Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 350 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Durga (781 D)
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
HDV as default
I'm wondering if the mods would consider making HDV the default setting because no HDV is trash.
54 replies
Open
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Ideas for resistance
what should we be doing as WebDippers and internet citizens to combat creeping mod fascism?
14 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (75 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+6)
Trump to publish weekly list of crimes by immigrants
This will include crimes involving *legal* migrants, not just illegals. Does it feel like mid 1930s Germany yet, or what?
487 replies
Open
Matticus13 (1159 D)
30 Jan 17 UTC
Odds on Trump Serving/Not Serving Full Term
Current odds on Trump being impeached/resigning: 11/10
Serving full term: 8/11

Hypothetical: You have to bet one. What's your money on?
53 replies
Open
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
30 Jan 17 UTC
Petition to make Hidden Draw Votes the Default Setting
See title.
13 replies
Open
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+4)
Petition to ban petitions
1. Chaqa
2 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (75 D)
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+4)
Petition to ban petitions to ban petitions, but permit all others that are not spammy
1. Jamiet99uk
1 reply
Open
brainbomb (345 D)
25 Jan 17 UTC
(+8)
Unprecedented silencing of EPA, USDA, what is next
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?
Our national parks are being blocked from posting climate change data? The USDA, EPA are being bullied? What is this gestapo fucking horse shot?
560 replies
Open
fiedler (1293 D)
21 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
MAGA - what a great speech! Future looks bright.
Must be exciting to be an american today. Prosperity and optimism and winning are so much more fun than divisive bullying and globalist theft and war with russia. Plus Barron is hilarious. Glorious stuff! Good on you democracy.
69 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2369 D (B))
30 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Chat on mobile bug?
When I open the in-game messaging window on mobile (Chrome, iOS) my country messages have been "resetting" to a past (earlier) message spontaneously, forcing me to scroll down in the tiny chat window to read the latest message. Anyone else seeing this?
7 replies
Open
brainbomb (345 D)
10 Jan 17 UTC
(+15)
9 days sober
I feel different. Alot different. My anxiety is not as bad. I dont feel super angry
169 replies
Open
leon1122 (211 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Trump effort to defund sanctuary cities is a success!
Miami mayor has revoked the city's sanctuary status!

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article128984759.html
119 replies
Open
yavuzovic (247 D)
29 Jan 17 UTC
Why I cannot create a Known World 901 game at the moment?
There is not choice. Could online players look at the game creator?
3 replies
Open
Frothly (159 D)
29 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
US judge temporarily halts deportations due to Trump's executive order
The ruling prevented the removal from the US of people with approved refugee applications, valid visas, and "other individuals... legally authorized to enter the United States".
14 replies
Open
brainbomb (345 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
Site feature request
I was wondering if one of the programmery type mods could go into the source code for my account, and create an auto mute for me for any thread that contains a letter string of "Tr".
21 replies
Open
Condescension (10 D X)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Hey, conservatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Literally everything you need to know about why your economic theory is bunk.
62 replies
Open
ghug (4034 D Mod (B))
03 Feb 15 UTC
(+15)
ADVERTISE YOUR LIVE GAMES HERE
Advertise your live games here and only here.
4300 replies
Open
captainmeme (849 D Mod)
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+7)
1v1 Showdown Stats
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DhYZtnNINPxREZGAVYY2vnFZtPPNmto180cUMNCJXfc/edit?usp=sharing

It's still very early on, but these will be updated as the 1v1 Showdown progresses.
28 replies
Open
Chumbles (959 D (S))
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Feeling Crumpled and Trumpled?
Then send out your gunboats abd rule the world: No in-game messaging, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring!

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=189779
3 replies
Open
Chaqa (3134 D (B))
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Trump using police to steal candy from babies
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! We can't let this stand.

#NoCandyForBabyTrump
Page 3 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
CAPT Brad (2639 D (B))
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+2)
Huzzah for yoyoyozo!
TrPrado (362 D Mod)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
Yoyo is <3
Manwe Sulimo (630 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
"Quick question: How and why did we change from a joke about stealing candy from a baby to a serious debate on the feasibility of tariffs?"

Yanik and I joined the thread :p
JamesYanik (548 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
@Manwe Sulimo

http://www.mhhe.com/economics/pugel12e/keygraph/keygraph2m.jpg

"Take a look at this image. For country to be importing a product, that must mean that the price charged by a foreign country is less than the price charged by home firms in equilibrium. A tariff will cause the price of all products, regardless of the seller, to rise by the amount of the tariff. When this happens, area A turns from consumer surplus to producer surplus, area C turns from consumer surplus to government revenue, and area b and d move from consumer surplus to nothing, this is the dead-weight loss. Home businesses will gain, foreign businesses will be hurt, government will gain, consumers will lose more than businesses and government gain. This will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS happen no matter how you change up the scenario. If this is the only tariff put in place, then b and d is the dead-weight loss. If the foreign country retaliates with a tariff of their own, then a new b+d dead-weight loss will be created and so on. The more counter-tariffs produced, the more the countries harm their own citizens."

I feel like you didn't read my point. The tariff in your example increases the price of the bike.

I'm saying that with the iPhone SPECIFICALLY this is wrong.

I'll concede that with 99% of normal goods yes, what you say is correct, and you're correct on all accounts.

But with iPhones, the costs of production don't always influence the final price of the good, and thus don't affect b+d. b+d is decrease in demand based off a rising in prices caused by the tariff.

Let me break it down:
For your graph, it assumes that a tariff will make a good more expensive to produce:
true
your graph also assumes that the Suppliers on average will increase their price to compensate for lost profit:
ON AVERAGE, true.

Some suppliers CAN'T increase prices, or else that will cause such a large demand fall, that it lowers aggregate profits even more! They're trying to get to an optimal priceXdemand, and because they have such a large profit

I was talking specifically about iPhones, which are notorious for NOT following the laws of supply shifters.



Otherwise I'm 100% on board with what you're saying, CAPT Brad brought up iPhone and Steve Jobs ordeal, and i thought "what he's trying to say is correct, but actually in this specific case he is wrong"

It's because of these incongruences that supply side economics has had so much trouble functioning in gov't
Manwe Sulimo (630 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
What's I'm saying is that even with the iPhone, this is right! It's how it always works.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business%20economics%20graphs/Monopolistic-competition-in-long-run.png

http://college.cengage.com/economics/0538797274_mceachern/student/lecture/8590.pdf

Look at the first graph and the paragraph about when the price of the variable input changes in the second source. If there is a tariff (tax) placed on goods coming in from China, then the cost of those goods increases. The MC of those goods increases and the curve shifts upwards. Looking at the first graph, it now intersects the MR curve at a lower quantity and this will correspond to a higher price where the quantity meets the demand curve. Quantity will be decreased by the tariff and price will increase. This is why the tariff will lead to less imports coming into the country, the firm will make more profit by reducing the quantity it is shipping in and raising the price it is charging for that now reduced quantity. If the tariff wasn't going to increase the price of the iPhone's, there would be absolutely no point in implementing one because the quantity shipped in would not change. I'm telling you it will increase the price of the imported good though, always.

But, this has nothing to do with supply side economics which is a macroeconomic model of fiscal policy. What we are talking about is micro economic decision making by firms as to how to maximize profit. Supply side economics is when you lower taxes for corporations and people within your own country to increase the money they are putting into the [production process so that the Aggregate supply curve shift rightward, and it does work, but not to a significant extent. Here's an image of how supply side works, but note that the movement of the supply curve to the right should be very small, http://i.investopedia.com/inv/articles/site/CT-SpplySideEcon2.GIF.
JamesYanik (548 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
@Manwe Sulimo

I "don't have permission" to see that last picture, but let me fixate on one point of contention

"If the tariff wasn't going to increase the price of the iPhone's, there would be absolutely no point in implementing one because the quantity shipped in would not change."

um... yes. exactly. Apple has a set number of iPhones they're planning on distributing, at a set maximum idea price in correlation with quantity demand. also, the tariff increases the COST, not the price. Apple has this system where they massively overcharge what the general populous would usually demand, because they will still have a core following demanding the product.

With products that have SUCH an occult brand-name following, the Demand curve changes, because you have two distinct groups of demand. Those who demand the iPhone in comparison of other goods, and those who demand iPhones simply for the product. What this does is creates a demand curve that slopes down normally, flattens off a bit, then slopes down the rest of the way. Usually demand curves don't flatten because every change in price comes with a slight change in the schedule of demand, until a threshold is reached where NOBODY will want or be able to buy it. However, this threshold is at a lower price than it is for a large selling base for apple that religiously buy their products, up until even THEY can't/won't pay too high of prices. this flattened area of the demand curve is where Apple sets up their prices - which is why it's ridiculously high at first, but then prices fall as the religious buyers already have their phones, and now they need to optimize to the general populous, which is lower down the demand curve.

Thus a tariff won't actually have any change on the initial price of the iPhone, because even with higher costs of production, they won't try to compensate for a lost profit margin. Raising the price any higher to make up for a lost profit margin actually reduces profits even more.

More importantly, QUANTITY will not change. Apple knows they can sell there 2million initial phones off at high prices, no matter what. When ordering more and more shipments of phones, they do this over time. 1 month in they look at the rate the phones are selling, reviews, average household income, competitor products, etc. then they determine a second round. then a third round. and a fourth.

I will concede that eventually the tariff will have more and more of an effect as the quantity demanded decreases, but the initial effect is very little.


"I'm telling you it will increase the price of the imported good though, always."

here's the problem, you're assuming Apple is on a standard demand curve. As i stated above, their curve for product demand is much different than standard curves, because of the nature of demand for their product. Thus the COSTS OF PRODUCTION increase, the PRICE will not immediately be affected.

the consumer will be just as bad off because Apple's prices are set, but after a year the price will fall down because the demand at high prices by the religious followers (just a term lol) will lower, and because of the tariff Apple might make that lowered price a bit higher than they originally intended.

Alternatively, they might have too much stock and try to dump inventory at lower prices! The tariff has much less of an immediate effect, and because of this lag, consumers are less likely to be hurt (as much)

"But, this has nothing to do with supply side economics which is a macroeconomic model of fiscal policy."

of course not, for this one scenario it is clearly not about supply side. My main argument with supply side economics are that governments overestimate the flexibility of corporations who get more money, because if Apple suddenly has 1 billion $ extra, they can't just make 1 billion $ more iPhones:

because the demand curve is already optimized, and you'd only have overstocking in inventory. for seasonal goods such as iPhones, these policies would not drastically affect GDP. sorry for getting off track with that comment.
Manwe Sulimo (630 D)
28 Jan 17 UTC
I'm going to try to dissect this in parts so we can hopefully settle this without going in circles anymore haha.

""If the tariff wasn't going to increase the price of the iPhone's, there would be absolutely no point in implementing one because the quantity shipped in would not change."

um... yes. exactly. Apple has a set number of iPhones they're planning on distributing, at a set maximum idea price in correlation with quantity demand. also, the tariff increases the COST, not the price. Apple has this system where they massively overcharge what the general populous would usually demand, because they will still have a core following demanding the product."

I think we both agree that Apple has used the MC and MR curves to decide what is the optimal quantity to produce and to produce there and sell at a price where that amount will be demanded but no more. We both agree they are in a market characterized by monopolistic competition, there is no disagreement here.

"With products that have SUCH an occult brand-name following, the Demand curve changes, because you have two distinct groups of demand. Those who demand the iPhone in comparison of other goods, and those who demand iPhones simply for the product. What this does is creates a demand curve that slopes down normally, flattens off a bit, then slopes down the rest of the way. Usually demand curves don't flatten because every change in price comes with a slight change in the schedule of demand, until a threshold is reached where NOBODY will want or be able to buy it. However, this threshold is at a lower price than it is for a large selling base for apple that religiously buy their products, up until even THEY can't/won't pay too high of prices. this flattened area of the demand curve is where Apple sets up their prices - which is why it's ridiculously high at first, but then prices fall as the religious buyers already have their phones, and now they need to optimize to the general populous, which is lower down the demand curve."

I disagree with this assesment, it is contrary to mainstream economic theory concerning demand. Demand curves are always downward sloping, they don't level off at any point. Leveling off would imply that as the price decreases, there aren't any new people who will buy it, and as the price increases, nobody refrains from buying it because of the increased price. There is always someone who will stop buying it when the price increases by the smallest fraction, and someone who will start buying it when the price decreases. Because of this, the demand curve cannot become completely flat, it is always downward sloping, even if that downward slope is quite small. This would appear to be why we come to differing conclusions as to the effect of the tariff. You don't disagree that the tariff will push the MC curve upwards and correspond to a higher price and lower quantity if the demand curve is downward sloping. But you are claiming it is flat at some portion and this is causing the MC/MR intersection to still hit it at the same price point, leaving price unchanged but quantity reduced. I have yet to see a flat demand curve because of what I said earlier about why the demand curve is downward sloping. Do you have a source you could provide giving support for a completely flat demand curve, in monopolistic competition if possible (Since that was what we were discussing, it would be most relevant)?

""I'm telling you it will increase the price of the imported good though, always."

here's the problem, you're assuming Apple is on a standard demand curve. As i stated above, their curve for product demand is much different than standard curves, because of the nature of demand for their product. Thus the COSTS OF PRODUCTION increase, the PRICE will not immediately be affected.

the consumer will be just as bad off because Apple's prices are set, but after a year the price will fall down because the demand at high prices by the religious followers (just a term lol) will lower, and because of the tariff Apple might make that lowered price a bit higher than they originally intended.

Alternatively, they might have too much stock and try to dump inventory at lower prices! The tariff has much less of an immediate effect, and because of this lag, consumers are less likely to be hurt (as much)"

See above.


""But, this has nothing to do with supply side economics which is a macroeconomic model of fiscal policy."

of course not, for this one scenario it is clearly not about supply side. My main argument with supply side economics are that governments overestimate the flexibility of corporations who get more money, because if Apple suddenly has 1 billion $ extra, they can't just make 1 billion $ more iPhones:

because the demand curve is already optimized, and you'd only have overstocking in inventory. for seasonal goods such as iPhones, these policies would not drastically affect GDP. sorry for getting off track with that comment."

You're absolutely correct, that's why I said the effects of Supply Side are there but minimal when it comes to affecting output/employment in my original explanation. I don't know your background and wanted to just give a brief overview in case you weren't already aware of the theory's theoretical underpinnings, but it seems you are. We agree here.


67 replies
dannystores (0 D X)
28 Jan 17 UTC
Apple iPhone 6S Plus – 64GB Unlocked == $500
Apple iPhone 6s Plus 128GB Unlocked == $520
Apple iPhone 6S Plus – 64GB Unlocked == $500
Apple iPhone 6S Plus – 16GB Unlocked == $470
Contact: jjconrow1(@)gmail.com
6 replies
Open
Hauta (1598 D (S))
27 Jan 17 UTC
Is Trump manipulating foreign currency markets?
Trump makes announcements that affect the Mexican Peso (usually negatively) and yet his financials are a mystery. Is it possible that he is personally trading on the markets that he can influence so much or am I being paranoid?
48 replies
Open
JamesYanik (548 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
DOOMSDAY IS HERE
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/doomsday-clock-countdown-2017.html?_r=0
7 replies
Open
goldfinger0303 (1954 D Mod)
26 Sep 16 UTC
(+13)
Announcing the 2016 WebDiplomacy World Cup!
Come one, come all! This storied tournament is a clash of nations, so gather your pride and some comrades in arms to show this site why YOUR Country/Region is better than the rest!
1290 replies
Open
WyattS14 (80 D)
27 Jan 17 UTC
Gun boat classic game 16 hour phases
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=190232
0 replies
Open
brainbomb (345 D)
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+1)
THa Govarnment is full of Jipsees, Tramps and Theieves
Prasident Tramp plans to is ban abba, jipsees and all origami from entering America. #Freedom yo
15 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D (B))
26 Jan 17 UTC
(+3)
CIA and ongoing covil disturbance in the US...
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/seymour-hersh-blasts-media-for-uncritically-promoting-russian-hacking-story/

Tl;dr the CIA posted an opinion piece, the media incritically reported it as true.
23 replies
Open
Yoyoyozo (228 D Mod)
26 Jan 17 UTC
Yoyo live gunboat series.
Gunboat. 5min/phase. Every Sunday at 4pm CST. I'll post in this thread when a new game goes up, with in dept End of Game Analysis at the end, for open discussion. Post here or PM me to express interest.
29 replies
Open
djnogueira (197 D)
25 Jan 17 UTC
Last turn of a certain dead player can capture province?
Consider Autumn turn. A player has a single original supply center. His last unit is somewhere else.
His last supply center is captured. He will be dead when Fall begins. However, he is in a position where he can capture one of my many supply centers. Will I lose that supply center in the Fall if he moves to that providence?
6 replies
Open
principians (933 D)
26 Jan 17 UTC
why is switzerland so rich?
First video in english of this channel, you might find it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSLs5G4SPP4
2 replies
Open
Page 350 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top