1132 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dropping the Reaper plot gains us nothing. We can dominate it, harnessing its essence to bring Mass Effect to the apex of storytelling.

Listen to yourself! You're indoctrinated!

[MegaSovereign]

I don't think Mass Effect 2 should have outright declared how the Reapers should have been stopped. The problem is that the solution to the Reaper threat that ME3 presents isn't all that creative.

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

When the economies fell into recession and liquidity dried up, no one went, we need lower interest rates, so lets create an expansionist policy. 

That's exactly what they do. Interest rates are inversely related to GDP. They cause fluxuactions of GDP. Which of course defines a recession in the first place.

You're an incredibly tedious person, and I'm done with this discussion. The fact that you're taking 20 minutes between posts leads me to suspect you're likely looking up most of what you're posting off Wikipedia. I'd prefer to spend my time conversing with people smart enough to realize that putting "You don't know what the hell you're talking about" at the end of every post is not a magical instant win card. 

You're an incredibly stupid person, when most people would actually listen, you prefer to double down and dig in further. Interest rates are is not inversely related to GDP, at least not outside of a vaccum and only in the short term, or we would have expotential growth in GPD at this point, we don't, and what growth was created was done so by heavy use of QE stimulation. Again, you don't have a bloody clue what your talking about.

Discussions imply that you actually had anything to say other than floundering about from one point to the next, while my posts to you take about 5 minutes, I do like to spend my time doing other things other than trying to dispel your astonishing level of ignorance. It is very tedious to keep explaining things to you as you clearly don't want to learn, but I'm currently catching up on reading Game of Thrones, so its not difficult to poke holes in what you blabber on about in the mean time. 

The day you have an intelligent conversation with anyone is the day you put the sock puppets away and get rid ot the reconfirming delusions that you're right.

Modifié par billy the squid, 18 août 2013 - 01:43 .

[MegaSovereign]

Holy sh*t. Why don't you guys stop arguing about the economy and talk about things that actually matter, like genocidal cuddlefish.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Holy sh*t. Why don't you guys stop arguing about the economy and talk about things that actually matter, like genocidal cuddlefish.

No! They must keep arguing about the economy.

It suits our my needs.

[Erez Kristal]

Me 2 was a a great game that didnt hinder the grand plot in the slightest.
i agree it didnt advance it by much, but i fail to see how that turn to be a problem/
they could have extended the story to be a little bit longer and the problem will be solved.

Modifié par erezike, 18 août 2013 - 01:48 .

[Br3admax]

Stop trying to talk about Mass Effect, can't you see that we are trying to debate economic theory?

[David7204]

Dear me.

This is not only, basic, basic, information that any economics textbook can acclaim to, it's basic logic.

Yes, GDP is inversely related to interest. When interest rates are low, money is more easily available and people have less motivation to save (and thus more to spend.) Therefore, consumption and investment rises and GDP increase. When interest rates are high, money is less easily available and people have more motivation to save (and thus less to spend.) Thus, consumption and investment drop. GDP decreases.

Thus, we have the cycle of high interest rates during economic booms and low interest rates during recessions. Like right now. The economy does well, causing interest rates to go up, causing the economy to slow. The economy does poorly, causing interest rates to decrease, causing the economy to speed up. A cycle.

I have no idea where you're getting this very silly idea that interest rates inversely affecting GDP would cause GDP to expand exponentially.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 01:56 .

[Br3admax]

Low interest rates are not a good thing. They stop invest into our economy and drive away foreign aid. They also allow for Americans to invest in other counties so the investor will get a better deal. Any economics textbook would tell you that.

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...

Dear me.

This is not only, basic, basic, information that any economics textbook can acclaim to, it's basic logic.

Yes, GDP is inversely related to interest. When interest rates are low, money is more easily available and people have less motivation to save. Therefore, consumption and investment rises and GDP increase. When interest rates are high, money is less easily available and people have more motivation to save. Thus, consumption and investment drop. GDP decreases.

As per usual, the failure to understand anything outside the most basic of concepts shows itself once again. 

All economies exist in a vaccum do they? And in the years preeceeding the fincial crisis economies, had low interest rates did they? Nope. But yes, GDP has an inverse correlation to interest rates, this will be alpplied and is an imutable fact regardless of all other factors which impact economies. Like the ones right now, while terms such as stagflation and stagnation are just made up.

You really are dumb.

Modifié par billy the squid, 18 août 2013 - 02:00 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't think David understands monetary policy.

[Steelcan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I don't think Mass Effect 2 should have outright declared how the Reapers should have been stopped. The problem is that the solution to the Reaper threat that ME3 presents isn't all that creative.

It doesn't have to declare exactly how it will work.  Just provide a context for a solution to be found.  Having Cerberus discover a Reaper weakness in the opening hours of ME3 would work.  A magically appearing Reaper off button found on an already examined cache on Mars is not in any way grounded in the prior games.

[David7204]

Did I say economics exist in a vacuum? No. Obviously, plenty of other factors affect GDP, and it's therefore perfectly possible to have a low interest rate among other factors lead to a lower GDP and a high interest rate among other factors lead to a higher GDP.

However, that doesn't change the simple fact that interest rates and GDP are generally inversely related.

Do you have anything to say to the actual example I gave? Any attempt to refute my logic?

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 02:03 .

[David7204]

Lathrim wrote...

True. I'm not about to deny that. Just as I can say ME2 not giving a solution being the problem, it can also be said that ME3 not having time for both the solution and the execution is the issue.

You can have it both ways. Have ME 2 weaken the Reapers without diminishing them as threats or providing a solution to them.

I wrote a thread about two weeks ago suggesting such an alternate plotline. Why don't you check it out?

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...


I have no idea where you're getting this very silly idea that interest rates inversely affecting GDP would cause GDP to expand exponentially.

You don't read well do you?

If interest rates affected GDP inversely, then GDP would be expanding expotentially at the moment. It's not.

You've used a basic  premise and expanded it into a universal truth. It's not, that's very very stupid. With in a vaccum, the inverse relationship would apply, and funnily enough economies don't exist in a vaccum, nor does it work in the long term.

[David7204]

And why on Earth would that be?

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...

Did I say economics exist in a vacuum? No. Obviously, plenty of other factors affect GDP, and it's therefore perfectly possible to have a low interest rate among other factors lead to a lower GDP and a high interest rate among other factors lead to a higher GDP.

However, that doesn't change the simple fact that interest rates and GDP are generally inversely related.

Do you have anything to say to the actual example I gave? Any attempt to refute my logic?

Did I say it didn't? I said you're attrubuting it to existing in a vaccum, regardless of long term consequences. 

Keep making simplistic satements and keep wondering why everyone thinks you don't have a clue what your talking about.

Edit: 

There is no logic to anything you've said. You just made a basic statement and said, this is logic. And what? What does that prove?

Modifié par billy the squid, 18 août 2013 - 02:13 .

[David7204]

Yes actually, you did say that.

billy the squid wrote...

Interest rates are is not inversely related to GDP

I notice you went back and edited in a line after it later.

The fact that you're trying to use 'It may not work outside a vacuum' as a criticism seems very silly to me, seeing as that applies to just about every physical, economic, and social principle in existence.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 02:18 .

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...

Yes actually, you did say that.

billy the squid wrote...

Interest rates are is not inversely related to GDP

I notice you went back and edited in a line after it later.

The fact that you're trying to use 'It doesn't work in a vacuum' as a criticism seems very silly to me, seeing as that applies to just about every physical, economic, and social principle in existence.

And look what came after it.

"or we would have expotential growth in GPD at this point, we don't, and what growth was created was done so by heavy use of QE stimulation"

Your entire point was "look interst rates are inversely correlated to GDP" proved your point of economic policy dictating monetary policy, somehow, you managed to get to that stage through several twisting logical falacies. 

And I explained to you no it doesn't and why, and that using a statistical inverse correlation and saying "yes it does" doesn't work when I showed you that adjusting interest rates as monetary policy was not the reason expansionist economics was put in place, because it didn't work in the first place to improve the rate of GDP at all. 

So using a model which only works as a basic principle and going look, it's right with no regard to anything else is very stupid.

Modifié par billy the squid, 18 août 2013 - 02:24 .

[David7204]

I'd you to explain to me where you're getting this little idea that GDP being inverse to interest must cause GDP to expand 'exponentially.'

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 02:27 .

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...

I'd you to explain to me where you're getting this little idea that GDP being inverse to interest must cause GDP to expand 'exponentially.'

Urgh. It only works in a statictical model, as I explained to you, which is why I keep telling you to that your point makes no sense and is ridiculous. 

Increased GDP is a sign of economic growth, which has a multiplier effect as the economy in question expands based on its own inertia becoming procyclical. 

Which is why it doesn't work in real terms, because the growth can't be expotential outside a theoretical model, at least not beyond a sustainable level, in a theoretical model the growth will continue as the economic growth fuels itself indefinately. That doesn't happen in real economics. Which is why your point about logic and GDP and inverse relationships with interest does nothing to actually help the the completely wrong point you were trying to make.

[ruggly]

Drop it completely? No. Made the second game have something to do with preparing for the Reapers? Yes. That way, the third game would not have struggled as much.

[Br3admax]

I see a locking in this thread's future.

[dreamgazer]

Do the Reapers control the GDP in the Mass Effect universe or something?

I'll just throw in my quick two cents about the topic: they probably should have closed the door on the Reapers permanently at the end of ME1 and focused on different "conflicts" for later games. It would take very few tweaks to make the Collectors work in this scenario, and then the writers wouldn't be forced with the Herculean task of making the defeat of the mecha-Cthulhu not look moronic.

The Crucible isn't great, but there are indeed worse alternatives and the idea would've actually played out fine with a little tailoring (introduced less abruptly, discussed the Crucible's capabilities more openly, explained how certain functions aren't tied to the MEU's negative connotations, etc.)

[Display Name Owner]

I disagree. For one, introducing the Reaper plot and then saying "well, it's 1000 years away, so here's something else" would have been completely unsatisfying and a bit silly. I reckon the Reaper plot could have worked with a few tweaks, and if they'd actually given it proper attention throughout the series. The Reapers became a backdrop for all the other stuff that went on in ME3, most notably Cerberus. And I like to think they could have done something more original than the Crucible, but even that wasn't a big sin for me. That it came out of thin air and we were literally told to forget about learning anything about it was kind of ridiculous. But the reason for that is that we had to do this with the Krogan, and that with the Quarians instead.

Really I think that they tried to squeeze too much other stuff around the Reaper plot, which was why it was lacking. All that other stuff - exploring the galaxy, learning about the species, politics, figuring out humanity's place in the world - that all could have continued after the Reaper plot was done. So imo, more time should have been devoted to the Reapers (which in itself could have featured lots of exploration and interesting information and mystery solving), instead of tossing it aside for everything else.