Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
The Market for Lemons, which jester originally brought up, is one such theoretical framework which supports the idea that the collective good is best served in this case by means of not curtailing the ability of alliances, should they so want to, to expand beyond their current limitations.
|
I don't really know what the market for lemons could potentially have to do with groups - you can't compare the choice of a product with choice of alliance. Besides that should have had a different restult than what we currently see in PA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
As for your understanding of economics, I'm afraid the prognosis is not good. Regardless of the fact that your choice of resource to focus on is questionable (leadership is the far more scarce resource in this equation), the simple premise that economics would encourage an active steering of the market forces is quite absurd.
|
There is an interconnection between activity and leadership that can't be denied. While not every active player is a good leader, an inactive leader can't be good. The best leader can't work if he has to work with a group of 50 inactives.
But going back to leadership. Considering this as a resource it is also scaleable in a way. The big tags needs 4-5HCs and 10 officers each. Leading to a ratio of 1 skilled leading person for every 6 or 7 members. If we distribute those HCs and officers to 2 tags we get a similar ratio. Considering a certain overhead, the same leaders hosting one 80-ppl tag could also run two 35-ppl tags.
The real questions is how the market wants to distribute available resources (actives, leaders). Do we want 5 competitive tags like we have now. Or force available resources to go into 10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
Dominant companies, or alliances, are not a problem, as they have achieved their position by working within the fair constraints of the market.
|
The whole point about this suggestion is that the market constraints are not fair. They don't allow for competition and create a boring environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
blabla...Microsoft bad
Google is not evil...blabla
|
Why anyone still buys into Google being a good company is beyond me. The points you are making here smell strongly of reality distortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
How would the world of internet searches be better off if Google was forced to operate only 10 servers worldwide? This is essentially what you propose economics believes.
|
No. The suggestion is, if there are 1000 servers you could operate on (a silly assumptions since servers are no limited resource per se) - should Google own 900?