[Suggestion] Stimulate the economy by giving back rupee sinks as prizes for events

I'm not saying this is conclusive evidence, but the economy was definitely healthier when people could buy rupees. That would seem to indicate that injecting new rupees is good for the economy on occasion. A massive chunk of rupees are just being hoarded right now which hurts the economy.

*working class

A person of low economic status*

If the prices of these normal goods are getting so low, does anyone still need them? I think there simply might not be much demand anymore. How many of us actually still play Minecraft? Sure, there are still building projects here and there, but as far as I can tell the Minecraft servers are a lot less active than they once were. And perhaps the people that do still play Minecraft are the people who can provide resources for themselves, not needing to rely on player shops.
If more people would want to play and buy goods, they would be able to buy a lot, as I'm quite sure most people do have a lot of rupees, which would allow shops to raise their prices again.

pretty much I just spend too much than I make. I see a casino and I just go hard I haven't studied any economies or anything yet so my 2 cents is literally just my 2 cents
Player mindset is everything I feel

That is a political statement, not a factual one.

To break down the statement, I would like to reword it, to make it a bit more clear. This is what I read:
"The problem of an unproportionally unbalanced wealth distribution is not, in any way, going to be solved by giving the less fortunate more."
Which you can probably recognise as ‘the economical statement that divides the left and the right’ If it is true is not the point of what I am trying to say.
Explaining what I think about this is something I do not want to invest the time in currently, I have better things to do, and I would have to really think about this, as, for real life, I am one of the people who believe a national maximum income per person is a good idea, which probably sounds alternatingly left for you. You would be right to say I am a Marxist.
The point is that 1) this is a political statement (this refering to what I said above I read, not to what you literaily said), which is quite frequently used as stand for debates and 2) all the arguments for and against it in the real world also apply to EMC. The later I am going to try and explain:
Economy is based on models, as predicting the outcomes considering every point of influence is impractical if not impossible. These models are too used to find solutions to problems like these. They simplify a lot of things, assuming things to be true that are not. There are far too many models to explain this is true for every single one, but you can take it as a given that most models are simplified to such a degree that they too work for EMC, you simply have to make different assumptions to let the model fit. Most of the time, “different” simply means “less”. For example, in real life, you would need to assume that homogeneous products are truly homogenous, which is not an assumption in Minecraft; or that there are no ‘foreign’ sources of expense or income that are dealt differently from domestic ones, which neither is an assumption on EMC.
In short: The economic models used to predict future states of the economy of the real world work the same, of not better, on EMC. And, with that: The scientific debate on if certain economic policies will work is not factually different in EMC from real life.

Again, I am not here to explain why I think what you said is wrong, I already kind of did, but in a non-exact manner in a previous post, and I currently don’t have the time to type another thousand words. (this is edging in on 500)
What I do want to say is that I think it is wrong of you to assume a debated point to be true to an extent that is unnecessary togive full proof of its correctness; and to indirectly say everyone should agree with a point that, to me, is just as alternatingly right-winged as I am alternatingly left-winged to you; and that this is something I think we should have a serious debate about, as I think most people agree the current state is alarmingly bad for the future of EMC, if it isn’t only to explain (to me) why it is not.
-------
What economical experience do I have saying this?
I re-checked the translation of the first part to be certain: Due to the school system being different in the Netherlands, I would at least have the equivilent amount of knolege to someone in their second or third year in college for Economy Econometry and Mathematics. And I was the economy, or better said, "Sience" "expert" (I basically fact-checked and advised the arguments for one of the teams) in an international, but Netherlands based "pre-preofessional" (kids of around 18 years old who want to become politicians) debate group, to give some context of what that means. I'm a physicist, I know my economy it's not realy impressive, but it is enough of a base to be relativly certain of the things I said.

I'm glad that others are taking note of the economy. I haven't felt it "as much" but I see it happening. It's probably due to the fact that I mine all my own materials, though, when I want to sell to other shops, it's been very hard because not many players are online anymore to help me. (Especially if the shop I bulk sold to is full)

I'm open to any ideas, but I think that the economy will continue to linger like this until we get more players to become more active. I don't know, I'm not an economist, I'm just a lowly miner on this server. Haha

I pay 2r for OG Dragon egg no less no more......

Okay Kryssy, let's break this down:

That part is not relevant to what I was trying to say, This part of what you said to respond to me has nothing to do, and is in fact what I stated I was not discussing (and itself is anadotical evedence, which is an informal fallacy.) (also, You know you have only been on this server for a few percent longer than I?)
I'm not saying you're wrong here, you might be right, but it is not what I was trying to say:

-

THIS is what I was trying to discuss in my post, as that isn't true, but it isn't false either. My post was about me explaining why I would say thease two are the same thing. The main part is me trying to explain that simpely and in not to many words.

Okay, as you don't see to even come close to understanding what I tried to explain in the two hours I spent typing that post, I'll quote it again, giving explanation on what I am doing in between:

Main statement: The point which I spent the post on explaining why I think is true.

Me explainging what political stement I think lies underneeth what you said. Here, I tried to explain to you what part of what you siad I thought was political, and why that matters.

Here, I aparantly failed to explain that and why I was not arguing if that political statement, in my oppinion, is true.

Here, I made the two points I wanted to make in the main part again, more clearly:
1: "The problem of an unproportionally unbalanced wealth distribution in any (real world) economy is not, in any way, going to be solved by giving the less fortunate more." (That this might have been badly rederecting) is a political statement, which I assume is obvious.
2: Why the scientific arguments made in this (1) political debate are also valid on EMC. more simpely worded "Why changing the topic of it from the real world to emc doesn't change the argument of the debate itself" or, lessly nuancly written down "why real world or minecraft doesn't matter"

My explanation, which I actually spent some time on writing, It is me trying to make it intuetive why that (in fact, mathematically) is.

, but that would involve a lot of maths, here is a quick snipper of some statistics I used:


Yeah, you see: thease "models" I am talking about: I alredey use them for emc, so, of course, I have done the maths to make sure it all checks out. If you want me to I can try to explain the maths, I can, but that would take me weeks to write out somewhat understandebly. That is why I kind of say "trust me, thease models work"

Me again, apparently in vein, explaining why I wrote it.

The conclusion of my post is that, if you want to follow my explanation, which you would otherwise have to have an argument against, the debate about this is, factually, the same as the real world debate about "The problem of an unproportionally unbalanced wealth distribution in any (real world) economy is not, in any way, going to be solved by giving the less fortunate more." and we should thus not just trust anekdotical evedence or treat it like it is trivial. as there is a lot of official research on it, and people are probably quite passionate about their oppinion.

Lastly Kryssy, in your post, you seem to think you can claim to be the authorety on EMC economics here, you appear to claim that you know better than everyone else, or at least than me.

Let's just say this: We both have been around the same time on this server, and you have been out of the economeny for quite a large chunck of that time now, which means I probably have more EMC economy experience than you. And, because the Dutch education system is better for people who are above average, I probably know quite a lot more about real world economics too, unless you have a college degree in economics and econometry.

I know I also play the "I just know more than you about this" card quite a lot, but I only do it when it is in my field, that is some aspects of moleculair physics and mathematics. I don't think this is a place where either of us can play this card.

Big Flex. Yikes

Yeah... I tried to say it more lightly, but than, why would I? The point is that I am quite confident talking about economics, so I would be undermining my own point if I would say it slightly

Okay... You almost got it... What you got you got correct. I indeed said that it is strongly oppinion based but, to say everything witout explanation and substantiation:

It's not factual but opinional, and people probably have quite strong oppinions about it, because it is inevetebly factually the same argument as the standard left-right argument, which is why it is something we should discuess with care.

I argree with you that bringen the, indeed arbetrairy, left-right poletics into any discussion that dit not alredey have it in it is a bad idea, or, in fact, to use any "isms" to label anyone's oppinion, but it sadly is ineveteble here. (I know "Marxist" is an ism too, I only use it to quickly explain what I genually think without going into too much detail)

As always, I only ment this point to be quickly discussed in one post, but, as seems to be a theme, we are very good at talking right past eachother...

I don't think you needed to edit in the "Big Flex", I preferred your post without, and the message was clear.

And the fun thing is that I can generally follow both of you perfectly.

I just don’t see why a suggestion thread basically turned into a controversial thread about who’s better at economics and who’s opinions is better then the others..

I don't think it's controversial, but I guess it happens when at any point there are more people that are in the discussion for sake of discussion than there are people that are in the discussion for the sake of the purpose that is discussed.

I find that inetersting, because, though it indeed turned into a controversial thread, I do not argree the points that you said to have been discussed. The closest I can find to "who is better at economics" is me stating that no one (kryssy is partiqulair) should use the "I know better than you" card, myself included, which comes closest to that point because it factually is me stating that that is not the debate we should have.
The closest I can find to "whos oppinion is better" is me again, but stating that some arguments are based on an informal fallacy. Which you can read abou here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I am interested because I know I sound far more pretentious than I intent to, and, in fact, am. Did you indeed read what I wrote as me trying to say "I think I know better than you"? because that never is what I implied.

All I’m gonna say is if you want to continue arguing back and forth about economics then I just ask that you either make a thread in the “Controversial” section or you just make a pm with Krysyy since she is the one your mainly trying to prove a point to. I’m not saying your not smart and you don’t know economics, what I am saying though is this is not the tread to do this type of behavior