Please change taxes...

So... After a few weeks of this, I can safely say Market Board taxes are ridiculous...

For one, they're pretty damn high... Ideally I think the tax the seller receives should be based on the stack size they're putting up, to hopefully encourage not putting 99s up, as well as singles. Ideally the quantity that gets taxed the least should be in the 10~20s range, though I guess it really does depend on the item in question...

The worst of it though, is that the seller is taxed after the item sells. Do you know what this does, Yoshida? It results in an absolute mess, that's what. Right now we have utterly rampant undercutting. Why? Because once you put something up, you can adjust the price of it free of charge. So I put something up, someone sees what I put it up for, they undercut, I see them undercutting and adjust my prices, repeat ad infinitum and with a dozen or so people... You're seeing items dropping in price at a ridiculously fast pace. Tax sellers the moment they put an item up for sale, then they'll be much less willing to adjust their price since it'll cost them extra. Alternatively just put a tax in for adjusting the price... Anything... Just stop this madness...

I also don't really get why we still have a tax based on the location of the Retainer... With Market Wards gone this seems like something else that should have gone with it, but with the ease of transport I guess that is much less of an issue. Still, it doesn't really add anything at all to the market...

Totally agree. If I could give you another thumb I would.

Totally agree you should have to pay a fee for adjusting the price, else it is heaven for gilsellers and that sort of people who like to undercut all the time.

5% is fine. it's enough to create a [del]gold[/del] gil-sink to combat inflation as well as to detract people from flipping the market for profit unless the buy/sell spread (the profit has to be larger than 5% or else it's actually a loss) is large enough, in which case it'd place the value of said item closer to equilibrium of the market price.

As for the 99 stacks, they'll be discouraged from posting them up like that simply by people not wanting to buy their stack and they will learn that it's not selling.

You need to keep in mind though that the tax rate, unlike most other mmo's isn't set in stone. The tax rate can and will change accordingly to the market. This is one thing that I like about the FF14 market since the tax rate can actually change accordingly.

Onto the next point: It's a good thing that you are taxed only once the item sells rather than each time to put it up or adjust the price. If the game punishes you for every time you list something rather than actually selling it and thus contributing to the economy, then everyone in this game will lose more money than they can gain on the market due to competition and other suppliers. It would discourage anyone from selling most things on the market, thus creating a shortage of suppliers and thus increased prices for the buyers. People will always need to adjust their price if their item is not selling.

Second, under-cutters are healthy for the economy, this also ties into why people should be allowed to adjust their prices freely. Under-cutters will try to sell for less than the other person even if it means by 1 gil, this will drive prices down to equilibrium which is good. The reason why you're seeing a lot of under-cutters right now is because the game and it's economy are still relatively new, it's in it's infancy as people are still in the process of figuring out where supply and demand would meet. This has nothing to do with the economy being 'bad', but rather with the economy being new and structuring itself. It seems your post isn't really about the economy, but rather you are just being angry that you can't sell stuff due to your competitors.

As for the last thing.....
I also have no clue why the different cities have different tax rates. It would make sense for each city to have their own fluctuating tax rates if the markets in each city were separate from each other, that way it would encourage people to sell at the city with the lowest tax rate to increase the supply in that city to ensure that everything is evenly distributed.
However, since the market is connect with all of the cities, this makes it completely pointless as everyone would just sell from the city with the lowest tax, but the same supply will be able to be accessed from any city.


Sorry for all of the posts in a row, the forum imposes a 1000 character limit -_- my post was like 4500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

zigkid3's undercut post

---

Rampant undercutting isn't good for the economy. Much of what players list on the market has considerable time invested in obtaining it, whether through time gathering and crafting or running through instances. Just because someone can devote their every waking hour to gathering up items for the market it means the times I end up with a piece I don't need it's utterly useless. The return on selling in the market is too low, and I can't give it away to another toon of mine, thanks to the in-account mail restriction.

Equilibrium prices, where any given day they price can fluctuate +/-5% are great, but when the geniuses undercutting are selling crafted items for 1g, we all know that's ridiculous beyond L1-5 crafting. Yes, the market's young but that's not an excuse for the things we're seeing in the market. I don't mind competitors, but I prefer they have a brain.

People will continue to undercut repeatedly until prices fall enough to hit equilibrium. I was under the assumption that people liked cheaper prices and stability in the markets, I guess I was wrong.

I'm not against undercutting, I'm against rampant undercutting. The kind which has seen items fall from 5k to 100g in the space of a day.

If you're taxed for adjusting prices, then that makes you think twice about adjusting prices. Prices become much more stable because of that. Undercutting still happens, it just happens when a new supply enters the market, supply and demand being the most basic principle in economics. Items would have much more stable prices with such a tax, because people would sooner wait for it to sell than eat a tax. New supply would drive the price down, that's the way it should be, not "Impatient sellers who camp the market drive the prices down into oblivion" like we're seeing now. Do you get punished if you misjudged the market? Sure. You put something up for such a price that there is no demand for it, you'll have to eat that tax to adjust to a reasonable price. That's actually a good thing. It means you don't over price, because you'll likely get taxed. Prices fall to much more reasonable levels faster so as to avoid taxes, and undercutting becomes considerably less rampant resulting in much more stable prices. Win-win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

People will continue to undercut repeatedly until prices fall enough to hit equilibrium.

---

In theory a (free) market regulates itself to a point of a perfect equilibrium, however in an online game this certainly is not the case due to human stupidity. People will undercut until no profits are to be had, your prime example of both human stupidity and a failure of thousands of children running an economy would be fish. There's plenty of fish on AH under the NPCs' buying price.

Furthermore most of economical theories are a bunch of mathematical modeling which have hardly any merit under any real circumstances, due to unpredictable human individuality as well as economists being clueless about mathematics leading to countless formal mistakes. Every model you learn about at university is simplified to hell and back and is only there to give students a basic understanding of market mechanisms.

Are you serious? Complaining about 5%? That's nothing.

GW2 is something like 15% and I still made all my gil in that game flipping AH items for a profit.

This doesn't need to be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s4ntana

Are you serious? Complaining about 5%? That's nothing.

GW2 is something like 15% and I still made all my gil in that game flipping AH items for a profit.

This doesn't need to be changed.

---

It was pretty high when along side other Gil sinks, namely repair/Dark Matter costs, but that is being address already so yeah, 5% is pretty much fine now. Still, I'd like to see the tax rate adjust based on quantity. The basis for the new market system is that lower quantities should sell for more (you pay for the convenience of getting only what you need) than higher quantities, that's what the developers pretty much want to see (and the sellers). If a single item is taxed higher than a stack of items, then selling singles and stacks for the exact same amount is foolish. One might think this would lead to nobody ever selling singles, but the demand is certainly there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sotek

I'm not against undercutting, I'm against rampant undercutting. The kind which has seen items fall from 5k to 100g in the space of a day.

---

So you're worried about the speed at which the market is becoming stable? What? That should be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sotek

New supply would drive the price down, that's the way it should be, not "Impatient sellers who camp the market drive the prices down into oblivion" like we're seeing now.

---

It's both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sotek

Do you get punished if you misjudged the market? Sure. You put something up for such a price that there is no demand for it, you'll have to eat that tax to adjust to a reasonable price. That's actually a good thing. It means you don't over price, because you'll likely get taxed. Prices fall to much more reasonable levels faster so as to avoid taxes, and undercutting becomes considerably less rampant resulting in much more stable prices. Win-win.

---

Whether there are extra taxes for each price adjustment or just on the sale, sellers will continue to undercut each other either way, it won't matter. The only difference you made is everyone will end up paying a lot more just to post things up every time and now all you did was decrease the supply by discouraging people from selling stuff as often and drive up prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalien

Nalien's it's just a theory and doesn't reflect anything post

---

The "it's just a theory" argument is no better than trying to disprove the theory of relativity and evolution just because they're labeled as a theory. Think of theories as a mathematical model to explain how/why things work the way they do. They're labeled "theory" because a theory follows an inductive reasoning process rather than deductive. Go look out in the world and you'll see every model for economics are extremely accurate.

If you knew anything about economics you would know that it already takes into account human nature. I don't see how you can even claim that economists are clueless about math, when all they do every day is math; calculations, graphs, comparing data, etc... that statement just made me cringe.

An online game economy would follow these basic principles, even more so since it's much more simplified than real life and because information is more readily available on the auction house and very simplified for everyone to see as it's literally right in front of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

The "it's just a theory" argument is no better than trying to disprove the theory of relativity and evolution just because they're labeled as a theory. Think of theories as a mathematical model to explain how/why things work the way they do.

---

Just no, relativity theory is mathematically profound using the most abstract models mathematics has to offer, undergraduate/graduate economist models use GCSE/A-Level mathematics at best and are incapable of properly describing a series of stochastic processes. Have you ever even seen a university from the inside?

Quote:

---

If you knew anything about economics you would know that it already takes into account human nature. I don't see how you can even claim that economists are clueless about math, when all they do every day is math; calculations, graphs, comparing data, etc... that statement just made me cringe.

---

I've studied both Economics and Mathematics by the way, and economists do in fact know shit all about Maths. Even Economics Ph.Ds have barely any understanding of real mathematical theory and profound modeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Whether there are extra taxes for each price adjustment or just on the sale, sellers will continue to undercut each other either way, it won't matter. The only difference you made is everyone will end up paying a lot more just to post things up every time and now all you did was decrease the supply by discouraging people from selling stuff as often and drive up prices.

---

Really? A tax on price adjustments discourages putting things up for sale, instead of discouraging adjusting their price every hour? Seriously?

People are seriously going to continue adjusting their price every hour when its costing them a 5% tax each time, even though that will quickly kill their entire profit margin? They're going to just stop selling items instead of displaying some damned patience and waiting a while before adjusting their price in order to avoid the tax?

The only people who would stop selling because of a price adjustment tax are the complete and utter morons who are currently ruining this games economies. Everyone else is smart enough to realize that if you're taxed up-front, you don't waste Gil adjusting every time someone else shows up... Would I rather;
A) Wait an extra day or so for an item to sell at the price I originally put it up for in a stable market, or;
B) Sit at the market board all day, undercutting at every possible chance to ensure a sale, and eat a 5% tax each time?
The answer is bleedin' obvious... Your server must be pretty damn terrible if you think a significant number of people would opt for B...

Nalien:
that's because the models have different requirements, just because one uses more advanced forms of math doesn't make the other not true. How do I into numbers, i don't even.

Sotek:
Because by imposing a tax for every price adjustment, if your item does not sell you either relist it and pay another tax, or let it expire and then relist to pay another tax. if they have to readjust the price even once or more than it will cost more each and every time. at some point most people will be selling at the same price once it hits equilibrium, then not only are you selling something but a ton more other people. you'll be incurring a loss, and thus the best move would be not to play.
No one would pick B obviously because the cost would be so high. There are so many players in the game that once you list a trade good, chances are someone will undercut you (if not at equilibrium) within the next hour, and yay now everyone is forced into scenario B because of your idea.

Everyone is not forced into B, they wait until the undercutter sells, then theirs sells, because they'd rather avoid the tax. It's that bleedin' simple. There simply are not enough new suppliers for their undercutting to force your to adjust price, the only thing forcing a price adjustment at the moment is the fact that people who've already put items up can, and will, adjust their price the moment they're undercut. If there are enough new suppliers, the in all likelihood the price is too high for the supply/demand anyway, in which case you're taxed for overpricing the item to begin with. Once an item reaches equilibrium, being undercut by a negligible amount becomes a completely non-issue, because the price/demand/supply should all be such that your item moves regardless of being undercut...

I mean seriously... You're talking about equilibrium and a stable market, yet you're defending a system that freely allows for an item to constantly be undercut by the same people, before anything even sells... That is the opposite of stability... Prices fluctuate wildly, not because the game is still new, but because there is absolutely no reason for them to remain stable. There is zero reason not to adjust your price when you're undercut right now, short of being away from the market, and that means prices are completely fluid. Again, that is not stability.

The game seriously needs a tax for changing prices or putting an item for sale. Like 1% (then the sales tax is reduced to 4% to compensate).

Otherwise, it takes only two extremely active people to undercut each other to profit smithereens, on items I sell with 4-5 people in the competition for the lowest price, it gets pretty ludicrous. If there was a tax only considerable and slow undercuts would be made (which would mostly be done by people first placing their item for sale), instead of 1 gil undercuts every 2 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

As for the last thing.....
I also have no clue why the different cities have different tax rates. It would make sense for each city to have their own fluctuating tax rates if the markets in each city were separate from each other, that way it would encourage people to sell at the city with the lowest tax rate to increase the supply in that city to ensure that everything is evenly distributed.

---

The differing tax rate you're seeing isn't because the different cities have different tax rates. It's because there's one tax rate when the retainer is in the same city as the purchasing characer and a higher one when they are in different cities.

Quote:

---

Nalien:
that's because the models have different requirements, just because one uses more advanced forms of math doesn't make the other not true. How do I into numbers, i don't even.

---

Thank you very much for further proving my point that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Clueless, incompetent people like you are the reason I changed to a real science by the way.

Sotek: Either way, the market will reach equilibrium. the difference is the speed at which it will happen. The more frequent the undercutting, the faster it will reach it. Also to show you how and why including more tax would negatively effect the market, here is a graph for you: http://ingrimayne.com/econ/government/Figure13.4.gif
the big triangle between ab&c is the dead weight loss, which is a loss of efficiency within the market. The more of a tax you impose, the larger the triangle and the less efficient the market becomes. (shaded regions are the tax revenue which is gil taken out of the game). Notice how the supply line shifts left the more and greater the tax becomes, and now look what happens to the price increase, and quantity supplied decreases as the line continues to shift left.

Nalien: I mentioned those theories since you apparently you didn't know why certain concepts are labeled as a "theory", it's because they perform inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. my mention about the level of math in which they use is because you were claiming one thing was more true than the other just because it used more complex math which is preposterous. All forms of math are made from the building blocks of previous math principles. 1+1 will equal 2, it's basic, but it will always be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Sotek: Either way, the market will reach equilibrium. the difference is the speed at which it will happen. The more frequent the undercutting, the faster it will reach it. Also to show you how and why including more tax would negatively effect the market, here is a graph for you: http://ingrimayne.com/econ/government/Figure13.4.gif
the big triangle between ab&c is the dead weight loss, which is a loss of efficiency within the market. The more of a tax you impose, the larger the triangle and the less efficient the market becomes. (shaded regions are the tax revenue which is gil taken out of the game). Notice how the supply line shifts left the more and greater the tax becomes, and now look what happens to the price increase, and quantity supplied decreases as the line continues to shift left.

---

You're implying everyone would be taxed. They wouldn't.

How is this not simple? You tax people for adjusting their price, it's an optional tax, one everyone can avoid with a little patience. If you don't adjust your price, you don't get taxed. You price things properly and even if a new supplier undercuts, your item eventually sells once they're gone.

Sure, right now with the frequency of undercutting, equilibrium will be reached faster, unfortunately that equilibrium is less profitable than selling to an NPC for virtually everything 1-40ish. I utterly dumbfounded that anyone thinks the current market isn't hideously broken... A dozen people adjusting prices to undercut each other constantly before anything even sells does not make for a stable economy and it never will. There needs to be an actual deterrent against such sheer stupidity, and an easily avoidable tax is perfect for the job. Heck, they could just prevent price adjustments completely, make the post-sales tax - which has absolutely no purpose other than being a Gil-drain - into a pre-sales tax and without price adjustments it acts as a Gil-drain and acts as a deterrent against rampant undercutting/stupidity, all without adding a new tax to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Nalien: I mentioned those theories since you apparently you didn't know why certain concepts are labeled as a "theory", it's because they perform inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. my mention about the level of math in which they use is because you were claiming one thing was more true than the other just because it used more complex math which is preposterous. All forms of math are made from the building blocks of previous math principles. 1+1 will equal 2, it's basic, but it will always be true.

---

And again you show no understanding of the meaning of the models. Basic idea =/= how real situations work out.

Sotek: So you say there there would be no tax for the original posting, correct? Then what is to stop someone from undermining tax on price adjustments by getting around it by taking the item down completely and then re-posting it as if it were a new posting. Everyone would just use that roundabout way and continue what they are doing. If you don't want people doing that, then you'd have to tax the initial price as well. I will bet than in either scenario (especially the 2nd) people will overall pay more in tax over a given period of time than they are now, which would cause the supply shift I mentioned. With your idea, people will experience low turnover ratios instead of the higher turnover ratios they could have had, you'll screw up the market's cash flow.

Nalien: An idea based upon math, and logical reasoning that has shown to provide consistent results time and time again. If what you claim is true, then why do giant financial institutions use these models on a daily basis? Because they are very accurate.

Food for thought: If taxing for every price adjustment is better, why don't we do this in real life? As it is now, real life taxes items once they are sold. Why is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Sotek: So you say there there would be no tax for the original posting, correct?

---

Where do I say this? Because I'm fairly certain I've suggested switching the 5% sales tax (which again, servers no real purpose) to a pre-sales tax. IE you put something up for sale, and right there you pay 5% in tax that you'd otherwise only have payed upon sale. That makes putting something up for sale a commitment, adjusting price is then the only issue, one which can be addressed with a 1% tax whenever adjusting. This discourages adjusting the price, overall you'd be paying no extra tax unless you decide to start adjusting constantly. The entire point of this tax, and thread, is that it discourages the damaging level of undercutting... You can go back to pretending that isn't happening if you like, it is, and its ridiculous. This is not the basis for a stable market system. Prices are absolutely fluid because there is absolutely no reason for them to remain solid. A tax people wont want to pay is a perfectly apt solution to adding stability to this games market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Food for thought: If taxing for every price adjustment is better, why don't we do this in real life? As it is now, real life taxes items once they are sold. Why is that?

---

Honestly, if this was remotely like real life, then every Retainer would get its own Market Board that players would have to check individually, just like you have to check each shop individually... Actually, they did that in 1.0, it was awful. In reality it is very difficult to obtain all the prices from every possible retailer (and supplier) out there, buyers and sellers do not have that luxury in reality, in XIV that's practically the whole basis of the Market Board...

Oh, and in real life, people actually want to turn a profit. Someone has to be payed to harvest the raw materials, someone has to be payed to process the materials, and so on. In a game, the only thing I lose harvesting and processing, is time. That's it. There are no cheap foreign labor expecting a pathetic paycheck from me. I obtained this, and I'm selling it. The same goes for everyone else. Instead, to turn a "profit" one has to judge what the time spent obtaining it was worth, and that is something which is purely subjective. In reality, the costs are fairly fixed. Equilibrium is much easier to reach when an items worth isn't purely subjective.

Quote:

---

If what you claim is true, then why do giant financial institutions use these models on a daily basis? Because they are very accurate.

---

Because they do not. Financial institutions employ mathematicians and physicists which based on research develop new models tailored to their current deals. Have you ever seen a bank or the like from the inside? Let alone worked for them? Thought so.

Quote:

---

Food for thought: If taxing for every price adjustment is better, why don't we do this in real life? As it is now, real life taxes items once they are sold. Why is that?

---

Because real life markets have no perfect transparency of available goods and their prices, both of which are the case in an online game. Entirely disregarding further aspects mentioned and not.

Stop making a fool out of yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sotek

Where do I say this?

---

Here: "You tax people for adjusting their price, it's an optional tax, one everyone can avoid with a little patience. If you don't adjust your price, you don't get taxed."
But since, as previously assumed, there is a pretax on even placing up an item in the first place, that's bad. If the initial price was free however, it would've then be not as bad but still bad (but then people will do the scenario i explained)

yes I am aware of the amount of undercutting, I see it. I just disagree that it's a bad thing, for it is actually a good thing. The amount of undercutting will slow down as the market ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sotek

on reality, profit, time, and value

---

In game people want to make a profit too lol. I agree time is a factor in an items worth. Processing an item however requires either time if you harvested all the materials yourself, or time+cost of raw materials. The time and cost of raw materials to acquire an in game item can be seen just the same as the real life examples you just gave.
By the way the value of everything in a real life economy is subjective as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
Think back to the times when people used to barter for things, and how currency became a medium to place a value on said item.
But alas, we were talking about the effects of taxes on an economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalien

Financial institutions employ physicists. Have you ever seen a bank or the like from the inside? Let alone worked for them? Thought so.

---

Hmmmm....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalien

Because real life markets have no perfect transparency of available goods and their prices, both of which are the case in an online game.

---

Which is why in game economies follow economic models even more accurately, for that exact reason. Real life markets follow these models closely as well, just saying an in game one would follow them even more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Here: "You tax people for adjusting their price, it's an optional tax, one everyone can avoid with a little patience. If you don't adjust your price, you don't get taxed."
But since, as previously assumed, there is a pretax on even placing up an item in the first place, that's bad. If the initial price was free however, it would've then be not as bad but still bad (but then people will do the scenario i explained)

---

The only thing a pre-sales tax does which is "bad", is block the poor from the market (how anyone manages this with the game throwing Gil at them, I don't know). Other than that, it changes nothing. If I was suggesting a pre and post-sales tax, sure, that would be retarded. But I'm not. I'm suggesting taking that worthless post-sales tax (again, nothing but a cheap Gil-sink) and making a pre-sales tax out of it. Then you have people putting items up for sale, and leaving them up. Unlike XI (which had a pre-sales tax as well) your items aren't forced off the market after X days so you have to repay the tax. It's literally just taking the existing tax and giving it an actual purpose. Without a pre-sales tax, an adjustment tax would be worthless. People would just stop adjusting prices and take the items down completely instead, and with Retainers practically doing that already there's really not much of a problem with that. Adjusting prices is just a massive convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

The amount of undercutting will slow down as the market ages.

---

How? How will the market being older make people go "Instead of adjusting my price when I'm undercut, I'm just going to leave it"? It wont. There is absolutely no reason not to make use of price adjustments. It costs nothing, it's convenient, its fast and simple. The only thing that will slow undercutting currently is people leaving the market because it is utterly ridiculous, but they'll be back because undercutting slowed for a moment. For example, I've stopped selling Silver Sharks, because watching the price crash utterly annoyed me. A few days later, I'd noticed the price had risen back up to 3k (was 4k), presumably because people stopped bothering when they dropped to 500G. Then people figured "Great, the price is back up, I'll go catch more!", and within hours the price fell back down to 1k. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Wild fluctuations like that aren't going to stop with time, slow downs in undercutting are in fact the cause of such fluctuations.

Without price adjustments costing something, rampant undercutting is an inevitability. It will only slow momentarily. Prices will continue to fluctuate wildly day to day. With price adjustments costing something, that fluctuation is much more tightly controlled. Nobody will undercut and undercutter of an undercutter if it's costing them. They'll leave it at X price and display some patience.

I really can't believe you're arguing the market will become more stable over time when it literally takes 5 seconds to destabilize any given item. Wasn't Yoshida also working on a Retainer Ap, or something similar through Lodestone? Holy crap, if we can adjust prices without even being in game, then yeah. I'm not even going to properly comment on how fucked up that will make everything.

As I've said before, a pre-sales tax for every time an item is posted and/or changed will increase the amount of the total tax of the game. Which would increase the dead weight loss I showed you.

And yes, the game economy will stabilize over time. There will be less undercutters when the general value/price of an item is pretty well established.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Hmmmm....


Which is why in game economies follow economic models even more accurately, for that exact reason. Real life markets follow these models closely as well, just saying an in game one would follow them even more so.

---

It's amazing how narrow-minded you are and how strongly you focus on single isolated points which would seemingly help your case. The sheer fact of you "hmmm...."ing over the fact of big banks, insurances and the like employing more mathematics and physics majors than economists proves you have no fucking clue of what real world economics or finance is like. Not even going to argue over the rest with you anymore, you're hopeless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalien

It's amazing how narrow-minded you are and how strongly you focus on single isolated points which would seemingly help your case. The sheer fact of you "hmmm...."ing over the fact of big banks, insurances and the like employing more mathematics and physics majors than economists proves you have no fucking clue of what real world economics or finance is like. Not even going to argue over the rest with you anymore, you're hopeless.

---

Sure they use a lot of math, but they aren't hiring mathematicians. The hmmm... comment was to point out the even worse irony that you claim physicists work for banks or other financial institutions. I'd rather see a financial firm run by finance, accounting, and econ majors.