Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #317
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Monday, October 28 1996       Volume 01 : Number 317

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:54:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato

snowgod receives the magic potato this week.  Didn't he get it
last week?

Malenkai
trying to taste the difference between a lemon and a lime

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:47:43 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bond Selling

I am selling one PFsnowgod to Fnord for A$15, assuming he acks the
transaction.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:00:58 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: I hate to do this but...

Voting Results will once again be delayed.  Sunday's and mondays results
will be released after I get home from school at 10 PM monday night
(tuesday morning for the rest of you :).  I would do it now, but I just
got off work at midnight, and I stilll have homework to do... Then I have
to get up and go to work again at 9 am, work through to 5, get off and go
strait to school.

sorry for the delay...

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:04:50 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 312 Verdict

On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 312 has been judged FALSE.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 312
>   Subject: Tower
> Initiator: snowgod
>     Judge: Bascule (declined to judge)
> 2nd Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Oct 27, 1996, 18:11h EDT)
> Judgement: FALSE

I am appealing CFJ 312 to the supreme court with no additional reasoning.
I only request that a person in the know release the voting results (if
any) or at least enlighten the people of ackanomic as to just what goes on
behind close doors.  

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:12:44 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Misc Church Stuff

I am hereby ordaining Malenkai as a Priest in the Church of The Markovian
Dream.  I believed that I had done this previously, but apperantly I was
wrong :)  (of course that is not too surprising... I am rarely right :)

I am also donating A$100 to the Church of the Markovian Dream in my
capacity as a player.  In my capacity as Church Founder, I am accepting
these funds on behalf of the church.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:24:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1381

Proposal 1381 -- Mon 28 Oct 7:19 CST 1996
Synchronized Whamming
snowgod (Phil Ackley)

This is a modest proposal.

{{Amend the blueprint for the Whamiol by adding the following sentence to
the end of it's blueprint: "In the event that a player owns more than one
Whamiol, each will produce it's scoring results at the same time, based on
the schedule of the first Whamiol"}}

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:25:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1382

Proposal 1382 -- Mon 28 Oct 7:19 CST 1996
The Old Lightbulb Bit
snowgod (Phil Ackley)

No more than once every three months the officer in charge of random things
may announce that a lightbuld has gone out in one of Ackanomic's public
building.  This of course leads to great consternation, and the inevitable
question: How many Ackanomians does it take to change a light bulb?

It is the duty of the senate to answer this question.  Upon the
announcement of a light bulb going out, the senate shall hold a meeting for
the purposes of determining exactly what should be done to remedy the
situation.

There are three options:

1) Recomending that one or more players are hired to fix the light bulb.
2) Bringing in outside help (in the form of the Frobozz Magic Maintenance
Company, Ackanomic Division).
3) Hhaving one of the senators attempt to change the lightbulb himself.

The senate has seven days to issue a report stating their recomendations
for lightbuld repair, or they shall be held In Contempt.  After the
Senate's seven day decision period has expired (and the senate has
hopefully issued a report) a public hearing will then be held, lasting
three days.  Players may send their votes to Count Tabula indicating which
of the three options they prefer.  When the hearing has finished, whichever
option recieves the most votes shall be excecuted.  In the event of a tie,
the recomendation of the senate report shall be followed unless no senate
report was issued, a random determination shall be made.

Billing and Actions:

If one or more players are hired to fix the lightbulb, each one shall be
paid A$25 after he has posted an interesting description of the lightbulb
changing and his role in the event.

If the Frobozz Magic Maintenance Company, Ackanomic Division, is called
upon to do the job they shall recieve A$5 from every active players for
services rendered.  Players may exempt themselves from payment by
contibuting an article to a newspaper (assuming it is accepted by the
publisher) describing the event, and the waste of hard-earned dollars.

If a senator is chosen to do the job, he shall recieve nothing more than a
heartfelt round of applause for a job well done.  However, there is always
25 percent chance that he shall fall of the ladder and the job will not be
completed.  If that is determined to have happened (using the dice server,
if one is recognized by ackanomic) the the Frobozz folks will be called in
after all - and be paid A$10 per active player, due to the rush nature of
the job

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:25:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1383

Proposal 1383 -- Mon 28 Oct 7:20 CST 1996
What if I want unload all those Prosthetic Foreheads without burying them?
Malenkai(Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend R 665 to add the following to the end of the Rule:

"
Donation:
A player may donate any Tradeable, non-mimsy entity they own to the
Treasury by publically announcing they are doing so.  If the item
is a Trinket, it is converted into its value in A$ upon transferrence
to the Treasury.
"

- -------------------------------------------------------------------

Amend R 1348.2 to add the following sentence at the end of the
second paragraph:

"
Buried Treasure is not considered part of the Treasury.  This clause
has precedence over R 665."
"

- --------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:21:27 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 312 (Guy Fawkes)

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>Could we just simplify this whole mess by asking the supreme court to 
>nullify the senate's decision to ignore snowgod's tower?

If it were legal, the result of such action would be ... what?

ThinMan

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:29:26 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 312 Verdict

snowgod wrote:

>I am appealing CFJ 312 to the supreme court with no additional reasoning.
>I only request that a person in the know release the voting results (if
>any) or at least enlighten the people of ackanomic as to just what goes on
>behind close doors.  

In case the Supreme Court finds it relevant, three Senators
voted YES on approving the Tower of Bandwidth, and the
other did not vote.

ThinMan

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:01:43 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: updated PartyChess web page

I've added a history link to the PartyChess web page.
Starting with move 10 I've starting zipping the results of every move in a
seperate zip file. I'll add the preceding moves soon, the history page is
basically a list of zip files, each file represents the complete state of
PartyChess at the end of corresponding move.
It would have been probably better to put these on anonymous ftp, but I
do not have access to such.
Naturally, this information will also available on request, and soon, I
hope, by automated means as well.

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:04:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> For anyone who cares, this is my unofficial financial log for the
> current bond cycle.  Report any errors or ommissions to me or 
> ThinMan
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Log started as of ThinMans oct 17 accounts
> 
> 
> Malenkai -10 P 1327-1335
> Bascule -10 R 1331 (here and below)
> Brinjal -10 
> breadbox -10
> CnH -10
> fnord -10

What is this from?

fnord

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:11:02 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond Selling

snowgod spake thusly
> 
> I am selling one PFsnowgod to Fnord for A$15, assuming he acks the
> transaction.

I acknowledge this transaction

fnord

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:19:37 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

fnord spake thusly
> 
> Malenkai spake thusly
> > [yadda yadda yadda]
> 
> What is this from?
> 
> fnord

Great, now *I*'m doing it, too.  Careful, soon everybody
will be sending private e-mail through the mailing list.

Sorry,
fnord

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:31:09 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bond trading/selling

I am offering to mr cwm 1 PFfnord in exchange for 1 PFmr.

I am offering A$3 to breadbox in exchange for 1 PFbreadbox.

assuming they each ack their respective transaction.

fnord

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:40:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time Check

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> Being the curious type, I would like to have everyone's time zone on
> /dev/joe's Time Zone page, and am curious what state or country people
> are in (which is also on that page).
> 

California, USA, Earth, Sol III.  Which makes it Pacifict Time (I
never remember whether we *are* or *aren't* on Daylight
Savings time, I just know when the change happens).

fnord

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:40:34 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time Check

> Malenkai spake thusly
> > 
> > Being the curious type, I would like to have everyone's time zone on
> > /dev/joe's Time Zone page, and am curious what state or country people
> > are in (which is also on that page).
> > 
> 

EET which means GMT + 2

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:48:03 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

Michael J. Thomas wrote:
> 
> Malenkai spake thusly
> >
> > For anyone who cares, this is my unofficial financial log for the
> > current bond cycle.  Report any errors or ommissions to me or
> > ThinMan
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Log started as of ThinMans oct 17 accounts
> >
> >
> > Malenkai -10 P 1327-1335
> > Bascule -10 R 1331 (here and below)
> > Brinjal -10
> > breadbox -10
> > CnH -10
> > fnord -10
> 
> What is this from?
> 
> fnord

Rule 1331.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:01:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond trading/selling

> I am offering to mr cwm 1 PFfnord in exchange for 1 PFmr.
> 
> I am offering A$3 to breadbox in exchange for 1 PFbreadbox.
	I am offering *two* PFMohammed to fnord in exchange for two 
PFfnord.  From here on out I will make trades of indistinguishables in 
prime quantities only.

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:01:59 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: I did a a Uh-Oh

On the voting results for P1361 I gave points to the NO voters, instead of
the YES even though it failed.  The scoring shown related to this proposal
is all incorrect.

Oops

snowgod
apologetic

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:10:55 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond trading/selling

I acknowledge this transaction.

- -mr cwm

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, fnord wrote:

>I am offering to mr cwm 1 PFfnord in exchange for 1 PFmr.
>
>I am offering A$3 to breadbox in exchange for 1 PFbreadbox.
>
>assuming they each ack their respective transaction.
>
>fnord
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:18:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1382

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1382 -- Mon 28 Oct 7:19 CST 1996
> The Old Lightbulb Bit
> snowgod (Phil Ackley)

I am declaring this proposal Harfy.  snowgod already got harfy bounty
money for it.  As I wrote yesterday, I have ended the harfy bounty, and
replaced it with incentive to develop the game in other directions,
such as sub-games and alternate winning conditions.

Malenkai
harfmeister

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:28:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

Sorry.  My last public message on this topic.

> The fact that the algorithm thinker is rarer, allows em to shift more
> wealth eir way.
	Suppose I have a jade key.  The fact that the jade key is rare 
does not cause wealth to shift toward it; quite the opposite-- if I give 
the key to someone else I expect a lot in exchange for it.  Moving the 
key causes resources to flow in the opposite direction, not the same 
direction.
	Scarcity and demand do not mean that an object exerts a force on 
worth.  They mean that the object *has* worth.

> > 	The only way I can see out of the argument I just made is to say
> > that no wealth is generated in either case; it is simply converted from
> > one type to another.  In the algorithm-thinker's case, it is converted
> > from time and money into algorithms (with the catalysts of shelter and
> > peace).  In the masochist's case, it is converted from time into pain
> > (with the catalyst of a hammer). 
> > 	To that counter-argument I would reply that pain is a relatively
> > worthless kind of wealth (to put it wryly).  A theory of economics based
> > on the belief that pain is equal in worth to a new ideais, as far as I
> > can see, hopelessly abstract.
> 

> I agree that no wealth is generated in either case. On the contrary, it is
> used up. (take all your bills and divide them equally over the length of
> time used to pay them, use whatever resolution you like - your wealth
> constantly diminishes)
	Not necessarily true.  If I start off naked & penniless and end 
up a multi-kiloaire (to be mild about it--I'm young yet) with a car, I've 
gained wealth.  *frown*
	Likewise, a planet starts out barren and dead and after several 
billion years is bustling with life-- I think wealth has been created.
	An economy starts out with a gold standard and after some time 
has to implement a silver standard because there isn't enough gold to 
support the growing amount of wealth.  Later, even gold and silver 
together aren't enough, besides which things are getting complicated so 
the economy switches to a trust standard.  Times are good and trust is 
plentiful and valuable.  So it works.  True story.
	If wealth necessarily diminishes, how could an economy outgrow 
its monetary standard, if that money supply is constant?

> I can look it up, but if there is something which is worth nothing to
> humans, then I don't think it can considered a resource. This has little
> to do with my argument, I believe my reply above should clear this up.
	So would you say that the algorithm-thinker's idea and the 
masochist's pain are wealth, or simply that they control wealth?
	To me it's counterintuitive to say that the idea has no worth of
its own.  And further, since the idea is worth more than the pain,
wealth must have been created. 

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:34:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

> Rule 1331.
	I can't find a rule 1331 on the web page.  I feel sorta dumb.

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:36:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G&C Proposal 103

> Any player may protest the ghost word if it (1) has at any point in the 
> last three days been a word in the official dictionary; (2) cannot be 
> found within any word in the official dictionary.  ("upsero" can be 
> found within "supersonic"; "spronc" cannot).  Upon a protest, play is 
	Did you mean "uperso" where "upsero" appears above?

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:06:16 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

> > Rule 1331.
> 	I can't find a rule 1331 on the web page.  I feel sorta dumb.

It was a rule that consisted entirely of {{bracketed}} text.  It
appears on the repealed rules page.  Thank you all for my beautiful
Badge of Many Thanks.

/dev/joe

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:09:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

It was self-deleting.  The whole "Badge of Many Thanks" bit.

Guy Fawkes

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Rule 1331.
> 	I can't find a rule 1331 on the web page.  I feel sorta dumb.
> 
> --Mohammed
> 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:10:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G&C Proposal 103

yes, I feel so lysdexic.

Guy Fawkes

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Any player may protest the ghost word if it (1) has at any point in the 
> > last three days been a word in the official dictionary; (2) cannot be 
> > found within any word in the official dictionary.  ("upsero" can be 
> > found within "supersonic"; "spronc" cannot).  Upon a protest, play is 
> 	Did you mean "uperso" where "upsero" appears above?
> 
> --Mohammed
> 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:27:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: FLCUD

I'm interested in founding the First Latitudinarian Church of Uncertainty 
and Deference.

The Church Policy is:
	Anyone may join the First Latitudinarian Church of Uncertainty 
and Deference.  Any member of the Church must vote Yes on any proposal 
to create a new rule with a blanket deference clause, or would modify a 
rule in order to cause it to have such a deference clause where it had 
none before.  For the purposes of this, a blanket deference clause is one 
that causes the rule to have the lowest precedence possible without 
changing any rule numbers.

The Church Dogma is:
	*vague look*  Who knows?

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 23:34:30 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Sorry.  My last public message on this topic.
> 
> > The fact that the algorithm thinker is rarer, allows em to shift more
> > wealth eir way.
> 	Suppose I have a jade key.  The fact that the jade key is rare 
> does not cause wealth to shift toward it; quite the opposite-- if I give 
> the key to someone else I expect a lot in exchange for it.  Moving the 
> key causes resources to flow in the opposite direction, not the same 
> direction.
You're just restating my point. I said that algorithm thinker can shift
more wealth his way, not the algorithm. I didn't bother to describe the
transaction you described because it is trivial, however it was implicit
in my statement.
 > 	Scarcity and demand do not mean that an object exerts a force on 
>worth.  They mean that the object *has* worth.
It means that whoever controls the scarce object, the demand for which
surpasses  the supply, exerts force. I never claimed that the product does
any such thing

> 
> > I agree that no wealth is generated in either case. On the contrary, it is
> > used up. (take all your bills and divide them equally over the length of
> > time used to pay them, use whatever resolution you like - your wealth
> > constantly diminishes)
> 	Not necessarily true.  If I start off naked & penniless and end 
> up a multi-kiloaire (to be mild about it--I'm young yet) with a car, I've 
> gained wealth.  *frown*
That argument would have been relevant if you had accomplished that
entirely on your own without the benefit of parents, the public school
system and the likes.

Surely, you may argue, all of humanity started that way, and I would agree
and point out that progress was never free, and required a large
investment in resources, whether you call them welath, energy, or lives.

 > 	Likewise, a planet starts out barren and dead and after several 
> billion years is bustling with life-- I think wealth has beencreated.
Life and evolution are far too complex an issuefor such an analogy, and
you're taking it entirely out of context.

> 	An economy starts out with a gold standard and after some time 
> has to implement a silver standard because there isn't enough gold to 
> support the growing amount of wealth.  Later, even gold and silver 
> together aren't enough, besides whichthings are getting complicated so 
> the economy switches to a trust standard.  Times are good and trust is 
> plentiful and valuable.  So it works.  True story.
> 	If wealth necessarily diminishes, how could an economy outgrow 
> its monetary standard, if that money supply is constant.

I never argued that the money supply is constant. 
Energy is constant. Usable resources are diminishing.

Anyway, none of this is relevant to my original argument. If you want me
to elaborate on that, I'll do so privately, in a couple of days.

> > 

> 
> > I can look it up, but if there is something which is worth nothing to
> > humans, then I don't think it can considered a resource. This has little
> > to do with my argument, I believe my reply above should clear this up.
> 	So would you say that the algorithm-thinker's idea and the 
> masochist's pain are wealth, or simply that they control wealth?

I never argued that either one is wealth. I argued that both persons use
up resources creating their respective products, and since the agorithm
happens to be a product in demand, he can trade for the means to aquire
more resources to expend. The amount of means he can acquire are affected
by the laws of supply and demand. Basic economy.

 > 	To me it's counterintuitive to say that the idea has no worth of
> its own.  

Let us take two thinkers of algorithms. One lives in present day USA, one
lived in Europe a few centuries ago. Perhaps we can call him Fermatson.
They both, independently, thought up the same algorithm.
If the idea has value of its own, then surely they should both be able to
market it equally well. Alas, Fermatson lives in a time where such an idea
is not applicable to anything. He feels it's right, but isn't sure where
to go with it, so he jots something in the margins of a book he is
reading, and forgets about it. 

Everything exists in a context, and an object, or an idea, which is
valuable in one context, can be worthless in another. The concept of worth
is relative. Worth to whom?

 > And further, since the idea is worth more than the pain, 
> wealth must have been created.

This is a logical leap that eludes me. I already replied to your original
example, and explained the process as I see it. I don't really see where
you are going with this other than

- - you pay bills
- - you spend money on food
- - you spend money on electricity
- - you spend money on other things
- - you hire youself out and put youself under the authority of another
person in order to be abnle to afford to do all the above.

If you stopped working (assuming nobody gives you anything while you are
unemployed, I'm trying to deal here with a basic capitalistic model)
you'd stop receiving money, you'd not be able to buy food, yo would not
eat, and you would too weak to get another job.

You eat so you would be well enough to work, and you work so you would
have enough money to get food.  Mere survival is a Red Queen's Race.

If you have some kind of miraculous source that does not require any sort
of fuel that drives you, and you are still able to produce something
that's in demand, then you may be creating wealth. 
Niccolo Flychuck
Proletar
 :)

> --Mohammed
> 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:26:30 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

I'm sorry I wasn't able to take a more active part in this interesting
discussion over the weekend.  Can I plunge in now?

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Mohammed wrote:

>Sorry.  My last public message on this topic.

I'm sorry, too.  I'd be happy to go private, if you like.

>
>> The fact that the algorithm thinker is rarer, allows em to shift more
>> wealth eir way.
>	Suppose I have a jade key.  The fact that the jade key is rare 
>does not cause wealth to shift toward it; quite the opposite-- if I give 
>the key to someone else I expect a lot in exchange for it.  Moving the 
>key causes resources to flow in the opposite direction, not the same 
>direction.
>	Scarcity and demand do not mean that an object exerts a force on 
>worth.  They mean that the object *has* worth.
>

Well, demand.  Scarcity alone is not enough (I'm sure I could create some
worthless but unique thing), and as long as the demand is high enough,
scarcity isn't even necessary.

And the object only has worth to those who demand it.  I don't think it is
an inherent property of the object.

>> > 	The only way I can see out of the argument I just made is to say
>> > that no wealth is generated in either case; it is simply converted from
>> > one type to another.  In the algorithm-thinker's case, it is converted
>> > from time and money into algorithms (with the catalysts of shelter and
>> > peace).  In the masochist's case, it is converted from time into pain
>> > (with the catalyst of a hammer). 
>> > 	To that counter-argument I would reply that pain is a relatively
>> > worthless kind of wealth (to put it wryly).  A theory of economics based
>> > on the belief that pain is equal in worth to a new ideais, as far as I
>> > can see, hopelessly abstract.
>> 
>
>> I agree that no wealth is generated in either case. On the contrary, it is
>> used up. (take all your bills and divide them equally over the length of
>> time used to pay them, use whatever resolution you like - your wealth
>> constantly diminishes)
>	Not necessarily true.  If I start off naked & penniless and end 
>up a multi-kiloaire (to be mild about it--I'm young yet) with a car, I've 
>gained wealth.  *frown*

Only because that's what *you* want.  If, instead, you felt that that
being naked and penniless was a preferable state (perhaps it makes you
feel more comforatble about the final destination of your immortal soul,
for example) you might actually have lost wealth.

>	Likewise, a planet starts out barren and dead and after several 
>billion years is bustling with life-- I think wealth has been created.

"I think" is the operative phrase here.  You have a personal preferance
for bustling life (apparently), so wealth has been created _according to
you_.

>	An economy starts out with a gold standard and after some time 
>has to implement a silver standard because there isn't enough gold to 
>support the growing amount of wealth.  Later, even gold and silver 
>together aren't enough, besides which things are getting complicated so 
>the economy switches to a trust standard.  Times are good and trust is 
>plentiful and valuable.  So it works.  True story.

"True story" is arguable.  If the supply of currency does not outpace the
demand, then there's no problem with the supply of specie being
insufficient to support the growing amount of wealth, because people will
not have excess currency to redeem. It's only when someone wants to
increase the supply of currency more rapidly than the demand for it
(perhaps to get the votes of debtors, who tend to outnumber creditors) 
that it becomes necessary to switch to fiat money and legal tender laws.

>	If wealth necessarily diminishes, how could an economy outgrow 
>its monetary standard, if that money supply is constant?
>
>> I can look it up, but if there is something which is worth nothing to
>> humans, then I don't think it can considered a resource. This has little
>> to do with my argument, I believe my reply above should clear this up.
>	So would you say that the algorithm-thinker's idea and the 
>masochist's pain are wealth, or simply that they control wealth?

Neither.  They are things.  The only become wealth when someone is willing
to trade something else for them, if even its only their own time to
produce them. 

>	To me it's counterintuitive to say that the idea has no worth of
>its own.  And further, since the idea is worth more than the pain,
>wealth must have been created. 

I think we must say the idea has no worth of its own.  I'm not sure what
idea we have in mind, but I'd expect we can imagine a situation in which
it would be worthless.  For example, if it had appeared 50,000 years ago
and no one could understand or implement it.  It only has the worth we
give it.

>
>--Mohammed
>

- -mr cwm

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:55:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Monday, the 28th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 10 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:09:03 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>

[really big snip]

>
>
>- you pay bills
>- you spend money on food
>- you spend money on electricity
>- you spend money on other things
>- you hire youself out and put youself under the authority of another
>person in order to be abnle to afford to do all the above.
>
>If you stopped working (assuming nobody gives you anything while you are
>unemployed, I'm trying to deal here with a basic capitalistic model)
>you'd stop receiving money, you'd not be able to buy food, yo would not
>eat, and you would too weak to get another job.
>
>You eat so you would be well enough to work, and you work so you would
>have enough money to get food.  Mere survival is a Red Queen's Race.
>

Indeed.  Most people in most places throughout history have engaged in
"mere survival."  I, however, (and I don't think I'm alone) eat far more
and better than is necessary for me to phyiscally perform my job (to the
point where I must engage in meaningless exercise).  Additionally, I am
paid considerably more than is necessary for me to obtain the
necessecities of life that would keep me able to physically perform my
job.  (And not all pay is money.  I could probably double my salary at a
job that I really wouldn't want to do.)  I think your "other things" 
category is enormously important.  That category is what makes someone
wealthy (in comparison to subsistance farmers, for example). 

>If you have some kind of miraculous source that does not require any sort
>of fuel that drives you, and you are still able to produce something
>that's in demand, then you may be creating wealth. 

He doesn't need to use no fuel, etc., to create wealth.  All that's
necessary is that what he produces be worth more to someone, if only
himself, than the fuel, etc., that went into it.  If you were able to put
everything (according to whatever definition you choose) that went into a
loaf of bread in one box, and a loaf of bread in the other box, and let me
pick one, I'd take the box with the loaf of bread.  Especially near lunch
time.  From my perspective, the baker has created wealth. 

>Niccolo Flychuck
>Proletar
> :)
>

I've probably lost control over my tone, for which I apologize.  But this
was one of my favorite sit-around-in-the-dorm-and-argue-instead-of-working
topics 12-16 years ago.

- -mr cwm

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:21:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> He doesn't need to use no fuel, etc., to create wealth.  All that's
> necessary is that what he produces be worth more to someone, if only
> himself, than the fuel, etc., that went into it.  If you were able to put
> everything (according to whatever definition you choose) that went into a
> loaf of bread in one box, and a loaf of bread in the other box, and let me
> pick one, I'd take the box with the loaf of bread.  Especially near lunch
> time.  From my perspective, the baker has created wealth. 

On the other hand, if you're well fed and want to go on a vandalism 
spree, give me the eggs, flour, water, fire, etc.  To the vandal, the baker 
has destroyed wealth.  :)

Economics is so much more fun sans ceteris parabus (horribly misspelled 
Latin).  :)

Guy Fawkes

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:31:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1381

> Proposal 1381 -- Mon 28 Oct 7:19 CST 1996
> Synchronized Whamming
> snowgod (Phil Ackley)
> 
> This is a modest proposal.
> 
> {{Amend the blueprint for the Whamiol by adding the following sentence to
> the end of it's blueprint: "In the event that a player owns more than one
> Whamiol, each will produce it's scoring results at the same time, based on
> the schedule of the first Whamiol"}}

I think a better fix is to change the Whamming part of the Blueprint
to say that it occurs whenever the time since the last new player became
active is exactly 30 days, 32 days, 34 days, etc.  That way all the Whamiols
in existence will always be synchronized.  (Note that only new Whamiols
created when they are already whamming will ever be out of sync anyway.)

/dev/joe

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:36:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1382

> Proposal 1382 -- Mon 28 Oct 7:19 CST 1996
> The Old Lightbulb Bit
> snowgod (Phil Ackley)
> 
> No more than once every three months the officer in charge of random things
> may announce that a lightbuld has gone out in one of Ackanomic's public
> building.  This of course leads to great consternation, and the inevitable
> question: How many Ackanomians does it take to change a light bulb?
> 
> It is the duty of the senate to answer this question.  Upon the
> announcement of a light bulb going out, the senate shall hold a meeting for
> the purposes of determining exactly what should be done to remedy the
> situation.
> 
> There are three options:
> 
> 1) Recomending that one or more players are hired to fix the light bulb.
> 2) Bringing in outside help (in the form of the Frobozz Magic Maintenance
> Company, Ackanomic Division).
> 3) Hhaving one of the senators attempt to change the lightbulb himself.
> 
> The senate has seven days to issue a report stating their recomendations
> for lightbuld repair, or they shall be held In Contempt.  After the
> Senate's seven day decision period has expired (and the senate has
> hopefully issued a report) a public hearing will then be held, lasting
> three days.  Players may send their votes to Count Tabula indicating which
> of the three options they prefer.  When the hearing has finished, whichever
> option recieves the most votes shall be excecuted.  In the event of a tie,
> the recomendation of the senate report shall be followed unless no senate
> report was issued, a random determination shall be made.

Suppose the Senate wants to bring in outside help, but the voters decide to
have one of the senators do it.  Which senator does it?  Suppose they
vote to have one or more players do it.  Who decides which players?
If the senate decides to have Malenkai and mr cwm do it, can I vote to have
Idiotboy do it instead?

/dev/joe

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:09:26 -0500 (EST)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1382

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Suppose the Senate wants to bring in outside help, but the voters decide to
> have one of the senators do it.  Which senator does it?  Suppose they
> vote to have one or more players do it.  Who decides which players?
> If the senate decides to have Malenkai and mr cwm do it, can I vote to have
> Idiotboy do it instead?
> 
> /dev/joe
> 
Clearly you have no idea how many IdiotBoys it takes to screw in a
lightbulb.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:19:59 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

>
>
>On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, mr cwm wrote:
>
>> He doesn't need to use no fuel, etc., to create wealth.  All that's
>> necessary is that what he produces be worth more to someone, if only
>> himself, than the fuel, etc., that went into it.  If you were able to put
>> everything (according to whatever definition you choose) that went into a
>> loaf of bread in one box, and a loaf of bread in the other box, and let me
>> pick one, I'd take the box with the loaf of bread.  Especially near lunch
>> time.  From my perspective, the baker has created wealth. 
>
>On the other hand, if you're well fed and want to go on a vandalism 
>spree, give me the eggs, flour, water, fire, etc.  To the vandal, the baker 
>has destroyed wealth.  :)
>

Exactly.  (I almost limited my responses to "I generally agree with Guy
Fawkes.")

>Economics is so much more fun sans ceteris parabus (horribly misspelled 
>Latin).  :)

You spell it better than I understand it.  Without ... what?

>
>Guy Fawkes
>

And it *has* been a while.  I think that where ever I say "currency" in my
reply to Mohammed, I mean "notes and deposits."  I think.

- -mr cwm

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:56:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

> >Economics is so much more fun sans ceteris parabus (horribly misspelled 
> >Latin).  :)
> 
> You spell it better than I understand it.  Without ... what?
	Without flesh-eating fish attached to your body, I think.  My Latin 
is a little rusty...

- --Mohammed

(when something is "rusty" you can "polish" it... English is such a neat 
language)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:51:22 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond trading/selling

Mohammed spake thusly
> 
> 	I am offering *two* PFMohammed to fnord in exchange for two 
> PFfnord.  From here on out I will make trades of indistinguishables in 
> prime quantities only.

Thank you, but no.  I am only interested in owning 1 PFMohammed,  and
only one of them.

fnord
> 

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #317
*******************************