Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 27 Jan 2010
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 03:16 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Future of economics, Step 1

26 April 2016 - 03:41 PM

You are choosing the most extreme and unlikely example.

You are arguing, just to argue.

No, I chose an example that would be clear. People generally do not want money just to have, they want it to spend. Even in cases where people build up cash savings it is in anticipation of spending the money later. If you have some additional argument as to why people want money for itself, please share. If not, then the "they don't even get to keep the loan money!" argument doesn't do much work for you.



So, you do know what I'm talking about. Why are you pretending not to?


As I said in my previous post your assessment appears to me to be inaccurate. I understand what you are saying but I disagree and you have not presented any arguments that change my mind.



I'm sorry to tell you that the Central Bank concept was meant as a way to keep involuntary servitude.

But why are you now trying to convince me it was anything other than that?
If you don't believe me, that's fine, I'm only concerned with the future.

That's a strong claim, and it would be great if you presented any evidence for it. I don't much care whether or not you believe this, nor am I trying to convince you that you are wrong. I am asking you for evidence as to why you believe this at all, let alone why you believe it so strongly.




Stop treating economics like a religion.

Surely you're joking. I mean, you are trolling me with this, right? You have presented a series of absolute convictions, refused to provide any evidence for any of them, refused to accept the possibility that you could even maybe potentially be wrong on any point. All that I have done is disagree with your analysis and ask your for some of the evidence that has so thoroughly convinced you. One of those sounds more like a religion, especially in the derogatory sense that you used the word, than the other.



So, you are arguing just to argue.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am trying to get more information about how you formed this belief and why you believe it so strongly. That you believe it is clear, as is how strongly you believe it.



You have been given enough to confirm or deny the concept, yet I can tell you're not willing to theorize it.

If the information I have gotten from you in this thread is enough to accept or reject your conclusion then I have no choice but to reject it. As before, more evidence and arguments might change my mind but you clearly are either not interested in providing or are unable to provide those. Why do you think I haven't considered what you've posted here? Is it only because I still disagree?





I am not the only one who has had this epiphany. And it is no big secret.

I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. Most people, by your own description, disagree with the position you've put forth here. Your efforts to get people to agree with you don't seem to be very successful from what you've said here. You have expressed frustration that, after talking with people about this, they don't agree with you and asked why it's so hard, etc. etc. 


There are three relevant possibilities for this: 1. You are right, and others are unable see it; 2. You are right, and others could see it, but your explanations and arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate your correctness; 3. You are wrong. It is striking to me that you are so certain that it's (1), and could not conceivably be (2).



Are you really that certain, of your position and the strength and completeness of the reasoning that got you there?



Well I guess that's it then. I wish you would have shared more of the argumentation that produced this certainty, or that you were willing to demonstrate that certainty by engaging with critiques, but that's not where we've ended up. At this point I doubt that anything like that will happen-- you've either emptied your quiver, or you have no interest in discussion or sharpening your arguments. May all your decisions be so clear, I guess.

In Topic: Future of economics, Step 1

25 April 2016 - 06:31 PM

Again, your diligence in breaking out quotes for responses is excellent. My reply will not be anywhere near as good in this regard.




You'll have to introduce me to these people some day, they sound nice (The people I meet usually want currency above all else.)

Maybe, but doubtful. People enjoy exchanging money for goods and services because they want those goods and services, not so much having money for its own sake. Some people do want to hold money for its own sake, of course, but I would be willing to bet that if you offered someone a car versus the cash value of a car with the stipulation that they would never be allowed to invest or spend that cash on anything, ever, most would take the car. Money you cannot spend isn't worth the materials it's made of.




It can't be helped. Take for example "negative interest rates", I can't use that term because it refers to a different concept, but twice people have mistaken it with what I was trying to explain. Some economic terms/concepts are "deliberately" confusing. If you can't take my word on it, then you'll have to study to see for yourself. I'm trying to keep the language as simple as possible but sometimes I have to use an economic term.

Economic terms already have meanings, and I don't know of any that are "deliberately" confusing, though many are very very specific. People may be less confused if you used those terms to mean what they actually are used to indicate, but perhaps not. Economics is a badly jargon-laden field. I'm sympathetic to the limits of language-- I remember reading Heidegger and slogging through historicality, historicity, and historiocity.


As for studying for myself, I've been avoiding saying it here because it's not strictly relevant, but I have studied a fair amount of economics and thought about the topic quite a bit. More, I would venture to guess, than you have. That doesn't have any real bearing on one of us being more or less correct than the other. But you might consider that, whatever else is going on here, you are not talking over my head.




You don't have to believe me (besides, it's a little late to put those people on trial, isn't it?). But I won't provide a mini-history lecture. You are aware slavery existed legally (immorally) for some time, right?


Slavery still exists today in various parts of the world (I'm not exaggerating). I would never agree to slavery. Since you like quotes, you might like this one, in words of MLK: "It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless." I feel the same way about legislating insatiable greed.


It seems that I have been unclear. I'm not asking you for quotations because if you offer a comment from the right person I will be totally convinced, or because I want to judge the person quoted, but because you have been light on support for your assertions. If a quote came from Donald Trump I may or may not be more or less inclined to believe what his quote states, but at least I could conceivably look up more about why he believes that statement to be true. That you have presented a specific assertion (that the current monetary system is a similar alternative to slavery), attributed to no one and supported by no offered writings or theories is worth nothing. Some people feel that work is slavery-- is that 7 word sentence enough to prove its meaning beyond all question or debate?




Like Tony Robbins? Just because I explain or point out something, doesn't mean people are going to be motivated to change or fix it. There is a lot of built-in resistance to change in some people, even when they know the alternative is better for them - I can't explain that. Some people only genuinely want to change when they've hit rock bottom. I would rather society/the economy not hit rock bottom (as well as not continue to limit themselves - there is a lot of unnecessary stagnation).

Of course pointing things out won't necessarily mean that those things are acted upon. But you're getting ahead of yourself here. The problem isn't that I'm not motivated to understand what you're saying. I think that anyone reading this thread would conclude that I have made a strong effort to understand exactly what you mean. The problem is that I think that you are incorrect in your understanding of the monetary system and that your subsequent analyses are flawed because they are based on that incorrect understanding. Maybe what you've posted here is simply an incomplete display of what you know-- just as one example, the interest paid on Treasury bills, notes, and bonds should undercut your views on "money creation" by private banks; knowing how this fits into your view might make me far more receptive to what you're saying. But maybe not.


What you have offered in support of your position being correct are two things: 1. The observation that you, yourself, believe your position fervently and 2. The observation that you, yourself, believe your position honestly. These are tautological as argumentation and do not persuade me that you are accurate in your assessments. Between my current understanding and the alternative you are presenting there is no question that I will continue to disagree with you. Additional evidence and arguments may well sway me but at this point I think that it is unlikely you will be willing and/or able to provide those. Even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that your conclusion is 100% correct I would still say that what you have posted thus far is insufficient to demonstrate that conclusion.


Like the closed-minded advisers you complained about earlier, you seem absolutely certain that you already know everything that there is to know and that the only possible way for someone to disagree with you is for that person to be wrong. What's more, you seem persuaded that you are one of the select few whose surpassing intellect and study has given you access to the Big Secret; that your conclusion is obvious and simple yet is not understood by the vast majority of people; and that those people that disagree only do so through some combination of foolishness, laziness, or corruption. Are you really that certain, of your position and the strength and completeness of the reasoning that got you there?

In Topic: Total Begginer needs lot of advice

25 April 2016 - 03:58 PM

I know you said your mainly a C# programmer so I accept your going to be slightly biased here, but whats your thoughts on going with java? is the language capable of such things and run them smoothly and get a good end result? I dunno, im worried about what ever I learn handling the animation smoothly, (I have no foundations for such concerns but there ya go LOL) is java harder to code games and more to the point games like im looking to do point&click / visual novel....


If you are attracted to Java, regardless of the reason, then go with Java. It's more than capable of making the kinds of games that interest you and has a reputation (deserved, from what little I know of it) for being forgiving for beginners. As the posters above me said, if you later decide to learn another language it will be easier with Java under your belt, and that's especially the case for C# because they have so many similarities. Don't let the choice between C#/Java stress you out at all-- either will do everything you need them to do.

In Topic: Total Begginer needs lot of advice

24 April 2016 - 03:04 PM

although you say a VN is doable pretty early on you also say and I quote


"It is not a good project for introducing yourself to the language or to coding more generally."


could you expand on this??? why is this? because there isn't a lot of stuff involved in such a venture and I would be missing out on lots of important aspects? if this is the case would my plan to do lots of small games like pong and the like be a good idea before I went actually doing the VN thing to experience in other areas?


Sure. There are things you need to learn about programming to make anything at all, things like syntax, variable types, design ideas, etc. There are a lot of them and they are kind of fussy to learn but they really matter. Small projects, on the scale of tech demos, are good for learning these things and gaining an understanding of how they work. When people want to make a game, they generally have in mind something that will require some higher-order knowledge which doesn't depend much on the language you're using, like how to work with game states, transition between scenes, handle input, and on and on. You need the earlier programming knowledge to be able to build those higher-order systems, and especially to build them well. It doesn't work very well to jumble the order around.


Anything you're thinking of as a game you want to make is almost certainly beyond your skills as a beginner (this is true of everyone, not just you) and it will likely be frustrating to work on it right away. Learn the language a bit first, then start building specific components of a project that is a radically scaled down version of what you ultimately want. So developing some C# skills first (if you choose C#), then learning how to make a text-only story in a console window, then adding a player input piece, then making a larger story with player choices sounds like a reasonable sequence to me. And one that will help keep you from getting ahead of yourself. After that you can dive into bigger topics like how the game code should be structured (game states, saving and loading progress, etc.), graphics (with SFML or whatever you decide to use), and other topics that will lead to the game you are imagining.


That's the same reason I'm recommending point-and-click for later-- you'll have to cover the same material as you would need for a VN, plus more. There's no reason not to build up to it. Pong is a fine project, but you won't learn much from it that you can apply to the game types you are interested in that you won't learn from a VN. I suggest a progression that starts with making a very small, simple VN, and then expanding on it rather than moving to a similarly large, complex project that has little to do with what you want.


It's generally true of programming, and especially for beginners, that a project is bigger and harder and more complicated than you predict it will be and the only realistic measure of whether or not you can do something is whether or not you've already done it.

In Topic: Total Begginer needs lot of advice

24 April 2016 - 12:58 PM

Visual novels are among the easier types of game to program, largely because they are more "on rails" in terms of design and are less complicated than other games. I think that it is absolutely an achievable goal for a first "major" project, by which I mean I think that you can make a VN rather than Pong or something similar. It is not a good project for introducing yourself to the language or to coding more generally.


Point-and-click isn't that much harder but I would still recommend the VN first, as you've planned. Point-and-click can be an expansion on the skeleton you develop for a VN.


I think that Unity is overkill for that specific type of game, although it will do what you want if you choose to use it. From what you listed as your goals, I think that C# along with SFML would be a good route. Java would also be fine, I just happen to like C# more