Whelp, another reason to boycott Capcom.

[GSZX1337]

You are making it more complicated than it is.

I thought bringing this back up would be funny.

[Ivo]

You are making it more complicated than it is.

I thought bringing this back up would be funny.

I only need to make it more complicated as you guys are throwing corner cases that require generalisations. But I can handle it

Ivo.

[MrPopo]

You guys are being too close-minded and not paying attention to the simple fact that money is fungible. I'll see if I can reply to everyone...

It's fungible, but it can't be sent back through time just yet. Doing things "retroactively" is strictly an imaginary exercise. With money, it's useful for things like understanding company ledgers in a simplified way, but it still isn't a real thing that actually happens. Right now, everything except particle physics has to obey Time's Arrow.

Ok so a bank buys "my house" and I repay the loan slowly. After I pay the loan would you still say the house was purchased by the bank and that I have not contributed to the real estate market - just because money can not travel back in time? Gosh!

You had a down payment that did contribute. The bank just contributed more.

Imagine my Mom needs to be operated and I don't have money to help pay for it right now but will when I get my paycheck. My brother has enough so I don't need to get a loan from the bank. I get my paycheck and give my brother half the money. Now, AFTER I pay him half the money, is he right if he says he was the only person paying for the operation?

Yes, he is.

[Ivo]

Imagine my Mom needs to be operated and I don't have money to help pay for it right now but will when I get my paycheck. My brother has enough so I don't need to get a loan from the bank. I get my paycheck and give my brother half the money. Now, AFTER I pay him half the money, is he right if he says he was the only person paying for the operation?

Yes, he is.

Wow. Really? Amazing. I think you don't quite understand the concept of loans then.

Just wondering, does everyone that disagrees with me agrees with MrPopo in these examples? Because if so I will stop trying to explain.

For the record, I would say that the most my brother can say is he paid half the operation and floated me an interest free loan on the other half for some days. It is false to say he paid for the whole of it after I paid my part.

Ivo.

[flamepanther]

Ok so a bank buys "my house" and I repay the loan slowly. After I pay the loan would you still say the house was purchased by the bank and that I have not contributed to the real estate market - just because money can not travel back in time? Gosh!

Legally, that's almost exactly what happened. The bank owns the house until you repay the loan. The only reason you contributed to the real estate market is that you caused the bank to purchase the house for you on the condition that you would pay them back for it with interest. This doesn't happen with game sales.

Imagine my Mom needs to be operated and I don't have money to help pay for it right now but will when I get my paycheck. My brother has enough so I don't need to get a loan from the bank. I get my paycheck and give my brother half the money. Now, AFTER I pay him half the money, is he right if he says he was the only person paying for the operation?

Again, your example seems to rely on an explicit (or at least implicit) agreement taking place prior to the original transaction. At the very least, it relies on the fact that you know your brother and both of you know your mother. This is entirely unlike the used games market.

But just for fun, here's how the fungibility of cash money actually applies here. See, the $6 I would get from selling my $60 game back to GameStop is the same as $6 of what I originally paid--but it's also the same as the $6 I would get for mowing my mom's lawn. Therefore, by your reasoning presented so far, if I go to my mom's house and mow her lawn, I can no longer claim to have paid $60 for the game I haven't yet taken back to GameStop. Reducto accomplished.

EDIT: Technically, even that's not entirely accurate, since time changes the value of money. $6 when I bought the game may not be the same as $6 when I sell the game or mow the lawn. However, $6 for the game or for the lawn are fungible if I am considering both at approximately the same time. That brings up another good point: money is not necessarily fungible across time!

[Hobie-wan]

Capcom are still doodie heads, right?

[flamepanther]

Capcom are still doodie heads, right?

Yes, but only after they pull stunts like this--not retroactively, before they do it.

[Ivo]

Legally, that's almost exactly what happened. The bank owns the house until you repay the loan.

The key point being the "until" you pay the loan of course.

The only reason you contributed to the real estate market is that you caused the bank to purchase the house for you on the condition that you would pay them back for it with interest.

You could also say the reason you contributed to the real estate market is that you actually paid for the house eventually. Which is the point!

Again, your example seems to rely on an explicit (or at least implicit) agreement taking place prior to the original transaction. At the very least, it relies on the fact that you know your brother and both of you know your mother. This is entirely unlike the used games market.

Well, at the very least (unlike MrPopo) at least in such an obvious case you don't insist that the person that pays later has not contributed. In your case the only barrier you have is that you are convinced you need to have the agreement for it to work.

But just for fun, here's how the fungibility of cash money actually applies here. See, the $6 I would get from selling my $60 game back to GameStop is the same as $6 of what I originally paid--but it's also the same as the $6 I would get for mowing my mom's lawn. Therefore, by your reasoning presented so far, if I go to my mom's house and mow her lawn, I can no longer claim to have paid $60 for the game I haven't yet taken back to GameStop. Reducto accomplished.

The $6 you would get can not simultaneously be both The fungibility means you can't distinguish money. You know you got $6 for this and $6 for that. You just don't know which buck came from where in that sense (obviously you can mark bills but that is not what the fungibility means). I thought I had been pretty clear that I only identify the X and Y at the respective times of purchase and after that it is lost in the fungibility property.

That brings up another good point: money is not necessarily fungible across time!

Hence why I compare it to interest free loans or (if you want to get nitpicky) adjust to a smaller amount that with the loan arrives at the correct amount, or (if you want to get nitpicky) adjust for inflation etc. I'm pretty confident that I can make it internally consistent up to whatever degree you require it to be, and it is not even hard because it is just subtraction at the bottom of it. It's not like I'm using complex mathematical concepts, it is addition and negative numbers (for the generalisation of middlemen which includes thieves). Each owner (for period of time i) has contributed X_i - X_(i+1), with a conservation of money constraint that when you sum up all of those it always gives X. You could throw any case in there with as many owners, people that profit (buy lower than they sell), people that lose money, thieves (buy for 0), heck at this level you can even put people buying the game for Pi (although that doesn't make sense) or i (likewise) because the constraint that the sum gives X forces someone else to undo the nonsense. You can put in inflation and loans and redefine the X_i if you want.

The main point (which you have not and I believe can not refute) is the one that you can see in the brothers case, you just have a barrier in applying it to a case where there is no explicit or implicit agreement: contributing later is still contributing by shifting (at the time of the later contribution) a portion of the earlier contribution.

Ivo.

[AmishSamurai]

I thought they had gotten the message when they realized how damaging it would be for them to add that restrictive DRM on SSFIV: AC where you only got half the roster if you weren't connected to capcom servers. They actually were quoted saying they didn't want to penalize legit buyers. Seems they developed amnesia.

EDIT: That said, I haven't ever been much of a Capcom fan. They've had some real winners, but they've never been a studio I've kept track of. They've mostly been "those guys who make 300,000 spinoffs and sequels to everything while only adding maybe a small drop of content each time".

[MrPopo]

The main point (which you have not and I believe can not refute) is the one that you can see in the brothers case, you just have a barrier in applying it to a case where there is no explicit or implicit agreement: contributing later is still contributing by shifting (at the time of the later contribution) a portion of the earlier contribution.

Ivo.

You keep equating this to loans. That's not how things work. The first person contributes. Every person down the line does not. If the second person gives the first person the loan BEFORE he buys the game, then maybe you have a case for him contributing. You don't get to retroactively make something a loan.