Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Smog in LA is also exacerbated by its geography as the area is roughly bowl shaped, so, the smog gets trapped there.

Humans are actually capable of modeling the decisions of other humans, and can rationally decide not to form an economic suicide pact. Nobody has an incentive to intentionally self-sabotage by causing a predictable tragedy-of-the-commons.

And yet corporations do that anyway.

[wierd]

Let me put the nail in this, OK?

Here are your rules.  YOUR RULES. NOT MINE. YOURS.

- you live in a boarding house building with 3 other people. All electric bills are split. You have little interaction with the other tenants.

 If you buy a certain widget it that you put in your room, it costs $3 to run, but saves $4 in electricity. You will save $1 on your share of the electric bill, but have spent $3. Should you buy the widget?

Conversely, you can buy another widget, but this one consumes $4 worth of electricity but makes $3 worth of bitcoins. You will make a net profit of $2 per widget by owning it. Should you buy this widget?

Based on rational economic choices, you shouldn't buy the energy-saving widget, but you should buy the energy-wasting widget. In fact, going off purely ratonal economic logic, everyone should in face keep accumulating more and more energy-wasting widgets until the entire house collapses. There's never a point at which buying an individual energy-waster widget will cost you more than it makes.

Here are the pertinent bits:

you live in a boarding house building with 3 other people.

So, there are 4 total people in the house, including yourself.

All electric bills are split.

THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

costs $3 to run

Taken with the "All bills split", this means our share of the cost is .75$ per period, since .75*4=3

but saves $4 in electricity.

Since all bills are split, that 4$ in efficiency is also split. Your share is 1$ per period.

1$ > .75$, so there is a break even.

[smjjames]

Don't bitcoins fluctuate wildly in value? I know it's a thought experiment, but the volatility of the Bitcoin value is going to throw the calculations off. It might be a poor example to use in the thought experiment.

[wierd]

As long as [CostToMine] > [ValueOfMinedCoin], it is a poor investment, no matter how you slice it.

[Reelya]

Let me put the nail in this, OK?

Here are your rules.  YOUR RULES. NOT MINE. YOURS.

- you live in a boarding house building with 3 other people. All electric bills are split. You have little interaction with the other tenants.

 If you buy a certain widget it that you put in your room, it costs $3 to run, but saves $4 in electricity. You will save $1 on your share of the electric bill, but have spent $3. Should you buy the widget?

Conversely, you can buy another widget, but this one consumes $4 worth of electricity but makes $3 worth of bitcoins. You will make a net profit of $2 per widget by owning it. Should you buy this widget?

Based on rational economic choices, you shouldn't buy the energy-saving widget, but you should buy the energy-wasting widget. In fact, going off purely ratonal economic logic, everyone should in face keep accumulating more and more energy-wasting widgets until the entire house collapses. There's never a point at which buying an individual energy-waster widget will cost you more than it makes.

Here are the pertinent bits:

you live in a boarding house building with 3 other people.

So, there are 4 total people in the house, including yourself.

All electric bills are split.

THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

costs $3 to run

Taken with the "All bills split", this means our share of the cost is .75$ per period, since .75*4=3

but saves $4 in electricity.

Since all bills are split, that 4$ in efficiency is also split. Your share is 1$ per period.

1$ > .75$, so there is a break even.

Dude I said that you (i.e. singular you) have to buy the widget and put it in "your room," and that you have "limited interaction with the other tenants". Those two constraints were there for a reason. "Limited interaction" might be a little vague, but clearly getting them to pay money for things that you own in your own personal room is a little against the spirit of writing that you have "limited interaction".

[smjjames]

As long as [CostToMine] > [ValueOfMinedCoin], it is a poor investment, no matter how you slice it.

That's basic economics anyway isn't it? You always want to be able to make a net positive income for whatever you're doing. Unless you're taking a calculated risk or hope that it'll pay off down the line.

[wierd]

No, you are trying to have it both ways with your counter widget. (You want to spread that cost, even though it too will be in YOUR ROOM.)

The POINT of splitting utility costs, is that the cost per tenant is [total cost of building use] / [number of tenants]

Your argument has no bearing in the calculus as a result. They dont need to know about, see, or even have an inkling of the existence of that device in your room, for it to operate in exactly the way I specified.  Here, I will work out some simplified example for you.


Lets say that without the widget, all tenants each use 100$ in electricity per period.

So, without the widget, the calculus looks like this:

100$ for tenant 1
100$ for tenant 2
100$ for tenant 3
100$ for tenant 4.
------------------------------
400$ building electricity fee
/
4 tenants
-------------------------------
100$ per tenant. 

Now, we increase our costs to 103$, while theirs remains the same.

103$ (US)
100$ Tenant 2
100$ Tenant 3
100$ Tenant 4
------------------------
403$ building costs
-4$ savings from efficiency of widget
-------------------------
399$ building costs
/
4 tenants
--------------------------
99.75$ per tenant.


Unless of course, you are saying this widget does not run on electricity, which by the foundation of the scenario, is fungible.  That is a specific you did NOT specify. The only kind of cost you specified was electrical.  Your scenario is basically asking if it is a good idea to plug in an overunity device. The answer is yes.

[Reelya]

I'm not having anything "both ways" you just fail to understand the question. The bills are split, so there's a central electricity.

the item in your room reduces the electricity needed in your room by $4 worth. But ... since bills are equally split, then everyone gets a $1 cut in the energy costs you saved. However, having this item costs $3 per bill period.

It works as a real-world example, actually. e.g. if you buy an energy-saver version of an appliance that costs $30 and would last 10 billing periods, saving $40 worth of electricity, then everyone in the building gets $10 in savings. But since you only bought the item for you to use, nobody is going to pay for a share of it.

[wierd]

You did NOT specify that the device does not run on electricity, then get all huffy when I point out that if it does (a reasonable conclusion, given all other costs are from electricity), then there certainly is a break even point.

The bit miner, in contrast, DOES run on electricity, and its cost of operation being distributed is fundamental to the calculus.


Either you want it both ways (apples and apples), or you are backpedalling to have it be different (apples and oranges)

[Maximum Spin]

Smog reduction in LA isn't because of individual choices sacrificing for the greater good, it's because California as a state enacted stricter emission standards. Government action is a different thing from choices made by individuals.

Uh huh. Remind me, who makes up the government, again? Who elects them, who runs for office, who writes and signs and mails in the petitions? Is it reptilians? It's reptilians, isn't it.

[smjjames]

Except you used an example where you might as well be using the stock market, which isn't nearly as volatile as bitcoins are.

[Reelya]

You did NOT specify that the device does not run on electricity, then get all huffy when I point out that if it does (a reasonable conclusion, given all other costs are from electricity), then there certainly is a break even point.

The bit miner, in contrast, DOES run on electricity, and its cost of operation being distributed is fundamental to the calculus.


Either you want it both ways (apples and apples), or you are backpedalling to have it be different (apples and oranges)

Why did I need to specify any of that. I said the cost of operation was $3 per bill, it's in your room, saves $4 per bill, and the bills are split, while you can't really interact with the other tenants. This is not rocket science dude. All of that information is in the original post.

Let me give a concrete example:

you buy a $30 power-saving light bulb. Light bulbs last for 10 billing periods. It saves $40 in power over it's lifetime. It goes in your room.

Since bills are split 4 ways, each person sees a $10 reduction as a result of your decision to get a nice light bulb, leaving you $20 out of pocket for making the choice.

[wierd]

If the cost is 3$ in electricity, after explicitly stating that electrical bills are fungible, IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE UNIVERSE, as I DEMONSTRATED!

I LITERALLY SHOWED YOU HOW THE EFFICIENCY GETS SPLIT!!!!


The "value" is a DIFFERENCE on the BUILDING'S ENERGY USE. THAT IS INNATELY FUNGIBLE ON ALL BILLS, PER YOUR OWN RULES!

GAAH@@

[smjjames]

i understood 'costs 3 to run' and 'consumes 4 in electricity' as talking about the exact same thing, I don't know what you two are arguing over.

[Reelya]

Yeah I don't understand the objections either. It's just net amounts in money.

The "power saving lightbulb" example hopefully gets through to him.

What's he even talking about now, I have no idea at all.