The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
That doesn't make any sense, because winning games is zero sum.
It's not zero sum for the freaking league! The league is ultimately the business here. The individual franchises are in collaboration.
And winning games doesn't even truly correspond to an individual franchise's commercial success.
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
American sports leagues do not operate like that. There is no such thing as a franchise being relegated to a lower league.
But yes, the stock traders are paid to compete with one another, not just because they may work for competitive firms on the arena of the stock floor, but because they compete for jobs in the industry.
A trader's performance as it relates to his firm's revenues is tied to his compensation in the same way as a football player's performance as it relates to his team/league's revenues is tied to his compensation.
Sorry, very bad wording on my part in respect of stock traders competing. Stock trading is not a zero sum game. In a football match you either win or lose, all or nothing. You either get the FA Cup all to yourself or miss out on it. I was also thinking of a relatively small market. (Perhaps there is scope for enormous salary differentials in the largest foreign stock exchanges such as London and New York, I don't know about broker remuneration for them).
Sorry, very bad wording on my part in respect of stock traders competing. Stock trading is not a zero sum game. In a football match you either win or lose, all or nothing. You either get the FA Cup all to yourself or miss out on it. I was also thinking of a relatively small market. (Perhaps there is scope for enormous salary differentials in the largest foreign stock exchanges such as London and New York, I don't know about broker remuneration for them).
I don't know how international soccer works but it probably works a lot differently than the NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB in America. An American sports franchise is not independent; it's literally a franchise of the league.
Some team wins the championship every year. It doesn't usually matter for the business (the league) who wins, as tickets will be sold. What the league would ideally want though is gaudy stars who sell more jerseys and so forth, generating more attention for the league, whether the team of the star player wins anything or not.
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
I contend virtually every profession is as positional as professional sports.
You are, of course, completely wrong.
You (and gribbler, if I'm reading his posts right) are misunderstanding positionality. It doesn't mean "someone who is better than I am reduces the value of my labor". A good is positional if its value is determined solely by its rank and therefore the market for it is zero-sum. If a new janitor enters the market, one who is really fast and efficient at cleaning things, this detracts somewhat from the value of all the other janitors - but it does so by transferring producer surplus from them to the consumers, not by destroying it. Therefore total value has increased by exactly his marginal product.
Similarly, in general a trader who is estimates more accurate prices for securities than other traders is creating value, no just transferring it from others to himself.
I contend virtually every profession is as positional as professional sports.
You are, of course, completely wrong.
You (and gribbler, if I'm reading his posts right) are misunderstanding positionality. It doesn't mean "someone who is better than I am reduces the value of my labor". A good is positional if its value is determined solely by its rank and therefore the market for it is zero-sum. If a new janitor enters the market, one who is really fast and efficient at cleaning things, this detracts somewhat from the value of all the other janitors - but it does so by transferring producer surplus from them to the consumers, not by destroying it. Therefore total value has increased by exactly his marginal product.
Similarly, in general a trader who is estimates more accurate prices for securities than other traders is creating value, no just transferring it from others to himself.
And yet, I have demonstrated how the league revenue pie has expanded and contracted over the years with the emergence of different, more marketable players.
Hell, ever heard of expansion teams?
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
And yet, I have demonstrated how the league revenue pie has expanded and contracted over the years with the emergence of different, more marketable players.
Thank you for noticing the point I made at the beginning, that athletics are only partly positional.
Thank you for noticing the point I made at the beginning, that athletics are only partly positional.
As is any other profession!
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Let's say we have a person building widgets. He costs $100/day and produces enough widgets to generate $500/day in revenue. A new guy comes along and can make widgets faster. Now, if the market is there for more widgets and his asking wage is appropriate for the increase in revenues, then yeah... If he asks for $50 more a day and adding him generates $100 more in revenue, go ahead and the other slower guy gets laid-off.
I'm not understanding how that is at all different than what goes on in professional sports.
Let's say we have a person building a fan-base. He costs $10M/year and provides enough fans who buy stuff to generate $50M/year in revenue. A new guy comes along and is better at building a fan-base (he wins games, puts up numbers, is charismatic at press conferences, etc.). Now, if the market is there for more fans and his asking salary is appropriate for the increase in revenues, etc. and the first guy gets cut.
What the hell is the difference?
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
For the league, which is the actual firm in this case (NOT the team!), no, it's not a factor at all, obviously.
For the teams, the relationship isn't very strong. Winning games can help generate sales sure but it's not the only thing that can do so and just because a team wins games doesn't mean it will have commercial success. Fan/Consumer loyalty is also incredibly strong as is regional preference.
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Alby, does winning games have an effect on a franchise's earnings?
You know what, I'm going to say NO.
As of 2008, the Washington Redskins were the NFL's highest-revenue team and they haven't won **** in decades.
Fan/Consumer loyalty, regional preference, 'drama', player personalities, etc. etc. all come into play and mean that on-field success is only one factor to commercial success for the team.
And what's good for an individual team isn't all that important here. The League is the firm.
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Let's say we have a person building widgets. He costs $100/day and produces enough widgets to generate $500/day in revenue. A new guy comes along and can make widgets faster. Now, if the market is there for more widgets and his asking wage is appropriate for the increase in revenues, then yeah... If he asks for $50 more a day and adding him generates $100 more in revenue, go ahead and the other slower guy gets laid-off.
I'm not understanding how that is at all different than what goes on in professional sports.
Let's say we have a person building a fan-base. He costs $10M/year and provides enough fans who buy stuff to generate $50M/year in revenue. A new guy comes along and is better at building a fan-base (he wins games, puts up numbers, is charismatic at press conferences, etc.). Now, if the market is there for more fans and his asking salary is appropriate for the increase in revenues, etc. and the first guy gets cut.
What the hell is the difference?
Alby. Look up "anologistic reasoning" or anology. Study it.
You are picking anologies that are not entirely appropriate and not sufficiently taking account of differences.
Tweet
Comment