guys I just love talking about economics let me tell you why

[Avu]

While I agree with most of what you said the selling of thanes is similar to not allowing everyone and their mother to sell and buy nuclear weapons in RL. Maybe most will not abuse it but some will. (I think a similar restriction should be placed on ranger bows as well with them being even more stupidly imbalanced than thanes)

[notalbanian]

Revisiting the cell-phone example, if i may: Isn't an oligopoly somewhat ideal in that case?
...
* Several large companies will always vie against each other to compete for market share and maximize efficiency.

The problem is that the last part doesn't happen in practice. Oligopolists make deals with each other that allow them to reduce costs at the expense of quality, and keep prices higher than they ought to be. Stuff like this is happening with H&H jewellery market - the big 3 have agreed to stop selling thanes and to stop at q1000 with their sale goods to cut down on bulb costs. The customers suffer for it, but we do it because it's in our interest and we can get away with it. And let's face it, the price of jewellery is unrealistically high because there's a silent agreement not to compete against each other with prices.

De Beers Thane's Rings? Nice free market you got there.

[Apostata]

Man is the wolf of man because man is by nature evil. People inflict petty harm upon others even when they don't stand to gain anything, just out of sheer malice.

Lets put this standing on head back on its feet through material dialectics. Principes of man are based on the influence and dialectical process in his surrounding ( Earth, possibilities of this universe). Where "things" interacts between themself and thus, making a product of such interaction = interaction itself and its consequences. Through such dialectical process, where the A interacts with B, thus interacted B( no longer B as before) is influenced by A and no longer can interact A as when he was pure B. This reverse bond have itself a lot (100%) of ontological potention. Why I am saying this? Its somewhat quaintly pointed preposition about evil natured man. We could only say, that human individualities in their diversity are clashing together over the economical and hiearchical power. Yes, they are doing often an unwell harm to each other, but not through their natural preposition, but their lack of knowledge about their action's impact. But they are not evil by itself, as humanity which is well known for its growth and progression, same as evolution itself, cant have ever been appointed by values of evil. Humanity itself, is in absolutely mindblowing way in obtaining "good" ( Too long the different name for prosperity, economical growth and satisfiyng human needs) qualities in last 3. centuries (even if any Rousseau's ass lickin' uneducated mystic say otherwise). Tell me the greatest enemy of the man, the greatest evil ( by the qualities generaly accepted as such) ever humanity met. It's nature. Not for no reason nature aswell means - unknown or undiscoverable facts. Humanity struggles nature(I would say, that such thing will be soon replaced by better term "Universe") since the beginning and still, everybody of us know the impact of such struggle. Our ancestors have been dying, because they didnt know about Penicilin. We are dying of cancer, because we still not discovered the nature so much, to find any cure. As humanity is striving for its good, a lot of wrong things can be done, due to unknown impact of such things. But still GOOD and EVIL is not a basement of such acts, but their derivates, their product. Such thing can be categorically applicated on individuals. Lets make a simple example which can be, for a pleasure and for plasticity be sophisticated into more complex but still the same issue: I am the neighbour of the fisherman. I am trapping myself in the forest. But still I feel like in miserable conditions compares to fisherman wealth. My affect is now only fully aimed on the fisherman current wealth and I dont realize his "ontological wealth"( his contribution to economical phenomen itself but thats the only one aspect of it) and his economical determined & virtual wealth ( wealth which he will produce in lifetime ). I will kill my fellow fisherman in his sleep and took his fish. They will last 5 days. Trade would suffice quite better ( That's why is the trade the most influencing thing which humanity always had) so 5 years. It would take no complex math to convince myself, that 1 is less than 2. And that fish for 5 years is more contributing, ( if I have something in counteroffer) than fish for 5 days. Still, a far much complex question about what could be more profitable for me, what would be good for me is in every task we are deciding each day. Making the world and our lives so difficult. And philosophy so underrated and excluded from exact science. Ah, Ive started with some A,Bs dont I? Well Ive wanted to develop this structure and showing it on humanity, but I am right now pretty sure,that point has been done far enough, by me, as Ive bolded the real point of this text right now.

Sorry. My english sometimes sucks as late-medieval latin.

[Thijssnl]

Please, edit that post and try to explain in a few keywords. My eyes hurt from the wall of text, hehe
Nah, I'll read it tomorrow I guess

[Jackard]

Sorry. My english sometimes sucks as late-medieval latin.

well seeing as they didnt use paragraphs either,

[juhubert]

even if it was a wall of text of apostata , there are some good arguements in this text as well as some basic mistakes. an enemy is by defiition someone who acts or counteracts against your interests by will. so nature or the universe can´t be such an enemy, since it has got no awareness nor an evil spirit. universe in itself is just indifferent and will act as fine or as bad as it did without mankind either.

so the only enemy of man is man itself. homo hominis lupus est. ^^

Sorry. My english sometimes sucks as late-medieval latin.

you are refeering to the so called kitchen or church latin i suppose?

[Apostata]

......since it has got no awareness nor an evil spirit.

Preposition of Nature not an enemy (even if) acting against or for the interest of mankind is thing which I have to disagree.
I would hope not to use it in this matter as I believe in scientificaly probability thus giving no mind or awareness attributes familier to human mind to the universe, but I have to say that agnosticism have a very different opinion about your statement and it's validity. But I will be not using any kind of those "mystical" or stale-mate methods, as I hate them with passion, and want to develop my argument over something more evident.

Well, I think its the matter of quip. And that's thing I dont really like.
It's just the problem, that I am giving the Nature with attributes of omnipotent Entity and talking about human process in general which is acceptable, as human was formed by surrounding, still being formed as such and his political, hiearchical and economical basements are formed on it, tracing the possibilities of nature and its materials. That's why our conflicts are based on economical inequalities and on inequalities of individuality, but overall, means no harm against humanity (respectively survival of species) at all as long as someone is striving for propesperity and survival, there is still someone who will survive. I have to tell that human is not an enemy of other human in general, as such preposition doesnt make sense in the evolution plan of survival, which is always based on the limits of surrounding and on survival of our species, so much improved through two last centuries, even that thing, that mankind is now stronger han the naturo on our planet Earth means no difference.

This "Will to power" means nothing else, than the Will to survive, often described and seen in other species. Humanity is something like an aggregate of miliard curves with one thing simillar, striving in one direction. Even though usually enemy of man is other man, victory is obtained by man. Thats far much lesser evil than unpredictable and ununderstandable surrounding so far cruel, not sharing and incomprehensive to human needs , as being killed by a lion or disease was for our ancient ancestors in Africa.

[Potjeh]

I'm having a hard time reading paragraphless text, but I gather you think humans only inflict harm for material gain. This is patently false, as there are countless examples of murder for fun. I mean, what did the mob in the Colosseum gain from death of gladiators, other than satisfaction of the inborn lust for suffering of fellow man?

In modern times we're trained not to enjoy suffering of other, but there is one exception - people who deserve it (criminals mostly). There is nothing quite as satisfying as watching someone get punished for his crimes, not because we like justice but because we like suffering and it's the only instance where we can enjoy it without feeling guilty about it.

[Apostata]

Tell me the material cost of gladiator. We are satysfing human needs. Thats not just food and reproduction, but aswell amusement, I dont deny it.
Gladiator shows cost alot. Why theyve been done? Because it keeps men satisfied with fun. Same as I would make a trade deal from Iberia for wine if I were Consul.
Gladiators killing each others were objects which you could bought. Still material reason here. Same reason why men are buying whores. But still, they are buying, thus interacting on trade - material trade. Fun is beign made by watching two guys fighting, undenyable. Fun is beign made fucking a whore, rather undenyable. But the laws of trade still imply on them as if they were breads and they were here for fulfilling our hunger, another important need.
And of course no real harm was done to society when gladiator (product) died quite opposite. Thats why they were dying for purpose.

Killing criminals is the same with excuse, what to add.

[Potjeh]

That's all irrelevant. I'm arguing that the fact that we all enjoy suffering of our fellow man means we're evil by nature.