Re: [videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
Game theory is actually very cold and mathematical and doesn't actually have to focus on people at all. It simply assumes that any agent in the system, given an understanding about what benefits it gets from each action, selects the action that has the chance to create the best benefit. It's a study of how local decisions create global states, nothing more. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Yes thats because my assertion was wrong. I got confused about what dislike about Game Theory. I probably dont understand it well enough to correct myself, I just dont think social darwinism completely explains behaviour, and I thought that often even when game theory looks at colabborative situations, its cant quite get away from certain beliefs that people are really always competing. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah...I didn't understand the assertion, either. Game theory absolutely can be used to demonstrate when multiple parties will collaborate or collude. In fact, game theory models explain at what level of personal gain a party can be expected to cheat on a collusion. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Net-Neutrality
An externality can be thought of as a side effect. The basic principle of market economics is that the costs of the production and consumption of a good are reflected in the price paid. This is generally called a price signal, and it's why free and frictionless markets are so good at moving to equilibrium. The problem, however, is that externalities are generally things that fly under our radars. For example, for a very long time, all forms of air pollution went without any regulation or oversight. In essence, it was free to belch soot into the air. Eventually, this created both public health and environmental issues. Because the human cost of the pollution was never placed into the cost of making the goods/energy that produced the pollution, people were effectively paying too little for their goods, and the result was that an excess of pollution ended up having a cost in other ways. A core belief in the right to unregulated commerce is that if I sell it and someone buys it, it's our right to do, but if the service or production of the good has an effect on third parties, then the libertarian notion of not forcing others is broken and requires attention. This, for many of us, is the argument for regulation, oversight, and the general existence of the democratic state. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Your post was very interesting, Im still learning about economics, could you explain this stuff about externalities? Does it have anything to do with, for example, if the finite nature of resources was factored into the price from the start, the masses may never have got to command the equivalent of thousands of horses to move them around? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, J. Rhett Aultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem I see here is externalities. If the costs of externalities were baked into every transaction, this would be true. All too often, it's not. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/greentime http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Net Neutrality Article from BBC News
H. Could be a LOT of you at Vlog Europe next year. On 08/09/2007, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey at least we are not last ... http://tinyurl.com/2yt3yu These must be frightening times in boardrooms. http://tinyurl.com/33hwwn Free Wi-Fithe whole notion steps on too many powerful toes. And those toes are attached to well-connected money-making companies such as ATT Internet speed/cost is proportionate to sphincter contraction? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: US backing for two-tier internet http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6983375.stm The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers should be allowed to charge for priority traffic. The agency said it was opposed to network neutrality, the idea that all data on the net is treated equally. where's the guy on this list who said commericial companies should be able to do anything they want? I'd love to hear his spin on this. Great, so in a couple yearsour web experience will be decided by what website Comcast and ATT decide pay enough to get the fast service. Any creator on this list will have slow, tedious videos. they are creating a false scarcity. Funny how free marketers like to choose when free markets are helpful to them. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 **check out the new look: ryanishungry.com** -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Skype: thejeffreytaylor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
