Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #420
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, December 24 1996      Volume 01 : Number 420

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:17:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Acting CSRR

I am appointing Malenkai acting CSRR

Niccolo Flychuck
President

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:36:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Victorious Eggplant

> Oh, it makes sense, I like it. I was thinking before that this would 
> be a massive load of work semi-integrating 3 or 4 different rulesets. 
> As I see it, the recipient of the gifts would be a sort of associate 
> Ackazen, not a full player but able to interact with Acka to the 
> extent that their gift will allow.
	This is a problem with my approach.  Malenkai's proposal would 
fix that, but install a mandatory 14-day waiting period on anything 
entering or leaving the game, even if it's patently harmless.  There's 
got to be a reasonable medium between the two.

> As you say, our rules would be 
> unable to affect alien entities in any way, and the reverse would be 
> the case too; what would you think to allowing foreign rulesets 
> limited power, for instance in issues of ownership? (A player might 
> have their possessions confiscated, for instance; as it stands, alien 
> entities would be unaffected.)
	This is good, but SPOT as I conceived it doesn't go out of its way 
to encourage such interactivity.
	However, Malenkai's Import/Export paradigm handles this, allowing
a pretty decent amount of interaction between objects from various nomics,
and I think if the entire I/E idea were *optional*, everything would be
pretty smooth.
	I still believe that by default, Acka should keep track of Acka's
objects, whoever owns them.  But, if a nomic wants to import the object,
converting its operation to fit into their own ruleset, then they adopt
all the responsibilities that go along with it.
	This would mean (a) there's no time delay trading a thousand
FooYen for eighty Ackadollars; plus (b) an Agoran can use a Frobnotzer on
eir own ruleset, if Agora supports I/E and there's public assent; plus (c)
the Agoran could also use the Frobnotzer on *our* ruleset, if e cared to 
(I strongly believe this option should be open to em.)
	Or e could try to get the Frobnotzer imported from Ackanomic into
Pumpkin Patch (!) and use it on *their* ruleset!  Yow!

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:40:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1588

Okay, the last proposal I can find on the web page was P1587 ("bilking") 
so this one is...

Proposal 1588
That was me in Grade 9
fnord

Amend Rule 450, "Retractions", by changing the sentence 

"The player retracting the proposal loses 2 points."

to

"The player retracting the proposal loses 2 points, except during the first
three weeks of eir being a new player (as opposed to a returning player) in
Ackanomic, in which case the player instead will lose no points."

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:47:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1589

If anybody hates the fact that I'm not putting real names or the time on
these, complain about it and I'll change the format back.  :o) --mohammed

Proposal 1589
Rule 1539 bugfix I + Identity Crisis
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

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

Amend R 414, "President", to append the following to the end of
section (iii):

"This section has precedence over rule 401."

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

[I guess 'Ackanomic' is our official name.  I'm not really sure, but
we might as well be consistent while I'm here fixing a real bug.  There
are some inconsistencies on the main web page (in titles, etc), and
Internomic has us as AckaNomic, I believe, but that is another issue.
There is also 'Ackanomia', I left that alone.]

Amend R 419, "Ambassador" to replace "AckaNomic" with "Ackanomic"
where it appears

Amend R 454, "For Personal Glory..." to replace "AckaNomic" with "Ackanomic"
where it appears

Amend R 1206, "Games & Contests" to replace "ackanomic" with "Ackanomic"
where it appears

Amend R 1349, "Rama-lama-ding-dong" to replace "ackanomic" with "Ackanomic"
where it appears

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:49:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1590

Proposal 1590
Internomic Entity Exchange of One Eggplant
breadbox

This is a Modest Proposal.

{{The Victorious Eggplant Trinket no longer exists in Ackanomic. It
shall be removed from Snowgod's list of possessions, without
reimbursement.}}

{{[I really like the discussion about inter-nomic trading, and this
proposal is in no way meant to usurp that work. But in the meantime,
we have this one case to clear up, and I thought this might be a good
time to make use of the trinket loophole.]}}

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:50:01 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

Malenkai wrote:
> > blah, blah, blah...
> >
> >     AckaDollars may not be created nor destroyed. This Rule
> >has precedence over any Rule that would create or destroy A$.
> >  [...] The total number of A$ shall always be 75,000.
> 

This may be totally peripheral to CFJ 325, but what is the reasoning behind
a constant A$75,000?

In the (dare I say it?) real world, the number of dollars (or pesos, or pounds,
or marks, or bhat, or... you get the point) is constantly changing.  The number
of currency units has no relation to the net worth of the economic system,
i.e., the more currency units in circulation, the less each unit is worth.
The fewer currency units in circulation, the more each unit is worth.  The 
actual worth of the system is determined by production, not by little green
pieces of paper.

If this were not so, then third world countries could become prosperous by
printing money.  And events like the catastrophic plunge of the German mark
in the early part of this century would not have happened.

Just a thought,
AirHead (a closet Keynesian)

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:58:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lantern: thought

> For one, I would like to build our G&C library up as much as possible
> so perhaps we can build games of games based on some ideas I have had
> previously.  I have also had some ideas where the story elements are
> acka-entities, or points are awarded for other players guessing the
> card played from the text of the story, or the cards or text of the
> story are clues for treasures, etc.  In other words, I find the structure
> has room for expansion in an nomicky kind of way.
	Cute ideas.  Maybe yorl should become its own nomic.  :o)
	Should I add to the language to allow duels?  Or is the game ill-suited 
to that purpose?

> Besides, its fun to just read them.  
	Yep.  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:01:27 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

T Joffrain wrote:
 
> >This needs fixing, before we engage on internomic economics.
> 
> Exactly. To fix it is simple enough. In R505/8 part IV:
> 
> >>     VI. Donation:
> >>     A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift 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.
> 
> Should be changed to:
> 
> >>     VI. Donation:
> >>     A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift entity
> >>they own to the Treasury by publically announcing they are
> >>doing so. If the item is a Trinket, it is destroyed.
> 
> This would squash the bug permanently.

I disagree.  This does not "squash the bug." 

Extending the thoughts of my last message on this subject:

Imagine an island with two people on it.  Each has $100.  The total worth of
the island is $200.  Person A builds a table and sells it to person B for
(you guessed it!) $100.  Person B builds a wheelbarrow and sells it to 
person A for (what other than) $100.  The worth of the island is now $400 
($200 in cash, a table worth $100, and a wheelbarrow worth $100).

Therefore, any system which allows the creation of objects (in this case trinkets)
that are worth A$ MUST change the number of A$ in circulation.

AirHead (still with a capital H)

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:08:35 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Eric L. Freeman wrote:

> Malenkai wrote:
> > > blah, blah, blah...
> > >
> > >     AckaDollars may not be created nor destroyed. This Rule
> > >has precedence over any Rule that would create or destroy A$.
> > >  [...] The total number of A$ shall always be 75,000.
> > 
> 
> This may be totally peripheral to CFJ 325, but what is the reasoning behind
> a constant A$75,000?

The reasoning was to prevent massive devaluation of the A$. Ackanomic is
nowhere near simulating an actual economy.
Perhaps some history is in order. In the early days of Ackanomic, A$ were
just created as needed. Some players, myself included, considered this a
very bad thing, because this would allow the creation of an unlimited
number of A$, an act, the ultimate consequence of which would be massive
devaluation of the A$.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> In the (dare I say it?) real world, the number of dollars (or pesos, or pounds,
> or marks, or bhat, or... you get the point) is constantly changing.  The number
> of currency units has no relation to the net worth of the economic system,
> i.e., the more currency units in circulation, the less each unit is worth.
> The fewer currency units in circulation, the more each unit is worth.  The 
> actual worth of the system is determined by production, not by little green
> pieces of paper.
> 
> If this were not so, then third world countries could become prosperous by
> printing money.  And events like the catastrophic plunge of the German mark
> in the early part of this century would not have happened.
> 
> Just a thought,
> AirHead (a closet Keynesian)
> 

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:08:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

> Imagine an island with two people on it.  Each has $100.  The total worth of
> the island is $200.  Person A builds a table and sells it to person B for
> (you guessed it!) $100.  Person B builds a wheelbarrow and sells it to 
> person A for (what other than) $100.  The worth of the island is now $400 
> ($200 in cash, a table worth $100, and a wheelbarrow worth $100).
> 
> Therefore, any system which allows the creation of objects (in this case trinkets)
> that are worth A$ MUST change the number of A$ in circulation.
	Why?  What's wrong with the worth of the island increasing?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:19:06 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Inernomic Trading 

I have been reading the discussions on Internomic trading (including
Malenkai's RFC) and am intrigued.  I need to write more later when I have a
little free time.  But I wanted to point out one thing...

Thring does not even have a currency as we or the Agorans do.  Instead they
have a tradeable point system, but these are used in different ways than
our currency.  If anyone is interested, I'll contact their liason for
copies of the relevant rules, etc.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:21:19 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

Eric L. Freeman wrote:
> 
> T Joffrain wrote:
> 
> > >This needs fixing, before we engage on internomic economics.
> >
> > Exactly. To fix it is simple enough. In R505/8 part IV:
> >
> > >>     VI. Donation:
> > >>     A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift 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.
> >
> > Should be changed to:
> >
> > >>     VI. Donation:
> > >>     A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift entity
> > >>they own to the Treasury by publically announcing they are
> > >>doing so. If the item is a Trinket, it is destroyed.
> >
> > This would squash the bug permanently.
> 
> I disagree.  This does not "squash the bug."
> 
> Extending the thoughts of my last message on this subject:
> 
> Imagine an island with two people on it.  Each has $100.  The total worth of
> the island is $200.  Person A builds a table and sells it to person B for
> (you guessed it!) $100.  Person B builds a wheelbarrow and sells it to
> person A for (what other than) $100.  The worth of the island is now $400
> ($200 in cash, a table worth $100, and a wheelbarrow worth $100).
> 
> Therefore, any system which allows the creation of objects (in this case trinkets)
> that are worth A$ MUST change the number of A$ in circulation.
> 

Let me clarify this a bit.

What it comes down to is this:

The number of "dollars" in an economic system is not the same as the
number of little green pieces of paper in that system.  Take the
(some would say fictional) U.S. economic system.  There are approx.
$500 billion actual paper dollars on the planet.  Of those, approx.
$250 billion are being horded in foriegn bank vaults (i.e., out of
circulation).  But the U.S. has a gross national product exceeding
$13 TRILLION.

Or:

Take for example Bill Gates.  He is worth about $18 billion.  But does
he have $18 billion little green pieces of paper?  No.  He has stock worth
$18 billion in Microsoft.

So you see, money is not necessarily little green pieces of paper.

To me, it seems like the A$75,000 limit must be done away with.  Maybe
the creation of a Bureau of Economic Statistics or a Federal Reserve
Board is in order.

Any thoughts?

AirHead (re-living Economics 101)

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:24:14 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lantern: thought 

>	Should I add to the language to allow duels?  Or is the game
>ill-suited
>to that purpose?

A YORL duel (properly refereed) would be a blast.  You may want to add a
couple of special rules that apply only during dueling (both players must
agree on the taverkeeper beforehand, blah blah blah). Also, some allowance
to move the game along faster if there are only two players (less
paperwork?)

It could be fun.

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:28:24 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>> Imagine an island with two people on it.  Each has $100.  The total worth of
>> the island is $200.  Person A builds a table and sells it to person B for
>> (you guessed it!) $100.  Person B builds a wheelbarrow and sells it to
>> person A for (what other than) $100.  The worth of the island is now $400
>> ($200 in cash, a table worth $100, and a wheelbarrow worth $100).

We are back to the debate that has been ragining since Ackanomic devoped
currency.  In this case I would argue that the worth of the island has not
increased -- It has just been transformed.  Resources (trees, metal ore and
a big ol' rock for the wheel) have been converted from their natural state
into a product. As the value of the resources on the island decreases, the
value of the prodcuts (exports?) increases.  The amount of cash stays the
same.

snowgod

BTW, Pumpkin Patch nomic is interested in becoming an importer of
Prosthetic foreheads :)

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:30:39 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>
>So you see, money is not necessarily little green pieces of paper.
>
>To me, it seems like the A$75,000 limit must be done away with.  Maybe
>the creation of a Bureau of Economic Statistics or a Federal Reserve
>Board is in order.

Does someone still have a copy of mr cwm's asSPEC based economy repost to
the public forum.  I believe that is in aa sense what AirHead is proposing.

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:36:44 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>snowgod has been chosen.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 325
>  Subject: Trinket Paradox
>Initiator: Calvin N Hobbes
>    Judge: snowgod (selected Dec 23, 1996, 12:24h EST)
>Judgement:

I accept judgement of this CFJ.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:36:01 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>> Imagine an island with two people on it.  Each has $100.  The total worth of
>> the island is $200.  Person A builds a table and sells it to person B for
>> (you guessed it!) $100.  Person B builds a wheelbarrow and sells it to 
>> person A for (what other than) $100.  The worth of the island is now $400 
>> ($200 in cash, a table worth $100, and a wheelbarrow worth $100).
>> 
>> Therefore, any system which allows the creation of objects (in this case
trinkets)
>> that are worth A$ MUST change the number of A$ in circulation.
>	Why?  What's wrong with the worth of the island increasing?

I think Mohammed has nailed it there.
So the island now has objects worth $400. So what? The amount of cash is
still $200 and that is fine. It means that someone owning all the cash does
not own all the resources. That's fine. I could even imagine a system where
even with all the money in the world, you couldn't buy one object.

This could happen in Acka, this is not a problem. What market forces dictate
is that either money increases in value or the objects go down in worth
relative to money. Basically, money becomes a scarce commodity itself.

In the island example, it means that a if one person wants to sell a table,
but the other has only $10 (for example) then he could sell it at that price
and now the implication is that 10 new dollars are worth 100 of yesterday's.
This is steep deflation (Japan has a low deflation a few years back btw).

The problem you raise I touch on also in my (grotesquely) long message under
Internomic Trading (was Victorious Eggplant) when I mention increasing GNP
and what it means as percent resources.

So the patch I mention means there are no inconsistencies in the rule set.
It solidifies the somewhat strange system we have, but it is a system that
does work. It actually only seems strange because we are dealing with a
small closed system.

CnH
still working on this stuff

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:38:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Eric L. Freeman wrote:

> 
> I disagree.  This does not "squash the bug." 

It fixes the implementation , while maintaining the ideology that anything
can be created, as long as it's not A$.

> 
> Extending the thoughts of my last message on this subject:
> 
> Imagine an island with two people on it.  Each has $100.  The total worth of
> the island is $200.  Person A builds a table and sells it to person B for
> (you guessed it!) $100.  Person B builds a wheelbarrow and sells it to 
> person A for (what other than) $100.  The worth of the island is now $400 
> ($200 in cash, a table worth $100, and a wheelbarrow worth $100).
> 
> Therefore, any system which allows the creation of objects (in thiscase trinkets)
> that are worth A$ MUST change the number of A$ in circulation.
> 
> AirHead (still with a capital H)
>

In principle I agree. Implementation is the real problem here. Originally
Land was supposed to be the A$ anchor.

There are some interesting discussions in the archives about this, though
I'll have to look up the dates, though. 

In order for such a system to work you'd have to consider that in RL we
also constantly consume our currecncy by trading it for resources, some of
which are necessary to oru survival.
This is an aspect which also doesn't exist in Ackanomic.
I think that without implementing that aspect, we can't create the kind of
realistic economy you would have.

The result of such implementation would be that our accounts would
constantly diminish by rates which may or may not depend on our actions.
The question is, what happens to a player who can no longer 'afford' to
play? do we make that player a charity case and put eir on welfare? Are
they forced to non-action/forced Vacation status?

I might be unintentionaly referring to the earlier discussion we had
here.

Previously someplayers argues that by taking raw materials and making a
product out of them, or by sitting on a couch and inventing algorithms,
they are creating wealth out of thin air. I argued that both these actions
require investing energy. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:50:02 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>The number of "dollars" in an economic system is not the same as the
>number of little green pieces of paper in that system.  Take the
>(some would say fictional) U.S. economic system.  There are approx.
>$500 billion actual paper dollars on the planet.  Of those, approx.
>$250 billion are being horded in foriegn bank vaults (i.e., out of
>circulation).  But the U.S. has a gross national product exceeding
>$13 TRILLION.
>
>Or:
>
>Take for example Bill Gates.  He is worth about $18 billion.  But does
>he have $18 billion little green pieces of paper?  No.  He has stock worth
>$18 billion in Microsoft.
>
>So you see, money is not necessarily little green pieces of paper.
>
>To me, it seems like the A$75,000 limit must be done away with.  Maybe
>the creation of a Bureau of Economic Statistics or a Federal Reserve
>Board is in order.
>
>Any thoughts?

Acka does not have the same identical system as the real world. In acka, we
have decided to have a finite number of Ackadollars. Once you accept that
fact, it just becomes a tradeable entity on its own rather than a measure of
the wealth of Acka.

That is all.

I agree that there is a conversion done in your BG example. However, we can
still do the same in Acka. Let's say I own two trinkets each A$50000, then
my worth is A$100000, right? That's fine. As soon as I put them on the
market to sell (supposing my big fiz is implemented), no crash. No one can
buy the two of them at that price, the price goes down. You can say that
either the object worth went down, or that money's worth went up. It doesn't
matter, the result is the same. Basically, the market will always
recalibrate itself.

If I were clever though, I'd barter the $50000 trinkets. So that I got let's
say $50000 in cash and $50000 worth of other trinkets, land, goose feed,
etc, etc. That depends on how much "stuff" worth we have around. The market
will always be able to correct itself. In the real world, corrections can
take a long time to happen, here, a small world, corrections will be much
faster.

What ensures Ackadollars will be adjusted correctly is that by law, in the
rules, it is the middle step in almost all transaction. It is the start and
end of all the economy, the rest is built on top. Take that away and we
could have interesting problems. (very very long term of course)

CnH

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:54:12 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

Uri Bruck wrote:
 
> The reasoning was to prevent massive devaluation of the A$. Ackanomic is
> nowhere near simulating an actual economy.
> Perhaps some history is in order. In the early days of Ackanomic, A$ were
> just created as needed. Some players, myself included, considered this a
> very bad thing, because this would allow the creation of an unlimited
> number of A$, an act, the ultimate consequence of which would be massive
> devaluation of the A$.
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 

I'm not suggesting that we allow unlimited creation of paper $A.  We must
allow that the creation of objects of value increases the total worth of 
our economic system.  This will foster non-inflationary growth and increase
our net worth.  If every time an object of value is created either the worth
of the whole system increases or an equal number of $A must be destroyed to 
maintain the $75,000 total.

AirHead (babbling away at 2:00 in the morning)

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:59:09 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

Jason Orendorff wrote:
>         Why?  What's wrong with the worth of the island increasing?
> 
> --Mohammed

I think you missed my point; I think it's great that the value of the island
increases.  The Acka system, as I understand it, does not allow for the 
value to increase.  The problem is the lack of a distinction between little
green pieces of paper (what economists call M-1) and other forms of worth
which are measured in terms of dollars (M-2, M-3, etc.)

AirHead

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:03:43 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> In this case I would argue that the worth of the island has not
> increased -- It has just been transformed.  Resources (trees, metal ore and
> a big ol' rock for the wheel) have been converted from their natural state
> into a product. 
> 
> snowgod
> 

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  If we have $75,000 in actual paper dollars and a trinket is
created worth $A1, then the worth of the Ackanomic system is $75,001.  There
is no way around it.

AirHead

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:10:21 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

T Joffrain wrote:
>  
> I think Mohammed has nailed it there.
> So the island now has objects worth $400. So what? The amount of cash is
> still $200 and that is fine. It means that someone owning all the cash does
> not own all the resources. That's fine. I could even imagine a system where
> even with all the money in the world, you couldn't buy one object.
> 
> This could happen in Acka, this is not a problem. What market forces dictate
> is that either money increases in value or the objects go down in worth
> relative to money. Basically, money becomes a scarce commodity itself.
> 
> In the island example, it means that a if one person wants to sell a table,
> but the other has only $10 (for example) then he could sell it at that price
> and now the implication is that 10 new dollars are worth 100 of yesterday's.
> This is steep deflation (Japan has a low deflation a few years back btw).
> 
> The problem you raise I touch on also in my (grotesquely) long message under
> Internomic Trading (was Victorious Eggplant) when I mention increasing GNP
> and what it means as percent resources.
> 
> So the patch I mention means there are no inconsistencies in the rule set.
> It solidifies the somewhat strange system we have, but it is a system that
> does work. It actually only seems strange because we are dealing with a
> small closed system.
> 
> CnH
> still working on this stuff

BINGO!!!!  I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while we may limit the
number of "paper $A", the value of Ackanomia can increase well beyond this
figure due to the worth of created objects.

AirHead

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:13:15 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>> In this case I would argue that the worth of the island has not
>> increased -- It has just been transformed.  Resources (trees, metal ore and
>> a big ol' rock for the wheel) have been converted from their natural state
>> into a product. 
>
>No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  If we have $75,000 in actual paper dollars and a trinket is
>created worth $A1, then the worth of the Ackanomic system is $75,001.  There
>is no way around it.

Worth, yes. This is the whole GNP issue I have been talking about. However,
the system does not crash. It is not a problem. The GNP has increased, the
number of Ackadollars is still constant. Good Thing (tm). You are confusing
the two because in real life the two are similar (though, I should note, not
identical either) while in Acka they are very different.

Remember, Acka has a different system than in RL. Current RL system is not
the only one that works, Acka's does too, and there are plenty more ways of
implementing an economy.

CnH

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:15:15 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>Phil Ackley wrote:
>>
>> In this case I would argue that the worth of the island has not
>> increased -- It has just been transformed.  Resources (trees, metal ore and
>> a big ol' rock for the wheel) have been converted from their natural state
>> into a product.
>>
>> snowgod
>>
>
>No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  If we have $75,000 in actual paper dollars and a trinket is
>created worth $A1, then the worth of the Ackanomic system is $75,001.  There
>is no way around it.
>
>AirHead

We are mixing apples and oranges.  The "worth" of of the ackanomic system
is not measured solely in A$, which are a form of currency, nor more and no
less.

 I could declare that from now on I will no longer conduct trades using A$.
Instead, my personal "currency" will be Prosthetic foreheads becuase they
have value to me as headware and are easily tradeable.  True, not all
transactors (including tammany) would accept them, but that is just a
matter of preference (Nothing say that A$ are legal tender for all debts,
either).

When I wished to make a trade, I would select the entitiy I wish to
purchase and announce the number of foreheads that I would be willing to
trade for it (remember, though the "value" of a forehead is stuck at A$7,
the purchase prioce is variable and dependant on the owners of vending
machines) based on the value I give to them.

If I get what I consider to be "a good geal" than my "worth" has increased,
though the number of A$ I own has remained constant.

What I am trying to get at (admitadly in a rambling round about sort of
way) is that A$ are not the only measure of worth in our game.  Instead,
they are just a tradeable entity used for currency.

snowgod
Anyone wanna trade conch shells?

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:15:59 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

Yowza!!!!! My brain is melting!!!!!!!!!

AirHead

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:21:59 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>BINGO!!!!  I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while we may limit the
>number of "paper $A", the value of Ackanomia can increase well beyond this
>figure due to the worth of created objects.

Call it paper A$ if you want... it does not matter.
No one has claimed otherwise, but we have been saying that this system works
just as well. It's fine! Honestly!

snowgod makes a very very cool remark in his last post.

>We are mixing apples and oranges.  The "worth" of of the ackanomic system
>is not measured solely in A$, which are a form of currency, nor more and no
>less.

CnH
sure that a good thing is worth repeating twice

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:22:59 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

T Joffrain wrote:
> 
> Acka does not have the same identical system as the real world. In acka, we
> have decided to have a finite number of Ackadollars. Once you accept that
> fact, it just becomes a tradeable entity on its own rather than a measure of
> the wealth of Acka.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> I agree that there is a conversion done in your BG example. However, we can
> still do the same in Acka. Let's say I own two trinkets each A$50000, then
> my worth is A$100000, right? That's fine. As soon as I put them on the
> market to sell (supposing my big fiz is implemented), no crash. No one can
> buy the two of them at that price, the price goes down. You can say that
> either the object worth went down, or that money's worth went up. It doesn't
> matter, the result is the same. Basically, the market will always
> recalibrate itself.
> 
> If I were clever though, I'd barter the $50000 trinkets. So that I got let's
> say $50000 in cash and $50000 worth of other trinkets, land, goose feed,
> etc, etc. That depends on how much "stuff" worth we have around. The market
> will always be able to correct itself. In the real world, corrections can
> take a long time to happen, here, a small world, corrections will be much
> faster.
> 
> What ensures Ackadollars will be adjusted correctly is that by law, in the
> rules, it is the middle step in almost all transaction. It is the start and
> end of all the economy, the rest is built on top. Take that away and we
> could have interesting problems. (very very long term of course)
> 
> CnH

Indeed.  One problem I see is that there is no free market competition to
determine prices.  If the maker of a trinket sets its value at $A10, what
choice do you have if you want that trinket?  The trinket maker has 
cornered the market!

AirHead

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:29:04 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

T Joffrain wrote:
> 
> Worth, yes. This is the whole GNP issue I have been talking about. However,
> the system does not crash. It is not a problem. The GNP has increased, the
> number of Ackadollars is still constant. Good Thing (tm). You are confusing
> the two because in real life the two are similar (though, I should note, not
> identical either) while in Acka they are very different.
> 
> Remember, Acka has a different system than in RL. Current RL system is not
> the only one that works, Acka's does too, and there are plenty more ways of
> implementing an economy.
> 
> CnH

So how do we resolve the paradox of having $A75,000 in "paper money" and
objects worth $A x?  Or is there a paradox?  I'm not familiar enough with
the Rules to know.

AirHead

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:40:55 -6:00
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Fictionary

Here are the definitions to be voted for.

'ing' word zebub:

1. The screw used for grounding electrical switches to 120v systems.

2. A garment worn by women in Eastern Africa.

3. A large noxioux fly of Abyssinia, which like the Tsetse fly, is 
    destructive to cattle.

4. A style of furniture popular in the United States, circa 1920.

5. A Mongolian temple bell.

6. A toy; a trinket; a small worthless item.

7. A middle eastern shrub.

Techno
acting as brainiac in GF absence.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:34:42 -0600
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

T Joffrain wrote:
> 
> >BINGO!!!!  I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while we may limit the
> >number of "paper $A", the value of Ackanomia can increase well beyond this
> >figure due to the worth of created objects.
> 
> Call it paper A$ if you want... it does not matter.
> No one has claimed otherwise, but we have been saying that this system works
> just as well. It's fine! Honestly!
> 
> snowgod makes a very very cool remark in his last post.
> 
> >We are mixing apples and oranges.  The "worth" of of the ackanomic system
> >is not measured solely in A$, which are a form of currency, nor more and no
> >less.
> 
> CnH
> sure that a good thing is worth repeating twice

So, does this mean that there is no paradox; no reason for CFJ 325?

AirHead

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:38:12 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Re: Acka: Inernomic Trading

>
>I have been reading the discussions on Internomic trading (including
>Malenkai's RFC) and am intrigued.  I need to write more later when I have a
>little free time.  But I wanted to point out one thing...
>
>Thring does not even have a currency as we or the Agorans do.  Instead they
>have a tradeable point system, but these are used in different ways than
>our currency.  If anyone is interested, I'll contact their liason for
>copies of the relevant rules, etc.
>
>snowgod
>
BTW--

There must be something in the air, back in Agora a bit back I pre-Protoed
a rough idea of how Agora might engage in an internomic (small I) trade
system.  My idea is fairly complecated (and alien, I think, to the way the
Ackanomic ruleset is constructed) it consists of what one might consider
a "quarentine" sub-ruleset, independent of the Agora Ruleset, under the
dictitorial auspicies of a Customs officer who can add clauses to describe
any incoming entity. (Sorta like a mega-blueprint, maybe the idea ain't
so alien :)  Between this quarentine area is another sub-Ruleset which
is amended normally, that specifies how the described entities are permitted
to interact with native entities.

This idea is still in the formative stages, but perhaps there should be some
coordination?

Swann

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:43:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

>Indeed.  One problem I see is that there is no free market competition to
>determine prices.  If the maker of a trinket sets its value at $A10, what
>choice do you have if you want that trinket?  The trinket maker has
>cornered the market!
>
>AirHead

I recently created a trinket called "whatever it is we are acutioning
today" with a value of A$1 and placed it up for auction.  Last time I
noticed, the high bis was A$15.  The "worth" of that trinket is still A$1,
but it is valued to be much much more by some players.  Same thing with my
campaign foreheads (if you are not familiar with the I URGE you to go to
the forehead page and check it out.  8 of them were recently auctioned for
something like A$225.

These items were valued either for their collectivity (I made a limited
number of foreheads) or their harfiness (I made a unique forehead for each
existing player and the whatever it is thing is pretty silly too!).  If
someone wished to  perform better in the market, they can make a trinket
with the same "worth" but due to his creativity and/or marketing skill it's
value may be higher than what I have been able to achieve.

And* the same thing works in reverse.  If I create a trinket with a "worth"
of A$100 but no one is willing to pay more than A$10 in an auction,  it
just means that I paid too much when creating it (establing worth, not
value).

snowgod

*Despite years of training, I still have no problem begining a sentence
with "And".  In fact, I find that by violating rules of grammer (outside of
an ackanomic environment) increases my chances of publication.  For more
details, order my exclusive seminars :)

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #420
*******************************