Stefan wrote:
B1rd wrote:
It's not my fault if you don't speak in a way that's clearly understandable. But if you want me to just ignore you when you make incoherent posts instead of pointing it out I can do that too.
I'd appreciate that a lot. Having one less smartass to look for will help me for sure.
Obviously your English skills are a soft spot for you, doesn't mean you need to get an attitude with me because I pointed it out.
Railey2 wrote:
Trying to define the most efficient legal framework for an economy involving millions of people is no easy task, no matter if it's taken care of by a private instance or by the government. If you think that the government is just relying on its own people to pass regulations, you should think again. In most countries, the government relies heavily on experts from economic and natural sciences to develop better-working industry standards. It's not just people with no connection to the industry "handing down arbitrary judgments". Most governments are involved in a constant dialogue with the industry. Regulations aren't something that depends on the whim of some high ranked politicians.
That aside, what exactly is the system you suggesting here? How would these.. "private organizations" look like, and how exactly would they outdo the government?
I don't doubt that the government has some methods of creating regulations, but I think everything I said about it is still valid. No mater how much 'dialogue' is has with existing industries the top down method of control still creates an inefficient system with many negative side effects which hinder economic progress. In the end a lot of these judgement actually are influenced by the arbitrary whims of high ranking politicians; the system also creates the opportunity for corruption, and a lot of these established companies lobby the government for regulations that hinder competition and help create a monopolistic effect on the market. A lot of these regulations, as well as laws within our society, are based on the premise of 'safety' or protecting women' or 'helping the poor' and because of this emotional appeal the negative consequences are not fully appreciated or considered. This is the negative effect subjecting the market to the logic of a limited amount of people creates.
I don't propose any sort of system except that the government does not interfere with economic matters, instead it should do the job it is supposed to do which is provide defense and physical security for its citizens. Besides these things (and some people argue, not even those) there isn't a problem where the only solution is government interference. Because in essence, the free market is the collective minds of millions of people with the ability to problem solve. So while I'm not an expert on this matter I can say that if a demand exists, such as the demand for safety and food uncontaminated with toxic substances, I can say that it can be met by a private company. I know such entities exist already actually, that say '
x product is certified' by whatever organisation. If the government stopped regulating the economy, I can theorise the role of these types of organisations would increase. And it would be a much more efficient way to run the economy. Because however good you think the government can run things, it is much harder to change the policies of a monolithic entity that is only vaguely accountable for its actions, compared to a multitude of competing private organisations whose prosperity depend solely in finding the best balance between consumer safety and profit and efficiency of the product.
I was gonna reply to your post way back but I didn't bother in the end. It was how mapping in osu! actually is dependent on economic principles. But to get to the point, anime maps are popular because they are easy to make (lots of supply) and are played by a lot of people (demand). The way everything works in mapping is due to underlying principles and effects, not arbitrary choices, and it's ignorant and arrogant not to recognise this and think that you could have any effect on this, or that by your policies you could influence mapping in a way that the consumers would enjoy more.
If you favour diversity in mapping, you need to look at the underlying reasons behind the lack of diversity (I hate that word). The biggest one is ppv2, which creates a very large demand for generic maps which include generic patterns that are easy to execute and give a lot of pp. The second is the regulations and control of the ranking team, which make it hard for mappers to rank unique maps. And of course the other reason is that not everyone thinks 'creative maps', like Camellia maps with heaps of slider spam are better and more enjoyable, and prefer to play maps with simpler patterns.