tuco wrote:Yes, that could, in principle, produce data with some interest to interpret them.

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:Yes, that could, in principle, produce data with some interest to interpret them.

Not really. In a group steered by a market, the decision to ban somebody would be made by whoever has the most money. And that is how things will pan out in real world scenarios where decisions are made using money contributions.

jamest wrote:The problem with your theory is that you have to be a bit of a wanker to be a regular user of facebook, and I don't know about you but I myself do not want to confine my analysis of important themes to be based entirely upon a study of wankers.

Xerographica wrote:

jamest wrote:The problem with your theory is that you have to be a bit of a wanker to be a regular user of facebook, and I don't know about you but I myself do not want to confine my analysis of important themes to be based entirely upon a study of wankers.

First you conduct the study with the wankers. And then you try and replicate the results with the non-wankers.

Is it possible that the best system for the wankers wouldn't be the best system for the non-wankers?

jamest wrote:

Xerographica wrote:

jamest wrote:The problem with your theory is that you have to be a bit of a wanker to be a regular user of facebook, and I don't know about you but I myself do not want to confine my analysis of important themes to be based entirely upon a study of wankers.

First you conduct the study with the wankers. And then you try and replicate the results with the non-wankers.

Is it possible that the best system for the wankers wouldn't be the best system for the non-wankers?

I'm wondering what kind of wanker it would take to ask such a question, to be honest.

Xerographica wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:Yes, that could, in principle, produce data with some interest to interpret them.

Not really. In a group steered by a market, the decision to ban somebody would be made by whoever has the most money. And that is how things will pan out in real world scenarios where decisions are made using money contributions.

If democracies and dictatorships are better than donations at deciding whether to ban someone, then they are better at steering groups. It would behoove us to demonstrate this sooner rather than later.

Xerographica wrote:It would behoove us to demonstrate this sooner rather than later.

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:Yes, that could, in principle, produce data with some interest to interpret them.

Not really. In a group steered by a market, the decision to ban somebody would be made by whoever has the most money. And that is how things will pan out in real world scenarios where decisions are made using money contributions.

And in a market the group's direction is determined by spenders.

tuco wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:Yes, that could, in principle, produce data with some interest to interpret them.

Not really. In a group steered by a market, the decision to ban somebody would be made by whoever has the most money. And that is how things will pan out in real world scenarios where decisions are made using money contributions.

Not really.

And in a market the group's direction is determined by spenders.

Spenders directly imply more than one. Then it's reasonable to assume that "determined by spenders share" applies.

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:Yes, that could, in principle, produce data with some interest to interpret them.

Not really. In a group steered by a market, the decision to ban somebody would be made by whoever has the most money. And that is how things will pan out in real world scenarios where decisions are made using money contributions.

Not really.

And in a market the group's direction is determined by spenders.

Spenders directly imply more than one. Then it's reasonable to assume that "determined by spenders share" applies.

So far, so good. Now look up 'oligarchy'. No, wait. I'll save you the effort: "a small group of people having control of a country or organization."

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:Yes, that could, in principle, produce data with some interest to interpret them.

Not really. In a group steered by a market, the decision to ban somebody would be made by whoever has the most money. And that is how things will pan out in real world scenarios where decisions are made using money contributions.

Not really.

And in a market the group's direction is determined by spenders.

Spenders directly imply more than one. Then it's reasonable to assume that "determined by spenders share" applies.

So far, so good. Now look up 'oligarchy'. No, wait. I'll save you the effort: "a small group of people having control of a country or organization."

tuco wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:

Hermit wrote:
Not really. In a group steered by a market, the decision to ban somebody would be made by whoever has the most money. And that is how things will pan out in real world scenarios where decisions are made using money contributions.

Not really.

And in a market the group's direction is determined by spenders.

Spenders directly imply more than one. Then it's reasonable to assume that "determined by spenders share" applies.

So far, so good. Now look up 'oligarchy'. No, wait. I'll save you the effort: "a small group of people having control of a country or organization."

And? I know what oligarchy is and nowhere I indicated I don't. It was you who quoted me in disagreement while there was nothing to disagree with in my statement.

Hermit wrote:Thanks for biting.

tuco wrote:If I wanted to be annal, I would simply say that a group of 100 people, each with a certain market share, steering such group according to their market shares, is not an oligarchy. It's more like a system of political parties. But what is the point? To kill time? I dont get it.

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:If I wanted to be annal, I would simply say that a group of 100 people, each with a certain market share, steering such group according to their market shares, is not an oligarchy. It's more like a system of political parties. But what is the point? To kill time? I dont get it.

If, as Xerographica advocates, matters are decided by which option finishes up with the highest amount of money donated, an oligarchy consisting of the richest people will control the outcome. Determining decisions by donations destroys democracy. It's that simple.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:If I wanted to be annal, I would simply say that a group of 100 people, each with a certain market share, steering such group according to their market shares, is not an oligarchy. It's more like a system of political parties. But what is the point? To kill time? I dont get it.

If, as Xerographica advocates, matters are decided by which option finishes up with the highest amount of money donated, an oligarchy consisting of the richest people will control the outcome. Determining decisions by donations destroys democracy. It's that simple.

Thanks for biting, Hermit, even though it confirms that you bite.

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:If I wanted to be annal, I would simply say that a group of 100 people, each with a certain market share, steering such group according to their market shares, is not an oligarchy. It's more like a system of political parties. But what is the point? To kill time? I dont get it.

If, as Xerographica advocates, matters are decided by which option finishes up with the highest amount of money donated, an oligarchy consisting of the richest people will control the outcome. Determining decisions by donations destroys democracy. It's that simple.

Thanks for biting, Hermit, even though it confirms that you bite.

Many damn! And tuco wasn't even fishing. So embarrassment.