democratically elected Communist Government in Chile, but the Americans paid for the assassination and military coup and dictatorship.

Here's another reason why communism doesnt work - it requires the rest of the world to be. Because, if you have one communist country, the people of that country will demand goods from other countries - so as long as people have to give more than a product costs to produce, it will never work

And using the above reason, that is why I reap the benifts of my 360, PC etc. Believe me, I hate giving money to M$, but I give money to M$ whenever I visit a website they're advertising on, cos its seen as extra traffic, so there's no way around of that.

Lithium, my Dad and I's opinions differ greatly. And the news, as it is funded by capitalists, means its in there interest to make sure the stories don't benifit them. So I stick to the only British, non-profit news organisation: the BBC.

Lone, in Britain we spell the payment option: cheque. So I spelt that way. In the same way over there you spell it check. We are both right, because I'm using Standard English and you're using American English. I may sometimes shorthand words like "your" to "ur", but thats from my counterstrike days a year or two ago when I had to type quickly or *boom* headshot.

And finally, to Bakkster. Lets say that, hypothetically, humans can share, and communism for some weird reason, prevailed. You say EA wouldn't be there cos there would be no investors - well within communism the government funds it. Communism means to have total control of the economy (though, if you want to be realistic, I'd say im socialist). Whether games like Rock Band would come out without the premise of profit who knows, I would hope it would, cos of peeps like Sean and the HMX boys being so passionate, they would hopefully care more bout how much this game is gonna rock than the shares going up.

Sorry if at any time you were offended by any "flaming" I seemed to perform. This was mean venting out my anger at the users, because when you see something in one direction, its hard to comprehend why others see it in another direction. Plus, a videogaming forum is THE NO.1 worst place to find well informed people to argue with, but some of you are exceptions.

Sorry, yh this was supposed to be short, but I need to tie up loose ends here, and I hope you managed to read it all. I do see why you're capitalists, you're doing well, you're playing the games, but given the choice, would I give up my luxary possessions so the scales were even, so there was no debt, and yes, I would. You may not, but that is why I'm a communist and you're a capitalist.

Yes, in 20 years time I'll probably be a socialist, who knows maybe capitalist, because, I quite like this quote:

"If you're not a communist before you're 30 you have no heart. If you're still a communist after 30 you have no brain."

Thank you, and hopefully I'll talk to you soon.

[lithiumkc]

Dude... Communism is a wonderful idea, BUT IT REQUIRES 100% CO-OPERATION. The fact that this will never happen makes it a silly thing to fight for. You will never get most communities, albeit England, the USA or Canada to co-operate with communism. There will always be people who don't agree to share the wealth, and a lot of them, so that makes it an irrelevant governing system in most cases. It can work in smaller countries, but most of the industrialized world will simply not be able to sustain it.

[Bakkster_Man]

First off, my IDEAL is communism. However, communism requires people to share which, because this isn't possible, capitalism flourised. Now you either force it down people's throats, i.e. the totalitarian systems of the USSR and China, or you get it democratically elected, but as people are already reaping the rewards of capitalism while those in Africa are the victim of your merciless assault for "profit", you're not going to win in an election.

Here's another reason why communism doesnt work - it requires the rest of the world to be. Because, if you have one communist country, the people of that country will demand goods from other countries - so as long as people have to give more than a product costs to produce, it will never work.

Actually, I'd say there are far more fundamental flaws with communism and socialism. The biggest is that centralized control actually hurts an economy.

Using a real example of the Trabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant), an East-German car, you can see that government control probably hurt the car. First was the incredible waiting list to purchase one. Because the government dictated the production schedule, it frequently ran behind to prevent 'surpluses' and due to delays further up the line in their government controlled supply chain (raw materials). As well, there was nearly no choice on cars model in East-Germany: you got a Trabant, or nothing.

Capitalism does not have these problems because multiple people are making economic decisions, and the market repairs itself. If Yugos start exploding, people buy a different car. If the Yugo was a government-made car then everyone would have been driving time bombs, with no alternative. In a market structure, prices are determined both by the value to the consumer and cost to the producer; socialism/communism bases pricing solely on cost, often causing vast shortages when it is too low, or surpluses when it is too high.

Most importantly, there is motivation to produce goods and services with a higher value and a lower cost. Using GH and RB, for example: HMX is making an economic gamble that by adding value (drums and vocals) to an already successful formula (guitar and bass) their consumers will pay a higher price to obtain that added value. If the government controlled production (assuming they decided to produce games in the first place) there would be little chance of improvement, due to the isolation of the market pressure (desire to purchase better games leading to better cames being made) from the decision process (government worries about it's 5-year plan and ignores video games).


Sorry if at any time you were offended by any "flaming" I seemed to perform. This was mean venting out my anger at the users, because when you see something in one direction, its hard to comprehend why others see it in another direction. Plus, a videogaming forum is THE NO.1 worst place to find well informed people to argue with, but some of you are exceptions.

Well of course this is a horrible place to debate economics. Do I have to remind you that you did post a lot of flame bait? I'm not going to blame anyone here solely for starting this whole argument, but there was no sense turning a "What should DLC cost?" topic into a "Should we be socialist?" topic.

[gh2masterwellalmost]

Yeah Lithium and Bakkster, thats why I said that communism is only my ideal. If someone decides "hey, I could make a profit here" then it all falls to pieces. Thats why I call myself a socialist. You stated fundamental flaws with socialism - well check your history books fellas the Labour party was successful a lot of the time in elections in the 1900s in Britain, until a certain Margaret Thatcher made them extinct, and a certain Tony Blair created "New Labour".

You see, I forgot the official name (at 14 you don't expect me to know every little stat do you, and that was, back when we were flaming, was the backbone of your arguement) but Marx called it something like Basic Communism. It was that everyone got their own stuff. They cared for their own animals, they created their own houses (well, mud huts), until one person said "i need food now, but my sheep aren't ready yet to be eaten... I'll sell you my sheep for some food". Next minute: "hey, I could make a profit out of that"...

Of course, I'm not stating I would go that basically. But, would I give up my 360, Wii, TV, internet etc. for communism, I would. Or, at the least, why not socialism - it was Thatcher privatising the telecommunications, air, gas, elecricity, that means we pay such high premiums. Capitalists argue it gives a better service. I argue that I would rather service go down and the money would go back into the government and thus public services. Capitalists argue that profit goes back into the economy. I argue this is trickle down economics, which IMHO (as remember, we all must be humble in stating our opinion), is probably the worst form of capitalism imaginable.

And sorry, I did not mean to cause a flaming war. I just wanted people to think "outside of the box", someone was saying that free songs was impossible, they have to make a profit, but I was suggesting there was another way.

But communism won't ever happen. Now, if I can't get that, how does socialist The Republic of England sound :P

[Bakkster_Man]

Of course, I'm not stating I would go that basically. But, would I give up my 360, Wii, TV, internet etc. for communism, I would. Or, at the least, why not socialism - it was Thatcher privatising the telecommunications, air, gas, elecricity, that means we pay such high premiums. Capitalists argue it gives a better service. I argue that I would rather service go down and the money would go back into the government and thus public services. Capitalists argue that profit goes back into the economy. I argue this is trickle down economics, which IMHO (as remember, we all must be humble in stating our opinion), is probably the worst form of capitalism imaginable.

As far as utilities go, I'd argue that the best system is open and regulated against monopolies. Take the US broadband internet system, for example. It sucks. In Minneapolis both DSL and 5Mbps Cable cost $40/month. The problem is that the government decided that phone and cable providers don't need to sell access to their lines to 3rd-party providers. So basically, it's the cable company vs the phone company. You can't do much about the natural monopoly of one company owning each infrastructure (it is cheaper that way), but the lack of competition lets them set their prices however they want. If multiple companies provided cable internet, prices would quickly drop to a more reasonable level.

I don't think having them as public services helps, either. Governments are usually behind the times when it comes to new technology, and they're very reluctant to spend it on anything that appears frivolous. Besides, public utilities are really just an approved monopoly, and who do you complain to when they screw you?

[gh2masterwellalmost]

As far as utilities go, I'd argue that the best system is open and regulated against monopolies. Take the US broadband internet system, for example. It sucks. In Minneapolis both DSL and 5Mbps Cable cost $40/month. The problem is that the government decided that phone and cable providers don't need to sell access to their lines to 3rd-party providers. So basically, it's the cable company vs the phone company. You can't do much about the natural monopoly of one company owning each infrastructure (it is cheaper that way), but the lack of competition lets them set their prices however they want. If multiple companies provided cable internet, prices would quickly drop to a more reasonable level.

Oh god yeah. If globalisation and capitalism is to happen, then competition should be kept, so though the consumer still pays more than required, its a step in the right direction. Recently, in Britain I discovered the "Competition Commission" come into force because over here we only have two nationwide game-only sellers: GAME (which bought all the EBs in the UK) and GameStation. But GAME just bought GameStation, and considering GameStation is much btr value, its come under a lot of scrutiny.


I don't think having them as public services helps, either. Governments are usually behind the times when it comes to new technology, and they're very reluctant to spend it on anything that appears frivolous. Besides, public utilities are really just an approved monopoly, and who do you complain to when they screw you?

Well thats why you have independant services which, though funded by the taxes, have no input by the Government to survey whats happening in the service. Its like the NHS over here, the money is just taken out, no choice in the matter, but if you fall ill you're going to have insurance (I really wanna see Michael Moore's documentry on the USA healthcare), and if you have a complaint you go to the Independant Complaints Department. The same went for BT when that was the only service.

But, if it privatised, it must stick cheap. But the problem atm is, its ridiculous. Whilst oil is getting EASIER to hold onto these days, prices are still rising:confused:

[Bakkster_Man]

Well thats why you have independant services which, though funded by the taxes, have no input by the Government to survey whats happening in the service. Its like the NHS over here, the money is just taken out, no choice in the matter, but if you fall ill you're going to have insurance (I really wanna see Michael Moore's documentry on the USA healthcare), and if you have a complaint you go to the Independant Complaints Department. The same went for BT when that was the only service.

That's true, government subsidies for necessary goods/services are great!

But don't watch ANY Michael Moore movie, at least, not if you want to hear any facts. Sicko is about health care the same way Spinal Tap is about rock.

Oh, and ditto on the oil thing. When you have record prices AND record income something is fishy. They should be posting huge profits from lowering their supply costs instead of by increasing their asking price...

Holy Cats! Intelligent conversation, FTW!

[gh2masterwellalmost]

That's true, government subsidies for necessary goods/services are great!

But don't watch ANY Michael Moore movie, at least, not if you want to hear any facts. Sicko is about health care the same way Spinal Tap is about rock.

Oh, and ditto on the oil thing. When you have record prices AND record income something is fishy. They should be posting huge profits from lowering their supply costs instead of by increasing their asking price...

Holy Cats! Intelligent conversation, FTW!

Wait a min... didn't we just go to war where there's an abundance of oil... haha

Kl for the intelligent convo go us:D

[gh2masterwellalmost]

Bakkster, was funny you referenced Animal Farm. Though you may interpret it as a critique at communism, it is more a critique of stalinism, the part of communism I dislike.

Orwell was a democratic socialist, what I call myself if I remember that communism is unrealistic.

And if I had to stick to one quote, it would be a man you may know, called Leon Trotsky:

"Socialism needs democracy like the body needs oxygen".