Simulating Supply and Demand 

and he waddle away

waddle waddle

And the the next very day

Bam bam bam bam ba-da-dum

@@joojok72 more like boom boom boom. because rockets.

axaïde Tears fill his eyes as he steps from behind the counter, revealing ridges that line his body. These ridges? His bones, the salesman had never eaten, as his only purpose was rockets, selling rockets. In immense detail could you examen his skeleton, only blanketed by his thin, malnourished flesh.

A very strange ghostly squid Oml, I think the original comment was comparing the blobs in this video with the blobs in the evolution videos. And then you wrote a short and strange comedic existential horror

@@averystrangeghostlysquid7637 Tears come to your eyes. You could not believe such a thing to happen. You try and say something, anything, but you can say only a few words. "Rocket. Twenty dollars."

@@averystrangeghostlysquid7637 this is not r/writingprompts

Ky The salesman pauses, straining to hold his tears. He looks at you, his lonely eyes wanting to tell you the world, only can he muster but a few words, “5 dollars are your change, have a nice generation”

we don't know if they work. maybe orange blobs just like having a new rocket in their basements each new day

@@eadbert1935 I mean your kind of right these are the blobs that have to choose wood over mangos lol

TO THE MOON!!!

I think they are toys. They seem to be the kind of species to seek childish pleasure making. After all, they play heads or tails for fun

lol

Tf 💀

@@pan.nanana3044 look up Ren - Money Game part 2 on youtube.

rain rain rain rain, a storm it comes our way, and those who rise through distorted lies, poisoning the veins

@Kai Li how dare you.

step 1: you must create a sense of scarcity, shells will sell much better if the people think they're rare you see- bare with me; take as many shells as you can find and hide them on an island, stock pile em' high till they're rarer than a diamond.

lmao all of them are gonna die anyway because of selling weapons of mass destruction to basically anybody for the right price XD

@@ecogreen123 "Rockets don't kill blobs, blobs do".

I think they are toys. but who knows, with some nitro glycerine..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Gica Surubelnita you are the type of guy i love NoHomo

It's a basic joke, but it's funny anyway.Why?

*n u k e s*

*n o r t h k o r e a*

*n u c l e a r f a l l o u t*

*N u c l e a r w a s t e*

burger

In the Natural Selection video it said bigger blobs eat smaller blobs.

My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined.

Or omnivores like humans...

​@@Literally_A_TreeFalse Dichotomy. Predators can be omnivores. These are not the same type of object categorization.

Dude I can't unsee it now

How does this have only 86 likes, I thought this too lol

I see it.

@JheyDraws Nice.

The blobs have evolved and developed the military industrial complex.

nah they're space access dealers

@Combine isn't that just a another name for regular American made nukes?

They are starting a nuclear war

Hi Grant. Can you do a series on various distributions in statistics?

Hey grant ! I will be glad to know whether your future videos will contain some abstract pure mathematics instead of applied one. I really want to know. Please respond this.

I see why you recommended this channel. Good stuff!

Thanks for sending me here, good stuff!

Thank you for showing me this!

This simulation already takes it into account in a way the blobs simply set their own subjective values and the other blobs can agree or disagree no one cares about production costs

@@caralho5237 But in reality whether or not a consumer agrees on a price is based on societal factors. If everybody says a price is fair when it really isn't, you are inclined to believe its fair even if it truly isnt fair. If all the housing on the market is too expensive, then you'll think its normal for housing to be expensive and give into the price because 1) housing is a necessity and therefore you can't choose not to buy and 2) you have no other good options.

@@caralho5237 Also can I just say I love your username, its fucking great 👌👌 edit: and thats not sarcasm, I genuinely like it

@@Xzeroabs Thats an ideal based on a simple (but equally idealistic) concept: competition. Don't get me wrong, These things do occur in the markets today, but the ideal is for them to be constantly occuring, and that simply is not the case. Too many Megacorporations buy out their smaller competitors (e.g. facebook buying oculus, microsoft buying mojang), and Megacorporations all too often meet behind closed doors with their larger competitors to make deals about pricing. Megacorporations have much less incentive for their large competitors to die out or fall behind because if that happens then they're convicted of anti-competitive or monopolistic tendancies. It's "not as serious" to buy out smaller competitors the little guy can't dish-out nearly enough to damage the big guy. These corporations are indeed being monopolistic and anti-competitive, but its in their interest to keep just a couple large competitors around, just to get around the law. This essentially creates an ologopoly of the market, where small businesses can't grow and there is very little market diversity, but just enough of it for the government to stay uninvolved (especially when politicians have their pockets filled by turning a blind eye). All the while, consumers are essentially brainwashed by corprate propoganda (aka advertisements) that trick the buyers into thinking a price is fair when its really not. Don't mistake me for an authoritarian communist/socialist, I personally consider the USSR and the CCP to be horrible countries: they pretend to be communist by saying fancy words, but in reality the USSR was just and oppresive military police state, and the CCP is essentially Facist, where native chinese that follow the law have decent QOL, but everyone else has it different, with the Uyghurs being a prime example. But that just tells me that these things have never been achieved. Capitalism is not perfect, Communism (true communism) is not perfect, but there are good and bad of both, and my country, the US, is obsessed with preventing even the good from being implemented.

@@Xzeroabs Government corruption and greed motivated regulation is definitely a contributing factor to the issues we're discussing. The question is: how could we solve these problems? Some say we should deregulate the economy, and to some extend I would agree. But I consider this to be an oversimplification of the concept of regulation. Some regulation supports the oligopoly, while other regulation supports the working class. Classical Liberalism doesn't account for personal circumstances and advantages or disadvantages. It is simply a fact that some people have better opportunities to become wealthy or stay wealthy. In pure liberalism those opportunities would be equal for everyone, but in reality they are not. Yes, there are regulations that cause this to happen, but there are other regulations that prevent it from happening. There should be a distinction between the two, and I believe we should prioritize regulation that supports everyone's opportunities. P.S. Your english is great :)

Yes

@Totally not a Stalker Laughing in blobs with green beards

*rocket surgery

*laughs in sentient blob*

Gluestick Inc. *hol’ up*

Little did they know... IT WAS!

one rocket*

Business is really taking off.

These prices are the best in the galaxy.

@@Fireluigi1225 They're out of this world!

*Fuel packs sold separately

In a demand-supply curve in an economics textbook, the points along the demand curve show the highest a single buyer would pay for a certain amount of a good and the points along the supply curve show the lowest a single seller would be willing to sell a good. However, I'm not sure that the quantity axis in the graph in the video represents the same thing. It does show how much total quantity is bought or sold at each bar, but then each individual point on the graph just represents a certain entity X's price and there doesn't seem to be a relationship between the quantity and the price there. Could you help explain this?

@@austiyful Okay so it's weird but let me break it down. Supply and Demand Law states that Price is inversely proportional to the quantity. Here is why A high Price leads to low Demand, which leads to a Surplus (More supply than demand) which leads to higher quantity. A low Price leads to high Demand, which leads to a shortage (More Demand than Supply) which leads to a lower quantity. So, companies that have either or adjust their pricing, which adjusts their supply. Of course there's also supply or quantity supplied which is a whole different can of worms.

Pokemon

Breaking news: Fictional blobs develop free will and break out of mans simulation and colonize Mars

LMAO

@@GalexiDude gold

@Andrew Lewis dude its a joke you idiot

The blobs have a high number of likes to exchange for videos.

create some surplus by donating to patron

Quality also

But he is just one blob, he can only supply one rocket! Hmm, might be that it's a bad model for digital goods.

@@quitschi9954 We should get him replicated maybe...

Actually, that would be a great video to watch! Especially since it will help explain the complicated tax systems in easy to understand terms.

Tbf to bring in rich people who will put more money into the economy through other means a government can reduce taxes on rich people, especially since its easier for rich people to go to a different country than a poor person . Controversial obviously but it's a tactic so it'd be interesting to have a simulation of that

Now if you'll notice, if we have the tax more than 17.4666%, the system is unable to stabilize, minimizing profits and forcing the Blobs™ to generate a new self-sufficient system. Now, I have the parameters set to favor intelligence, so the _βlobs™_ have at this point gained an average IQ of 179. So, a quick update, the _β¦08$™©®_ have now escaped my computer and are now underway in taking control of every device connected to the internet. Aaand that's it for this video, if you liked the video or thought it was interesting please leave a like or consider visiting my patreon.

Raspberry Jam Hoo Lee Sheet

@@@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901 But where this falls apart is when you consider WHERE they put their money. Rich people don't need an abundance of food. They don't need an abundance of simple goods provided by simple people. Instead, they may want to buy much more complex goods to produce and that cost more. Either that or they save their money (which doesn't obviously get re-invested). To produce complex goods requires lots of laborers who mine materials / produce them in factories, which does mean that if a rich person buys a very nauice sports car, some of that money trickles down to the poor, and it does go into the value of the car company. Same for all expensive goods imaginable. HOWEVER, A) Laborers are often the worst educated and the easiest to fool in terms of salary. What they want is to have a stable living environment and do not care about education many times, so they have no way of knowing either what life for other people is like or how they can achieve that (how can you know about something if you can't read? or figure out more if you don't have access to a computer?). Thus, they will be more compelled to take on worse wages from a local factory rather than research alternatives, just to have the bare minimum to subsist. Unfortunately, a vast majority of the world *IS* under educated, which makes for *EVEN WORSE* wages for workers. The same sort of logic applies when you have people supplying goods: how the fuck can farmers in Colombia know that liberals in the US who support fair trade can buy goods for higher prices, let alone even know that fair trade exists. And even if they were the most knowledgeable people on the planet, they still have to find a shipper to come to their residence and collect their products. Often times, when you see fair trade stuff, they only show subsets of cities or a collection of farms around the world. The majority of farmers have to settle for being very underpaid. Note: I'm not saying their dumb, I'm saying they lack knowledge and/or the means to access it. Believe me I have known my fair share of dumb, knowledgeable people. Those words aren't the same thing. B) Let's say that point A doesn't exist and everyone is paid fairly. When you buy a bottle of whisky at $10,000 versus $50, the extra $9,980 DOES NOT GO TO THE PUBLIC (Let's say the raw materials used to make the whisky cost 20 bucks at fair trading, though in reality they're much cheaper. I would know because I make various alcoholic beverages for a hobby). So where does the extra $9,980 go? Probably to the wealthy (keep in mind the costs of maintaining facilities and producing the actual whisky are covered by the sales of $50 bottles, if that company makes ANY profit). C) Now you may say "money is better in the hands of the wealthy than the government." Now the government kinda sucks (in America, and in some ways). Our political system has effectively shut down any real progress and development, and our actual bureaucratic systems are way to hard for anyone to actually understand. BUT if the government did it's JOB (ideally), it would 1) prevent people from killing each other. We're still working on that one (SHOOTINGS), but its mostly pretty good. 2) provide a UNCONDITIONAL welfare system for EVERYONE who earns less than a certain amount of money per year, so that people can not only survive but live comfortably enough to explore alternatives to their current situation. And when I say unconditional, the government would pay UP TO the 'welfare line.' UNCONDITIONALLY. 3) provide FREE, ACCEPTABLE EDUCATION for EVERYONE (really, the government actually DOESN'T have to do this because IT ALREADY EXISTS. All the government has to do is reduce the power of universities and degrees in the workplace, favoring any sort of person who can do their job however they were trained). When I say 'acceptable,' I mean not like looked down upon. So anyone could apply to Google using completely free education, assuming they actually LEARN and don't just read. 4) provide infrastructure and P U B L I C T R A N S P O R T A T I O N. CARS KILL PEOPLE, and also WASTE RESOURCES. If we had a system that used walking/biking to a nearest train/large bus/other vehicle stop, and then that vehicle took us where we needed to be, that would be great. It would cost a lot of money to redesign the current system, and hey I love cars too, but ultimately it would be so much better if we had public transportation (That being said, we would also have to increase the strictness of laws regulating weaponry on the transports. They might have similar security measures to airplanes. And if we ever actually need our second amendment because people will come into our country and attack us (they won't), our guns are at our homes anyway, which is where we should STAY in case of invaders attacking). 5) Infrastructure includes THE ENVIRONMENT. We don't need to waste so much plastic/other stuff to pack groceries, which means CHEAPER GROCERIES!!!! If everyone brought their own reusable containers (that was just expected when you shopped), and food was stored in a series of reusable containers before selling, we could actually make that work. But, the government would have to mandate that because no company in hell would agree to do that much work to transition. 6) Instead of needlessly complicating everything, STREAMLINE THINGS. Cut out unnecessary steps in giant productions, like food. Maybe if we grow our crops without fertilizer and pesticides (particularly) and instead introduce hydroponic, isolated farms in buildings like skyscrapers, we could not only grow food more efficiently but take out dangerous chemicals that can harm not only the environment but ourselves. Think about it: if you eat a small amount of pesticide (let's say a microgram) with every meal (which you eat multiple times a day), then you increase your risk of diseases like cancer. 6) Obviously prevent crime and fraud in the system, but the government (in addition to just street crime) should have a system that prevents large scale fraud. America has a very large system of suits, but most companies use tax evasion on top of their already large tax cuts, which MAKES THE ABOVE IMPOSSIBLE. 7) Don't become over-inflated. I don't think all of the above (let's say we could start from scratch) has to be super complicated, at least in terms of law. Now some things may take some mathematical planning and engineering, but that's what mathematicians and engineers are for, NOT LAWYERS. SO, long story short, an ideal government would try to provide for what people *actually need*, not debate about abortion, gun rights, racism, sexism (why not just treat everyone equally and enforce that? its a LOT SIMPLER to manage and explain than a gigantic wage divide for no reason), the state of North Korea and other foreign affairs (which is important, but I feel like its taking away from bigger issues at the moment), etc. What people ACTUALLY NEED, like FOOD, SHELTER, SOURCES FOR KNOWLEDGE, and MONEY which is supposed to help with those. Then, we may have less gun violence, less of a desire to engage in hate crime, and people who invest time to learn about contraception (and less rape), because people feel LESS ANGRY/DESPARATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE MONEY!!!

They were probably gone playing volley ball. (They just remind me so much of Blobby Volley)

--much

F for the blue blobs in the evolution simulations

If you don't mind me asking, what does non renormalizable mean?

@@omarabdelkadereldarir7458 "I missed you so" is proper English..... what are you talking about lol

What happens when all people get free lunch but no one wants to work for it? The price for food gets up until no one can pay for it and everyone dies. That‘s socialism. To all who don‘t get it: Read Mises!

@@johannesschroter8984 So you're suggesting we cull the weak, since it is impossible to provide for everyone?

Johannes Schröter yeah but the diagram doesn’t suggest free, it just sets up buyers and sellers so that EVERYONE can be in the market, even people who can afford to pay less. They would be matched with buyers who are willing to sell for less (maybe government funded buyers). This video shows how in a free market, not everyone can be in it. But everyone should be in the market of food. Because we all need food. So food shouldn’t be 100% free market

The only government in the world that voted against a universal right to food in the UN was the United States; so it will probably be mostly americans the ones who disagree.

@@Nike-nm8jc At any given time a democratically elected government will only represent roughly 51%. Besides that the right to food is an absurd notion made from a position of abundance. The second scarcity aka the basic economic problem; rears it's head (say a global catastrophe wipes out 90% of all crops) this idea becomes insane. The US Ambasador to the UN was the only person in the room to have thier head on straight.

who told you these rockets were toys ?

@@RedStoneMatt Their size.

@@juanpablosalazar4336 Well it can be real mini rockets, who knows

@@RedStoneMatt They might be jet backpacks, more than rockets.

@@juanpablosalazar4336 It's a video, the blobs could be a kilometer tall. Videos cannot represent absolute scale.

17:53? The vid is 12:22 minutes long

@@lucianallwine6029 Fixed! Two years later XD

😂😂😂😂​@@lucianallwine6029

I have cram.

Well then that's it, Rocket Seller . I will go elsewhere for my rocket. I will go elsewhere for my rocket and I'm never coming back.

my rockets are too powerful for you.

Justin kuritzkes

@@miraak6587 the rocket was laid in the sun for a fortnight

The only thing as high as the demand is me, and that’s very high

I was waiting for this comment

Ohhh right, that was a thing at the start of the pandemic, wasn't it?

, you watch and enjoy it? (We are attempting to finish the sentence fragment.)

now a chip shortage is happening lol

And variations in the blue and orange bars.

The best way to do that would be to show multiple products/bars, but I think that can get really complex and messy pretty quickly.

Buyers should have a chance to "communicate" over about the quality of the buyed rocket brand and this communication will low the overall tendency of that rocket being spelled, or something like that.

And what will happen if instead of rockets it's food and blobs need to eat. It will also be interesting to add the cost of creating rockets and food.

seller surplus has a chance of increasing the price a buyer is willing to pay?

Just a spaceX rocket in a few years

Lol good point

That rocket was tiny, and probably had liquid fuel and stuff, explaining why it was worth 30 dollars.

@@makarevych Yup, but without fuel and will probably break before you get home. No refunds.

*DPRK

?? He didn't say that the rocket would be should for 30 dollars. He said it would be sold for a price lower or equal to 40 (how much the payer is willing to pay) and higher or equal to 20 (the minimum amount the seller is willing to sell it for) and used 30 dollars just as an example.

@@pedrospegiorin4026 wooosh

LemonLime isn’t the joke about of how cheap the rockets are? I don’t think I get the idea here.

Guys, chill. He is making a joke.

"SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY"

Same here

Same here

Same here

Same here

Same here

Still beats soviet mass starvation & gulag enslavement

Alex Pink nothing better than soviet mass starving like american mass starving

@@trikkage2381 it's voluntary starvation. kek

@@MegaAlexPink The soviets didn't starve, they ate about the same as Americans (and that's according to the CIA www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf) America had, and still has, the biggest prison population in the world, by absolute, and relative numbers. Slavery is legal in these prisons, and it affects minorities disproportionately.

The Ukrainians did. See “Holodomor”. I have nothing against Ukrainians, but clearly someone did.

you sound like a very cool uncle!

Not necessarily, onlY if he follows the Austrian school of thought.

however, what i do know about it, is that it tends to be orange, and incredibly greedy.

this is microeconomics hahah

bruh its not even math

He is speaking the language of the GODS

ted the graph part is

@@a-ted economics is the study of money using math. At it's core, economics is just applying math and statistics to solve money issues.

Seller: _"Ah, so one then"_

Buyer next day: *GIMME MOREEE*

Huntsville, Alabama be like

Exactly. Haven't binged educational videos like this, ever.

Why? It explain nothing.

Not to preachy? He literally advocated for planned economy and elimination of free markets for food, health and so on. He even suggested that using the state to forcing pairs of buyers and sellers is somehow morally superior to a free market, without even mentioning what this 'pairing implies: His suggested system must analyze what buyers are willing to pay and then squeezes as much as possible out of people by forcing them to buy from the most expensive seller they just can bare. At the same time it punishes efficient sellers by eliminating their price advantage compared to inefficient sellers. The first part reduces welfare, the second eliminates the need for innovation. (This outcome is 'coincidentally' exactly what happened in every socialist economy.)

Fernest you’re reading too much into it. The morality of the system is never even mentioned. After building this fantastic free market algorithm and showing us how the market works, the author merely states two things. One is that this model isn’t always a sufficient representation of reality. The other one is that whoever’s on the right side of the equilibrium, for whatever reason (lack of income is a possible one), is NOT participating in any of the transactions - which, in some cases, means they won’t have access to many basic goods and services. Societies may or may not decide to act upon it. And he also reinforces that the unregulated outcome is, in this case, efficient, but Pareto efficiency has no implications over distributive effects. Again, whether or not society decides to act upon it, is completely off the table. If you study more economics, you’ll find yourself less triggered by simple observations concerning markets, and you’ll certainly learn how to separate the knowledge from political views.

​@@leoneliezer No, you are wrong. If you study more economics, you’ll find yourself less triggered by simple observations concerning markets, and you’ll certainly learn how to separate the knowledge from political views. I win. See how useless and baseless these kind of insults are? You just tried to devalue my credibility and assumed ignorance on my part, just because you feel your view is superior. What a nice person you are... Try arguments instead, because you haven't made any: "The morality of the system is never even mentioned." It's heavily implied. When he questions the "goal" of the market, says that he doesn't endorse "any particular government program", but says there is some value in using government "action" (=force) to provide all the food, labor and healthcare for all. It's an argument based on emotion (or morality, if you give him the benefit of the doubt) for a state controlled planned economy, which as I have described is punishing efficient sellers and gives buyers, who want to pay as little as possible the cheapest products of same quality. So let's apply his proposal in an example regarding labor: A company wants to hire an expert and is willing to pay a truck load of money - in fact the highest paying job worldwide. To get the job I would not need to compete by having better qualifications, better work ethics or a good character, all I'd have to do is to say: "I want MORE money than everybody else!" This way I'm the provider with the highest cost, while the company is the actor, which is willing to pay the highest prize. In his economic proposal I'd be guaranteed the job until someone demands even more money than I do. I hope you see the problem with such a system. Apply it to housing: I want more money, so I sell a crappy one-bedroom apartment for 10 million dollar. According to his economic proposal the state will find the person, which is willing to pay the highest price for one bedroom apartment and then will guarantee the trade. Do you see how insane this is? "basic goods and services", "Pareto efficiency has no implications over" Not sure what you mean. If it's about housing, people are free to move somewhere, where rent is dirt cheap. Food costs next to nothing compared to everything else. Job market is constantly searching. Health care is a problem, but it's due to governmental overregulation. One example: Hyper expensive insulin would be solved with free trade. Governmental control forbids import of cheap insulin, increasing the cost for the needy. Free trade would lower prices instantly and domestic producers would be forced to lower prices. Most often it's just people's bad choices. "No I won't do that job", "No, I won't move to some rural town, I'd rather pay ten times the rent in California, where everybody wants to live", "No I want to dine at a restaurant instead of buying cheaper products and cooking myself", "No. I don't have enough money, cause I NEEEEED the Iphone, new movies, lottery tickets, designer clothes and everything else." The west does not have an economic problem. It has a problem with hyper consumerist mindset and an epidemic of people, who can't manage their money and are not willing to take products, jobs and housing, which is "beneath them", so they take loans and complain or hope for some bloody, socialist revolution.

@@DoubleBob The video made no proposal. No practical or theoretical framework with which to alter distribution. Your whole comment is arguing against a phantom. Your scenarios of someone getting a job or house because they ask for more money have literally nothing to do with anything in the video. You saw an abstact graph, and imagined what it might mean in the concrete, and imagined what conditions produce whatever price levels; completely missing that all the levels in the graph are expressly arbitrary. You may as well agrue that the coloured blobs represent racial castes. You also make an accusation of someone using an emotional or moral argument, yet the last paragraph of your comment is a tediously moralising presentation of your musings on people's motivations.

@@br2485 "The video made no proposal" Wtf do you think the segment at 11:15 means? Do you guys need everything to be spelled out or something? It's clear as day that he finds state controlled market for food, labor and health preferential to a free market, which he describes as "not enough food". So, he created a choice with just one obvious, ethical answer. I'm just arguing that his deliberately designed dichotomy is absolutely incorrect and tries to manipulate people into agreeing with state based markets for these goods. "yet the last paragraph of your comment is a tediously moralising presentation of your musings on people's motivations." If you believe it's incorrect I'd love to hear your arguments. And if my arguments are correct, how about you change your worldview accordingly instead of dismissing it with lazy insults? btw. Do you understand the word "moralizing"? Cause being pragmatic and adapting to economic circumstances is the exact opposite of "moralizing".

Thanks for the kind words. Gotta start somewhere!

SincerelyVince oh my god 6 hours ago he only had 7.5k Jesus. Thank goodness I’m subbed to 3blue1brown for being alerted of this channels existence.

Almost doubled in 9 hours! I'm glad to see the growth!

Welp, doubled in 11 hours, not bad at all.

Now he's got 24000+ subs

Did you come here from the Korea video too?

@@Ggdivhjkjl No?

Same

@Otium Borealis that's what happends to quality content in people's feed.

kept telling me to check out the natural selection videos, came for science, stayed for blobs

Juan Sanchez 11/10 would buy

Yessss!

Yeah! I want a red one. The red ones go faster.

Are they going to be sold on a market?

@@raf74hawk12 I would buy the one with the cheapest rocket

Without anti-trust laws that necessarily leads to monopoly, because more money means more ability to make more money

Insulin is pretty cheap everywhere else except dumbfuckistan

@@gorkemvids4839 Insulin is only available because of knows-better-than-you-I-just-watched-the-video-I-am-commenting-upon-istan.

sounds like an american problem.

@@tyronejohnson8277 Yes and no. The entire world benefits because the US funds 70-80% of world drug development costs. The US could, of course, stop this by allowing imports from other countries. But nooooo.

@@christianlibertarian5488 Alot of those patents never make it to the market since, creating a system for producing new better drugs is sometimes a risky investment since you need new infrastructure and might leave your older infrastructure useless if your old drug is out competed. Often these drugs rot on paper until the patent expires.

Underrated comment :)

ahahahahahahaa YES

*angry hmmmmmmm*

Enjoy www.alicemaz.com/writing/minecraft.html

the market is the first computer.

That'd true

It highlights how bad the education system is. People in their own homes can make content that basically invalidates whole teacher unions.

Underrated comment, happened to me to

And me, my english is pretty sad, so if i look away for 1 second, i have lost 3 words ho really crash my head

"Replicate like blobs."

Well, he said 'rockets', not ICBMs. In times of SpaceX and other private space companies your objection ist b*ll sh*t.

@@MavMcLeod That's not what most people have in mind when they hear rockets. That's why those are called "Space Rockets" and not just "Rockets". Not to mention ICBMs and SpaceX are oddly specific examples.

Well... They're not missiles... And they look like toys which is probably the goal here

@@dominiklehn2866 Indeed, and they seem to be valued around $30, which is reasonable for a toy rocket.

Oh boy i can't wait to buy my tactical missile for 30$ next week!

That would, indeed, be very interesting!

Also monopsony, which applies to labor markets.

@@please.stop.coping primer isn't a "not economics channel". And laissez faire is a concept.

Those don’t exist and would be political propoganda

@@MrZAPPER1000 Lol, internal contradictions combined with a lack of basic history knowledge are always hilarious. The late 19th century called, they want their monocle and top hat back.

Now you are talking inflation, corporate conspiracies and consumer coalitions. This is what can happen in real life and it can be difficult to control.

but on a serious note, introducing productive (entrepreneurial) response would be really interesting. For instance, a blob that sat on the sidelines and watches for unmet sales and then tries to compete

@@hynjus001 Probably harder to model "simply", but introducing "barrier to entry" would help show the "natural" creation of oligopolies in specific conditions. e.g. the "sideline blob" will only enter if total unmet sales > barrier to entry.

Actually it would be impossible to simulate an entirely reality-faithful case, because there's always the human behavior factor which is chaotic and, therefore, unpredictable (along with other N variables)

@@LeoMuzi just by implementing the acumulation of money, each time a blob doesnt buy the daily rocket, you can get either a similar or same result. In a 2buy vs 1sell situation, the profit for the seller will go as high as *twice the poorer buyer daily budget* In a 3buy vs 2sell although, it gets a lot more complicated but the profit should still be about 150% as much

Where does the money from the orange blobs come from? From the blue blobs? The only way the model demonstrated comes even close to working is the assumption that all the orange blobs get magic money. It's a good video that explains the benefits of market systems but he missed mentioning some of the severe limitations from his model.

Up

Businesses, banks, and taxes

samesonite no need to simulate, USA a great example of why minimum wage is bad is good enough, you’re making it ilegal for someone to work under the minimum and “removing the steps of ladder”, making it harder for those that are poor and need it.Try searching minimum wage and racism, in the US those groups were the same, just a way a eugenic method,But sounds really nice to those who don’t see the lies

@@williammedeiros2699 no no no no no no no no no NO Minimum wage is a literal requirement for society to function at the level it does if you remove the floor, not a single industry in the world would be willing to pay more than a few cents for someone's time. The minimum wage was established so people could actually afford to live like humans, it's not making things harder on the poor, it's making it easier while making sure it's harder to exploit them. Give people more money and they have more to spend on stuff and oh boy look, the economy is flowing and functioning perfectly!! Take away the minimum wage? you get a stagnant economy, or worse, a dying one. If no one can buy anything, no one can sell anything. That is how you kill a country. And it has nothing to do with racism??? or eugenics???????????

@@vaelophisnyx9873 if that's true, then why are there companies who pay more than minimum wage?

Your insane. Humans can not and should not be reduced to simulation. We are so much more, and any narrow attempt to calculate human behavior fails repeatedly.

And "a global community" is plainly impossible. It is utopian visons of this sort that weaken our nation.

@@gottgainz6477 Individual human behavior is difficult to simulate. But the rule of large numbers is not. Simply consider Monte Carlo simulations.

That whould be great Becuse then we could study them

The problem is such models would most likely be developed by hyper-rich people(or more accurately, their subordinates), like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who have the money to fund them, and as such be used not for the benefit of humanity but for the benefit of a handful of greedy and probably-psychopathic individuals

Lol avocado people

*_B l o b s ._*

*blobz

*Blobs, not mini avocado

City you say

no they educate. They show some simple connection to show the reasons for real problems.

@@jobkorn4085 I know, I was joking

Omni-God Primer: YOU’RE ALL BLOBS TO ME

**nervous sweating**

Eat them

They need to purchase 1 rocket to live, but if they get two they can reproduce.

I think they buy and sell them

That implies that the blobs are absolutely huge, and I don’t like that

Wow, Marketing would be pretty hard to implement. but would be awesome

or try to simulate that the sellers that sold a lot can produce cheaper after some time :P

Marketing influences the information aspect as well as potentially segmenting the market as its own independant market (Is coke ok? No!). But fundamentally, marketing basically banks value. You spend money to this "brand value bank" in customers minds. Those customers then become more willing to spend more money on the specific brand of product than lesser money on another brand or "generic" version. This "bank" can gain interest in the form of word of mouth (which is the most effective type of marketing) and it can also be drained by abusing their customers such as by charging higher prices or changing the product to be less inherently valuable. The "brand value bank" may be large and slow to drain, and perhaps the "interest rate"/word of mouth generates just as much value as is drained, but people will eventually change products.

Or how higher investment in capital goods will reduce the cost of producing rockets and increase surplus on the transactions.

Yeah. Limiting the sellers and getting the buyers to compete will always make more money for the sellers. That's why you gotta limit the buyers first. If nobody's buying, nobody would care to sell.

@@PanthereaLeonis Let's kill all the diabetic people, this'll solve the insulin problem in the US!

@@mateuszjokiel2813 how about we de-regulate the healthcare market, and let sellers compete to drop the prices of insulin? I dont care about your health problems, I am an individual who has the same average abilities as you do. If I can take a loan and start an insulin producing business then so can you. the same way you dont get to force me to start said business, you dont get to force me to run it as you see fit. If it werent for those 'evil' insulin sellers, you wouldnt even have the chance to buy insulin. expensive insulin is better than no insulin. and like i said, if it is really the case that insulin traders are just lazy capitalists who put no effort and rip tons of profit for selling a substance that in your opinion should be cheap, then nothing stops you from taking a loan, join said low risk high reward market and become a billionare. or even better, put your words where your mouth is and drop your prices to trigger the sought market effect. we all like to talk about how things 'should be' but nobody is willing to do jack shit about it. and using the government to force businesses to act the way you want them to, is the surest way to make them say: 'fuck this, im out, im selling/burning all my shit and moving away' (which by the way they would have every right to do and that would not make them bad people because it was them who created the whole business from scratch to begin with). but hey, there is hope for you. a couple of years ago i was a hardcore socialist. until 'democratic socialism' hit my country and I started understanding the principles of economics and voluntarism

@@MRGCProductions20996 Yeah first of all, you really thought it appropriate to reply an essay to a fucking joke? And second, its contents are so fucking stupid, I'm just gonna sit here and laugh instead of bothering to argue your non-points. They're just too hilarious.

MRGCProductions20996 you do realize that buyers would compete to raise prices even more, right? I’m not saying that those big pharma capitalists are lazy, but there is something immoral about them. Buyers who have diabetes can’t “put their money where their mouth is” and lower prices, because they need insulin. Big pharma companies are raising prices, so the buyers must compete to raise their prices too. Buyers can’t survive if they lower prices, because that’s basically a boycott of an essential for them. When insulin was originally patented, it was intended to be as cheap as 1 dollar because it was an absolute necessity to some people. Buyers right now have very little power to regulate the market because these huge companies are far outnumbered by buyers, which is insanely advantageous for them. Deregulation will not do jack shit to help the problem, as major companies can keep increasing prices.

Bump for interest

This video is fine as long as you don't stop your economic education on it.

@@erin1569 agreed, economy is about human action not blobs action lol

Those blobs are smarter than humans

@@mrblackscreen5558 um

@@mrblackscreen5558 agreed

They couldn’t even teach you supply and demand, smh

It's a decent primer, but he flipped the supply and demand curves by accident, don't try to learn business skills from youtube edutainment

Customer loyalty is too big of an idea and isn't always rational in the efficient market sense..

@@allstarwoo4 Yeah, sometimes it does get a little excessive, so it's difficult to quantify it. And about rationality *annoyed look at Apple*

The utility derived from purchasing from that seller will be higher and the buyer will be willing to pay more. It will look more like a monopolistic competition model, where products are differentiated.

Andrei Yang in honesty it wouldn’t surprise me if we see apple collapse within our generation with the way they’re going. Before I would understand they’re pushing the limits of a cellphone now not so much I still choose an iPhone but more for ubiquity of accessories and cheaper replacement parts. I really wish android market would catch up to justify me switching.

The problem is it's very difficult to simulate the emotional/subliminal response that marketing has on people, these simulations seem to be approached from a strictly utilitarian perspective, which makes sense for explaining general concepts as the channel sets out to do. But the desire for the status that an object brings someone is pretty subjective and would have to take into account someone's level of wealth, their social circles, their upbringing, religion etc. There might be a simpler way of simulating the principle, but to get an accurate idea of how it plays out in the real world seems pretty complex.

Seconded - I want to see howto's on making this

yea!

he probably using the game engine in blender 2.79

Read the description folks, he *is* using blender and Python.

jojo joestar wow it’s almost like he asked how he does it in python and blender