Ambrosia Software Web Board: Economics is From Hell - Ambrosia Software Web Board

Circa 1930, Blues musician Robert Johnson sold his soul to Satan in exchange for crazy guitar skills and fame. This means that the market value of a soul in 1930 was roughly one economy-sized set of musical talent. Since 1930, the world population and thus supply of souls have roughly tripled. Given constant demand for souls on Satan's part, it then follows that the cost of a soul has dropped precipitously in recent years. This explains the steep decline in the quality of music since about 1975.

On a related note, who taxes these transactions? The Banter and Brawl, Satan's home, is very taxing on souls, but is that the only regulatory body involved? I'm sure some protectionism could get us better music. Maybe we could even get Jimi Hendrix back.

So, you are saying that today music is roughly 33% worse than it was 33 years ago? That's like 1% per year. At that rate, I wouldn't want to be a musician in the year 2075.

In related news, YES!

Shlimazel, on Jan 21 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

33 years ago? 1930 was 78 years ago.

EDIT: Crap, it's not 2007 anymore.

This post has been edited by Rickton: 21 January 2008 - 07:50 PM

If new music were to be outlawed worldwide on jan 1 3000, there would be enough good old music to sustain us for 3 x 10^3 orbits around the sun.

LNSU, on Jan 21 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

In 992 years, we'll have a 3000-year stockpile of good music?

I sure hope you're not getting your figures the same place as I'm getting mine.

You know, you've missed a bit of a flaw in your theory. It's really a loan, where the payment is deferred until death. After death, Big Red takes the payment (the soul), and I'm guessing the loaned object/property as well (because he's the Devil, so he cheats.)

So, if you know for a fact that you are going to hell anyways, you can sell your soul now and have no change to your after-death future?

Isn't just about everything loaned and then taken away at death?

-Pufer

Buffalo the Kid, on Jan 21 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

Yes. I think. I haven't tried it.

Is our life really just a portion of the Earth's life, which is a portion of Sol's life which is a portion of who knows what's life? What happens if you get to the origin of that chain of life? Does it loop around and start the chain again? Does it get temporarily replaced and set aside to get refreshed? Does it just disappear, never to be seen again?


Less serious question: Is life really the imagination of some highly developed creature from a race of creatures that send their minds into itself in an attempt to gain enlightenment by living someone else's life? Are there really many worlds, one around each form of life, and these worlds interact? Do other people in someone's world think, or do they only think in their own world?

So this means that when any good artist comes out they sacrifice many souls at once?


Let go of the material world, it is all an illusion. Walk the path to enlightenment.


Edit: on a semi-related note, My post count became 606 with this post!

This post has been edited by Two Jacks: 22 January 2008 - 12:48 AM

Let go of the material world, it is a social construct. Walk the path towards individual contentment.

-Pufer

SoItBegins, on Jan 21 2008, 09:41 PM, said:

Paying off loans when you can is a responsible thing to do. One thing I know for sure is that we don't want a subprime soul crisis.

Sold his soul to...

This post has been edited by G-Spark: 24 January 2008 - 09:23 PM

Pufer, on Jan 22 2008, 05:57 AM, said:

You have no evidence that the material world is a social construct. Your perception of the material world is a social construct, and thus subject to distortion.

There can be no objective proof of a material world that makes no use of perception or inference from concept. Indeed, the term itself refers to nothing other than an applied cognitive construct that could be applied to the objects of perception. The idea can be nothing other than a construct that seems not able to be gained a priori given the particular meaning that the term "material" takes in the concept. Thus, for all intents and purposes, there is no recognizable distinction between the material world as a social construct and the socially constructed perception of the material world. The fact that anyone can talk of the material world at all is the result of socialized perception (if not outright ascription) of a created concept.

The "material world," whatever it may be, can be nothing other than a social or intellectual construct (both terms being synonymous, as I see it), both of which subject to distortion from that state of affairs only seen from an inferred objectively ideal state. As there is no way to see things from such an ideal state, it is not possible to claim actual distortion from the "real," but that is not to say that the concepts that we use to interpret the "real" (if it does exist) are not social constructs.

-Pufer

I'm glad you agree.