oddwaffle wrote:
@almalieque: Anyone who studies statistics knows that common sense is often wrong when it comes to numbers. That's why you have statistics to get it right. A perfect example would be to show you 3 cards facing down, a Jack and 2 Aces. I ask you to choose a card that you think is the Jack. Then I reveal an Ace on the remaining 2 cards and ask if you wish to change your choice. Common sense tells you it doesn't matter as it's like 50-50. Statistics say that you should always change.
Given the previous scenario that you presented, would a person go the 900 gil vender and give him 1000 gil?
Oddwaffle wrote:
In a fair market, prices get adjust quickly. If there are more supply, the price will be lower.
Not according to Supply and Demand. The problem with all of these self proclaimed Economists, is that high supply doesn't mean that demand is automatically low. That's why organizations such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc. will ensure that they have several copies of whatever they are selling in order to maximize their profits. Retailers, as a result, do not begin undercutting each other (at least to a significant degree as in game) in order to equally maximize their profits as well.
Oddwaffle wrote:
The current AH method forces the sellers to adjust their prices when their goods aren't selling fast enough. Your AH method reduce the speed of price adjustments and encourages monopoly power (again, get econ101 to understand why).
Then you simply don't understand my proposition. The current method forces people to continuously undercut regardless of supply and demand. The proposed method forces people to analyze the current spending trends before setting a price. It stabilizes price adjustments and in no way encourages monopoly power. It does just the opposite. The current proposition allow under cutters to monopolize the market.
Oddwaffle wrote:
For example, if you only have 1 seller selling RCB and he can sell 7 RCB every 2 days for 1000gil each. A new seller wants to join the market, what can he do? Well, the only thing the new seller can do is to post lower than 1000g and sell his goods. In the current AH system, the new seller goods get sold 1st and forces the old seller to lower his prices. In your system, the old seller can keep posting at 1000g and get his goods sold as people don't spend a lot of time checking for 900g RCB. The new seller will realize that he has no reason to put any lower than 1000g so he will keep that price and just wait in line for his goods to sell. The net effect is bad for the economy as the price doesn't go down quick enough with increase in supply.
ALmalieque wrote:
How is that any better than now? Now, people have their stuff sent back and not sold until others are no longer selling. Even if you undercut the going price, people will continue to sell and the more people who sell, the less they will set their prices. The result is you having to resell your item.
You and Meldi refuse to address this. How is it ok for one group to monopolize it and not another? You're using the SAME EXACT argument that I'm using AGAINST the current system against the proposed system. The difference that you keep conveniently overlooking is that there are enough people who will spend time checking for 900 RCB, the AH history proves that. In the current system, it doesn't matter if the buyer takes that additional time or not to bid 900 gil, it automatically goes to the under cutter. In the proposed system, it's more balanced because it can go either way. So, unless your argument is that people never underbid, you simply have no argument.
Meldi wrote:
Very well said Oddwaffle. Thank you
lol