Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Troll posts and threads that deserve to die will be moved here, instead of being deleted. This way, they will be preserved for administrative review later.
Locked
User avatar
Icarus
Ogre
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 pm
Gender: male
Location: Cape May
Contact:

Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by Icarus » Mon May 28, 2018 3:49 pm

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Split from this post in the "Thoughts on Wildspace economics" topic.
AuldDragon wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 8:31 pm
By that measure, average crew hired on the Rock of Bral make $86,400/year, and a poor meal on Bral costs $60 and a pair of leather boots is $1500.
Using modern gold prices is not a good measure.
You know what, Jeff ... it's an example.
And nowhere did I say that it's a precise conversion that should be applied to food and boots.
But, you (unconstructively) criticize the analogy, without addressing the point I was making, at all.
It was a generalization making broad strokes to illustrate my point that they're Expensive, with a capital "E", and the majority of people just simply don't have a Cool Quarter Mil in gold just laying around. So, I used a rate that would make that point clear as an example.

It's not a direct ratio, or precise conversion statistic …

Just because you don't like the example doesn't make it a bad measure. It's a perfectly good measure - for what I was measuring. If you apply the analogy to something that it wasn't intended to compare, it's no longer applies, and becomes a logical fallacy.
The same thing would happen if one compared the growth in cost of a car from 1928 to 2018, then tried to apply the precise same measure to a gallon of milk, postage stamp, or a pair of leather boots, from one year to another.
Rates aren't consistent, and depend on the commodity, and depend on things like whether you're measuring actual cost, value, purchasing power, etc.


The whole point in the end, just because you don't like the example, and want to apply it to things it wasn't comparing, doesn't mean it's a bad example. But, I've shared my opinion, you've shared yours … and I think that we're good on that.
Let's try not to derail the thread on what type of conversion to use for comparison, and whose ideas are better. I'd be happy to hear from you in a PM/DM about it, so we don't overtake Dalilama's thread.
"And he did fly,... and he was seen on the wings of the wind."
My online Gallery of Artwork. Take a look at my illustrations!

User avatar
AuldDragon
White Dragon
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:28 am
Gender: male
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by AuldDragon » Mon May 28, 2018 5:33 pm

I don't dislike your example; it's just that your example is incredibly distortionary. That was not an attack on you. People make mistakes! I was pointing out that the method you used to derive your numbers was not a good method, showed why, and recommended some other possibilities if you want to try to derive real/modern comparisons. I personally don't care about extrapolating modern purchasing power as a comparison so I have no interest in doing so myself, but if you do, go for it.

I fail to see how this is "unconstructive."

Jeff
Let's Play Old Games with AuldDragon (Youtube) | My 2nd Edition Blog
Monster Mythology Update Project | Spelljammer Livestream Campaign
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."

User avatar
Icarus
Ogre
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 pm
Gender: male
Location: Cape May
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by Icarus » Mon May 28, 2018 6:20 pm

<sigh>
Again … it's not a bad method.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges. You didn't "show why".
Just because vehicle prices are one thing, that doesn't eman the same rule is applied to food and clothing. That's true even in our world. There's an average inflation rate, for example, but, just because computers have raised in price at one rate doesn't mean that clothing or a gallon of milk is the same rate.

The reason it isn't constructive is because you're doing nothing but making a mountain out of a molehill that has nothing to do with the point being illustrated by the analogy. You're pretending that there's a point to objecting (based on nothing more than personal preference) to the analogy itself, without discussing the point being made with the analogy. You're doing nothing but saying, in essence, "I don't prefer example, I like mine better", when the only point to the example was to say that the helms are expensive. I made an abstraction.

If you don't care about extrapolating modern prices for comparison, I don't even know why we're having this conversation, diverting from the purpose of the thread. If that's the case … then there's REALLY no point to the objection and it's not even remotely constructive. … skip it and let the discussion of the thread go on without pointless objection.

Seriously, there's no point in diverting the thread anymore. If you insist on continuing it, please let's take it to private messages, and let others not have to hear back-and-forth over pointless objections.
"And he did fly,... and he was seen on the wings of the wind."
My online Gallery of Artwork. Take a look at my illustrations!

User avatar
AuldDragon
White Dragon
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:28 am
Gender: male
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by AuldDragon » Mon May 28, 2018 6:38 pm

How is me using your measure to determine the modern equivalent value of a major helm to show that it makes common goods far too expensive "comparing apples to oranges"?

This is relevant to the thread; you made a claim to further a discussion of determining wildspace economics; I am disputing your measure. I see no reason to take this to PMs. To reiterate: The number you cited as an analogy is inflated beyond what an appropriate value should be for a proper comparison. Anyone using your numbers to try and extrapolate (for example) the number of bushels of a foodstuff a merchant would need to ship to generate the funds to buy another helm would be incredibly distorted. This is the point I'm trying to make.

Jeff
Let's Play Old Games with AuldDragon (Youtube) | My 2nd Edition Blog
Monster Mythology Update Project | Spelljammer Livestream Campaign
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."

User avatar
Icarus
Ogre
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 pm
Gender: male
Location: Cape May
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by Icarus » Tue May 29, 2018 3:28 pm

<sigh>
Some people.
Well, now nearly half the replies are about your pointless objection to my analogy.

Why is it apples to oranges? Because, common goods (apples) aren't Major Helms (oranges), obviously.
I didn't say that anyone should use that rate for conversion of bushels of foodstuff.
In fact, I've been incredibly clear in saying that using a gold-weight comparison was for that one cost alone, not that it was a general rule for converting money or gold across the board.
It's intended to give an idea of how big of a deal a Major Helm/Learjet is.
You're trying to imply that I'm offering some sort of systemic monetary exchange rate, or something, not me.
Anyone using my numbers "to try and extrapolate (for example) the number of bushels of a foodstuff a merchant would need to ship to generate the funds to buy another helm" would be using the analogy outside of its intent.

The only way to get to that kind of conclusion is to read it out of context.
That is the point I'm trying to make … you're having a debate with regards to something I didn't even say or imply!!!
The CLEAR point of my post was offering a feeling of how big a deal a Major Helm is.
My value isn't "inflated beyond …" anything. The value I give makes the single, solitary point I was discussing.
If you simply don't like it, out of pure persistence in pointless objection or for sake of being argumentative, and it bothers you so much, make a post that offers some other value.
Halve my value, quarter it, whatever. I don't care.
Make some value for a Learjet that you feel is more or less appropriate.
But, make it about something like a Learjet, and a comparison of how big a deal something akin to a Major Helm would be in our world. Not buying a Yugo. And not converting a monetary system. Because, I was reinforcing the OP's point that "Helms, per the original material, are really expensive. Ships aren't cheap either ". That's what we're discussing, not systemic monetary conversions.
But, you are capable of stating your opinion, even if it's different that mine, without needing to imply that you somehow are an expert who can tell me I'm wrong. State your opinion, and be done with it. You don't need to persist in deriding my opinion in order to express yours.

TL;DR
Don't tell me that I'm "wrong" or making a "bad comparison" for sharing my opinion, when you're comparing things that aren't part of my analogy.
Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean that I'm somehow wrong. You like blue; that doesn't mean I'm wrong for liking red.

Because my post wasn't about a conversion rate that applies to an entire economy.
It was to put an emphasis point on a single item.
"And he did fly,... and he was seen on the wings of the wind."
My online Gallery of Artwork. Take a look at my illustrations!

User avatar
AuldDragon
White Dragon
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:28 am
Gender: male
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by AuldDragon » Tue May 29, 2018 11:08 pm

You most certainly implied something with the comment, "If one were to convert the 250,000gp cost, just by sheer cost of gold by weight, that'd be like $75,000,000 in today's money," even if you did not intend to imply it. It implied you arrived at that number by converting the weight of the gold to USD. If that was not how you arrived at that number, you could have edited your comment to make it clearer where you got the number from and why you were using it.

Jeff
Let's Play Old Games with AuldDragon (Youtube) | My 2nd Edition Blog
Monster Mythology Update Project | Spelljammer Livestream Campaign
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."

User avatar
Icarus
Ogre
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 pm
Gender: male
Location: Cape May
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by Icarus » Wed May 30, 2018 2:28 pm

AuldDragon wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 11:08 pm
You most certainly implied something with the comment, "If one were to convert the 250,000gp cost, just by sheer cost of gold by weight, that'd be like $75,000,000 in today's money," even if you did not intend to imply it. It implied you arrived at that number by converting the weight of the gold to USD.
Two things ....
First, I didn't imply anything about how I derived the number. I stated it. Clearly and specifically. By using gold weight. That's not an implication.

Second, you just exemplified the difference between "infer" and "imply".
You inferred the purpose of relating that one, single, derived number comparison, and decided to try to apply that to other economy.
I specifically said "if one were to convert the 250,000gp cost". Not "all costs". The one cost. Not, "use as a converstion" or anything else. I named one, single statistic.
I didn't imply.
You inferred.
Incorrectly inferred, at that. And based this entire conversation on mistaken inference.
"And he did fly,... and he was seen on the wings of the wind."
My online Gallery of Artwork. Take a look at my illustrations!

User avatar
AuldDragon
White Dragon
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:28 am
Gender: male
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by AuldDragon » Wed May 30, 2018 5:44 pm

Icarus wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 2:28 pm
Two things ....
First, I didn't imply anything about how I derived the number. I stated it. Clearly and specifically. By using gold weight. That's not an implication.

Second, you just exemplified the difference between "infer" and "imply".
You inferred the purpose of relating that one, single, derived number comparison, and decided to try to apply that to other economy.
I specifically said "if one were to convert the 250,000gp cost". Not "all costs". The one cost. Not, "use as a converstion" or anything else. I named one, single statistic.
I didn't imply.
You inferred.
Incorrectly inferred, at that. And based this entire conversation on mistaken inference.
Oh, for crying out loud; you've now confirmed my original comment was entirely correct and I was not misreading your statement, despite your claims to the contrary. If 250,000 gold coins is worth $75,000,000 then 5 gold coins are worth $1500; if you're claiming something that costs 5 gp in the game would be worth less in USD, then you aren't actually using the gold weight value, or are incorporating some unstated additional mechanism like supply and demand or externalities into the value, which entirely undermines your argument about the relative value of helms within the game.

To sum up: If 250,000 gold coins are worth $75,000,000, then 1 gp is $300. You cannot change this. If it makes common goods illogically expensive for your analogy, then your initial premise of using the gold weight value to derive a modern equivalent value for the helm is not a good measure.

If you really want to arrive at a relative real-world value of a helm, you'd probably get more mileage out of looking at relative incomes within the game (see SJR5 for a list) and calculate out the number of income-years it would take to buy one. For standard sailor wages, a major helm is about 870 years of income, whereas $75,000,000 is about 1500 years of income for median wage earners in the US. That also shows that your initial number is much to high.

Jeff
Let's Play Old Games with AuldDragon (Youtube) | My 2nd Edition Blog
Monster Mythology Update Project | Spelljammer Livestream Campaign
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."

User avatar
Icarus
Ogre
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 pm
Gender: male
Location: Cape May
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by Icarus » Wed May 30, 2018 6:14 pm

AuldDragon wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 5:44 pm
… it makes common goods illogically expensive for your analogy, then your initial premise of using the gold weight value to derive a modern equivalent value for the helm is not a good measure.
Dude ... when are you going to get that it was for a single item?
Nowhere do I say that it's intended being applied to common goods.
Yes, in my precise math gold was:
$1,257.47/oz on Mar 28th, 2018 … or
$301.7928 p/gold coin.
I was comparing the cost of a Learjet, so the it's intentional for the modern reader, for sake of comparison!!!!
It was a comparison for value, not amount.

YOU are trying to apply the analogy to something it wasn't made for.
Stop, dude. Just stop. Please. You're making up an argument about something I didn't say.
GMWestermeyer wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:31 am
… everyone will shift the underlying assumptions to change the outcome to what they prefer and then call it objective.
This. SO MUCH this.
Thank you, GM_Westermeyer.
Last edited by Icarus on Wed May 30, 2018 6:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"And he did fly,... and he was seen on the wings of the wind."
My online Gallery of Artwork. Take a look at my illustrations!

User avatar
Icarus
Ogre
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 pm
Gender: male
Location: Cape May
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by Icarus » Wed May 30, 2018 6:20 pm

[Deletion of double post]
"And he did fly,... and he was seen on the wings of the wind."
My online Gallery of Artwork. Take a look at my illustrations!

User avatar
AuldDragon
White Dragon
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:28 am
Gender: male
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by AuldDragon » Wed May 30, 2018 11:26 pm

Icarus wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 6:14 pm
AuldDragon wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 5:44 pm
… it makes common goods illogically expensive for your analogy, then your initial premise of using the gold weight value to derive a modern equivalent value for the helm is not a good measure.
Dude ... when are you going to get that it was for a single item?
Nowhere do I say that it's intended being applied to common goods.
Yes, in my precise math gold was:
$1,257.47/oz on Mar 28th, 2018 … or
$301.7928 p/gold coin.
I was comparing the cost of a Learjet, so the it's intentional for the modern reader, for sake of comparison!!!!
It was a comparison for value, not amount.
It doesn't matter that you said it was for just the one item; you don't get to alter the basic rules of exchange when it suits you. You established that 1gp = ~$300. Therefore 5gp = ~$1500, which means if the equivalent value of a major helm is $75,000,000, and a pair of boots on Bral is $1500. As that is illogical, there is a flaw in your chosen analogy. You can't say the equivalent of $10 is 20 GBP, but $1000 is 4000 GBP (rhetorical example, numbers are not accurate). Conversions are linear, not parabolic.

If you are basing the cost of a Major Helm on the cost of a Learjet for modern comparison, then your stated value of $75,000,000 is not based on the gold weight and the numbers are coincidental; but that also means your statement about the gold conversion is wrong and there are other economic elements at play (supply and demand, externalities, etc.).
Icarus wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 6:14 pm
YOU are trying to apply the analogy to something it wasn't made for.
Stop, dude. Just stop. Please. You're making up an argument about something I didn't say.
Welcome to implicit statements: If you establish that x = y, then 1000x = 1000y, or .005x = .005y. Since you established the conversion rate based on the gold value, you also established *every other possible dollar value* based on any given number of gold coins (or fraction thereof). You cannot argue otherwise without changing the parameters *you* established.

Look, I'm not particularly interested in continuing this argument; I feel that I have repeatedly shown that the way you've arrived at your premise is flawed. If you continue to insist I am wrong without adequately explaining why, I will most certainly defend my position, however. It is on you to make the numbers add up; i.e. if the conversion for a low value item is not the same as a high value item, then you need to explain what additional economic element is at play. Until you do that, I will not be convinced of your argument, or that your proposed modern equivalent value is correct.

Jeff
Let's Play Old Games with AuldDragon (Youtube) | My 2nd Edition Blog
Monster Mythology Update Project | Spelljammer Livestream Campaign
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."

User avatar
Icarus
Ogre
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 pm
Gender: male
Location: Cape May
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by Icarus » Thu May 31, 2018 4:47 pm

AuldDragon wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 11:26 pm
It doesn't matter that you said it was for just the one item...
That pretty much says it all, right there. It doesn't matter to you. You're fixated on convincing me I'm wrong.
You're out of your mind, man.
You don't get to decide what I meant by an analogy, or how I'm allowed to use it.
you don't get to alter the basic rules of exchange when it suits you.
Wha-? … are you making this up as you go? There aren't rules for how I use an analogy.
If you continue to insist I am wrong …
… I will not be convinced of your argument ...
Somehow, you're not getting this. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're desperately trying to convince me that you're right.
Scroll up. Nowhere have I said that you're wrong. Never. Not once.
I even told you that you're allowed to make up whatever numbers you like!
I'm saying that you don't get to tell me that I'm wrong, and tell me how I meant or am allowed to use an analogy.
Last edited by Icarus on Thu May 31, 2018 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"And he did fly,... and he was seen on the wings of the wind."
My online Gallery of Artwork. Take a look at my illustrations!

User avatar
AuldDragon
White Dragon
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:28 am
Gender: male
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by AuldDragon » Thu May 31, 2018 5:53 pm

Icarus wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:47 pm
AuldDragon wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 11:26 pm
It doesn't matter that you said it was for just the one item...
That pretty much says it all, right there. It doesn't matter to you. You're fixated on convincing me I'm wrong.
You're out of your mind, man.
You don't get to decide what I meant by an analogy, or how I'm allowed to use it.
you don't get to alter the basic rules of exchange when it suits you.
Wha-? … are you making this up as you go? There aren't rules for how I use an analogy.
Yeah, actually there ARE rules for using an analogy. You chose to make the argument, even if you didn't realize you were doing so. Therefore, the rules you established can be used to show that the analogy you established is flawed. You may have intended to make a literary analogy, but instead you made a logical one; that opened it up to logical assessment, which it fails at.

And no, I'm not "out of my mind," thanks. I do know about things you apparently do not, though.

Jeff
Let's Play Old Games with AuldDragon (Youtube) | My 2nd Edition Blog
Monster Mythology Update Project | Spelljammer Livestream Campaign
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."

User avatar
Icarus
Ogre
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 pm
Gender: male
Location: Cape May
Contact:

Re: Pointless argument about price of boots: Was: Thoughts on Wildspace economics

Post by Icarus » Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:26 pm

AuldDragon wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 5:53 pm
Yeah, actually there ARE rules for using an analogy.
Dude ... Those aren't even anything that has to do with what we're talking about.
Even it were, I didn't "break" any of your ridiculous rules.
Just because I am comparing apples, doesn't mean you can use the analogy to compare oranges.
Seriously ... it's getting to the point of harassment.
I've asked you politely a half dozen times ... leave it alone. It has nothing to do with the thread.
Moderators contacted.

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): This is mostly a pointless debate about the strawman argument about boots, so I've split it off from the original topic. I've left a link there, so that people can still look through the posts to see if there are any useful suggestions between the arguments.
"And he did fly,... and he was seen on the wings of the wind."
My online Gallery of Artwork. Take a look at my illustrations!

Locked

Return to “The Black Pudding”