Economics Questions

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

Autolykos — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:48:27 GMT

John James:
And my point is that I've already been informed of this. Again, that was the whole purpose of that post. Everyone has been informed of this. Ad nauseum.

Hence I should shut up about it already, right? Oh well, too bad.

John James:
Ya don't say.

I point out your obsession with intimidation and your paranoia of everyone being out to intimidate you, and your broken record response of "I won't let you intimidate me"...and your response is "I won't let you intimidate me".

Nice!

My point is to demonstrate that I'm still not backing down.

John James:
Oh OH! That one's better. Put that line as a response to your whining above.

What "whining" would that be, exactly?

In my opinion, John, you're the worst kind of bully - the kind that claims to be victimized when his targets actually stand up for themselves.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

DanielMuff — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:09:16 GMT

JJ, I wonder if you would maintain a high level of discourse--regardless of the other participants--if you were posting from your mod account.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

John James — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:48:33 GMT

Autolykos:
My point is to inform you that I'm not intimidated by your antics when you engage in them.

And my point is that I've already been informed of this. Again, that was the whole purpose of that post. Everyone has been informed of this. Ad nauseum.

"The entire point of my post was to point out how embarassingly predictable your response is. Why in the world would you think I would expect it to be different when the entire purpose was to illustrate how it's always the same?"

I can only parse this as you wanting me to be embarrassed by my behavior and thus back down. Unfortunately for you, then, neither am I embarrassed by my behavior, nor will I back down. So now what?

Ya don't say.

I point out your obsession with intimidation and your paranoia of everyone being out to intimidate you, and your broken record response of "I won't let you intimidate me"...and your response is "I won't let you intimidate me".

Nice!

If I'd wanted your "help", I would've asked for it.

Likewise.

I put "help" in quotes because I don't think you were trying to help me at all.

Likewise.

Rather, I think you were trying to belittle me once again.

What ever gave you that impression?

Too bad it didn't work.

Are you sure? I mean you don't even seem to really know what the goal actually was.

In order for such an attempt to be successful, the target has to feel belittled. I certainly don't. Do you get it yet?

No, not exactly. Could you explain it for me?

I wasn't the one who got my panties in a knot

You said it, not me.

I don't consider someone else making the same point as I did beforehand to in any way warrant acting like a complete dick to them. You apparently do (among other things), which I don't approve of in the slightest.

go cry me a river.

Oh OH! That one's better. Put that line as a response to your whining above.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

Autolykos — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:31:20 GMT

John James:
Unfortunately for you, that also doesn't intimidate me in the slightest.

Gee. I never saw that one coming.

I couldn't care less whether you saw it coming or not. My point is to inform you that I'm not intimidated by your antics when you engage in them.

John James:
The entire point of my post was to point out how embarassingly predictable your response is. Why in the world would you think I would expect it to be different when the entire purpose was to illustrate how it's always the same?

I can only parse this as you wanting me to be embarrassed by my behavior and thus back down. Unfortunately for you, then, neither am I embarrassed by my behavior, nor will I back down. So now what?

John James:

Yeah, but

a) not everyone knows about that

b) even less people would expect to be able to get your response to any post they make from your post history of the same refrain. They may not actually realize that it's all the same.

This is why I suggested instead of taking the time to type out the same thing all the time, you simply post the link. Or, if you think that would still be confusing and you'd still have to type an addendum explaining that your response is pre-packaged and that users could just look through your history to find out what you'll say, you could just take a copy of one of your old "I won't let you intimidate me" speeches, and then just have it at the ready, like a template that you just paste in and post anytime someone addresses you directly.

You know. Just thought I'd help you out there.

If I'd wanted your "help", I would've asked for it.

I put "help" in quotes because I don't think you were trying to help me at all. Rather, I think you were trying to belittle me once again. Too bad it didn't work. In order for such an attempt to be successful, the target has to feel belittled. I certainly don't. Do you get it yet?

Now then, let me remind you that I wasn't the one who got my panties in a knot because someone else happened to make the same point I did earlier in the thread. I don't consider someone else making the same point as I did beforehand to in any way warrant acting like a complete dick to them. You apparently do (among other things), which I don't approve of in the slightest. But like I said before, John - go cry me a river.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

John James — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:04:30 GMT

Autolykos:
I find it rather odd, and a bit amusing, that you'd bother to dig up nine separate posts of mine to link to in your post.

Not a problem at all. Linking is pretty easy. In case you hadn't noticed, I do it quite a bit.

Unfortunately for you, that also doesn't intimidate me in the slightest.

Gee. I never saw that one coming.

The fact that you apparently continue to expect otherwise from me is perplexing - and I can think of no other reason for you to go through all that trouble.

The entire point of my post was to point out how embarassingly predictable your response is. Why in the world would you think I would expect it to be different when the entire purpose was to illustrate how it's always the same?

You mean like the link to my post history that's present next to every post I make?

That's the one!

It's in the form of my current post count, under my avatar. Anyone can click on it.

Yeah, but

a) not everyone knows about that

b) even less people would expect to be able to get your response to any post they make from your post history of the same refrain. They may not actually realize that it's all the same.

This is why I suggested instead of taking the time to type out the same thing all the time, you simply post the link. Or, if you think that would still be confusing and you'd still have to type an addendum explaining that your response is pre-packaged and that users could just look through your history to find out what you'll say, you could just take a copy of one of your old "I won't let you intimidate me" speeches, and then just have it at the ready, like a template that you just paste in and post anytime someone addresses you directly.

You know. Just thought I'd help you out there.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

Autolykos — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:39:01 GMT

John James:
Yes, yes. We're all very aware of your constant crusade of not being intimidated. No effect on you, won't be shamed into shutting up, we don't intimidate you, you won't let us, you won't be intimidated, blah blah blah.

I find it rather odd, and a bit amusing, that you'd bother to dig up nine separate posts of mine to link to in your post. Unfortunately for you, that also doesn't intimidate me in the slightest. The fact that you apparently continue to expect otherwise from me is perplexing - and I can think of no other reason for you to go through all that trouble.

John James:
It might save you some keystrokes if you just kept some links handy. Or maybe even just a single link to your post history.

You mean like the link to my post history that's present next to every post I make? It's in the form of my current post count, under my avatar. Anyone can click on it.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

John James — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:19:25 GMT

Malachi:
I guess you havent heard of this new thing called "Argumentation Ethics" that the wrestler HHH invented which says if you refuse to argue with me, then ethically I can murder you.

I knew that guy was a lot smarter than he looked.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

DanielMuff — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:05:32 GMT

John James:

Daniel Muffinburg:
To quote the OP:
The whole point of the thread was - she saw a need and filled it - and even price gouging was (obviously) good in this scenario for both parties.

If that's all there was to it, there would be no need for a thread. In that case it would be more like an announcement.

Lol. The OP read like an annoucement. But nooooooooo, you had to make a case about how it's implausible for a high school girl to what the OP classmate did.

Either way, my initial response was a simple question regarding detail. Your first post came directly after mine, not only attempting to offer an answer to my question, but also asking a similar detail-oriented question of your own that had absolutely nothing to do with "she saw a need and filled it".

How you ever been in a casual conversation?

So I'm not quite sure how you can accuse me of derailing anything without calling yourself out.

It is what it is.

... and eventually claiming I said something I didn't ...

Oh, yeah? Well, your questions to me were loaded.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

Malachi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:00:07 GMT

I guess you havent heard of this new thing called "Argumentation Ethics" that the wrestler HHH invented which says if you refuse to argue with me, then ethically I can murder you.

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

John James — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:57:49 GMT

Malachi:
If someone doesnt answer my economics question and stop bickering I might resort to aggressive violence based purely on principle

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

John James — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:56:29 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:
To quote the OP:
The whole point of the thread was - she saw a need and filled it - and even price gouging was (obviously) good in this scenario for both parties.

If that's all there was to it, there would be no need for a thread. In that case it would be more like an announcement.

Either way, my initial response was a simple question regarding detail. Your first post came directly after mine, not only attempting to offer an answer to my question, but also asking a similar detail-oriented question of your own that had absolutely nothing to do with "she saw a need and filled it".

So I'm not quite sure how you can accuse me of derailing anything without calling yourself out.

You're the one who started complaining about the how it's implausible that a high school girl would have been able to do it.

I wasn't complaining about anything. Again, my initial posts were all questions about how exactly this whole operation went down. You continued to respond with answers that seemed less and less probable with every post. All I did was point this out.

Then you started in with ginormous pictures and even more ridiculous notions, and eventually claiming I said something I didn't (brought about in part by someone else not rtff, but I suppose that still wouldn't exonerate you from going along with it.)

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

Malachi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:53:10 GMT

Yes. Is she one of the four market sovereigns who get to decide what price the internet is?

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

Wheylous — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:51:51 GMT

I assume you're asking about Bawerk's pairs?

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

Malachi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:50:04 GMT

If someone doesnt answer my economics question and stop bickering I might resort to aggressive violence based purely on principle

Re: Entrepreneurship in action

Wheylous — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:48:43 GMT

And they said voluntary interactions bring people together...