Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
unpossible
because the swissmisses and sputniks and mark69696969s of the world think your non-sexist points of view are terrible and cesspooly
“All I wanted was humor and wisdom.” And therefore I happen to like most of JJ's posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamblor
The solution just hit me.
Surely the poo flinging can be likened to inferior goods,
This is classist?
Quote:
Censorship can be thought of as a cost of production for posts. So as censorship is reduced, costs of production decrease, post quality goes to ****.
The quality of a good does not decrease, if the cost of producing it decreases per se. The variety of goods becomes bigger in this particular case.
Quote:
But what about the income effect? Isn't "intellectual wealth" a factor? And don't a particular type of high quality goods - Giffen Goods - actually have increased demand as income increases?
A Giffen good is a product that people consume more of as the price rises because the income effect dominates over the substitution effect. But it has to do with prices. So if there is no price signal, mostly no Giffen good. And it is mainstream opinion that all Giffen goods are inferior goods not high quality goods (if they even exist). My guess is you think of a veblen good but you need at least some kind of price signal for those too.
Quote:
Isn't quality discussion a sort of Giffen good, where increased "intellectual income" is the most important determinant of quality discussion.
The Giffen good would probably be bad quality discussion not good quality discussion. If you have amount X of intellectual income and bad discussion gets more expensive, you might have to have more bad discussion because the price raise puts such a drain on your budget that you can't afford good (still more expensive) discussion anymore, if you have to make sure you get the "right" amount of discussion to survive. So this is mostly true for people with little intellectual income. It could depend on your def of intellectual income though, and on the properties of bad and good discussion.
Quote:
If people who want to be intellectual have a place to do so freely, income effects suggest that quality discussion will increase supply and demand in equilibrium as income increases.
This doesn't make any sense. If you want to say more quality posts lead to more intellectual income leads to more supply and demand for quality posts, then you are probably talking about a normal good, but I am not sure, what you are talking about.
You are not addressing JJ's concerns to actually create something like a price signal. I would love to see a trial.