Land prices?

Anyone else noticed that the land prices on the community page hasn't changed in about a month? Maybe more?

Average Parcel Size: 1,339
Median Parcel Size: 512
Average L$/Meter: 4.54
Median L$/Meter: 4.88

Zep

Yeah, I posted about that a few threads down

/130/2e/35662/1.html

It hasn't changed at all. As far as I can tell from watching the inworld sales, land prices have dropped considerably over the past month or so.

The new econ stats page is up:

https://secondlife.com/community/economy.php

It's pretty good.

Now if only we can get the more recent data at the top. Any Lindens out there?

Please note that auction prices are considerably higher now than in world prices. It seem some people get themself fooled by assumption that buying at auction is always cheaper. So they all compete for few new parcels, while lotsa great cheap land sit in world wait for them

my assesment is auction prices are starting to finally match inworld prices in recent weeks. (still anshe, you managed a steal in brownlee )

it looks like there are end user players finally going to the auctions for land, or that it's start up barons who are bound to get burnt. regardless, as the population grows, the land trade is changing. it is time for land traders to refocus their energies on the in world market of liquidating endusers of land to create margins.

right now anshe is best positioned for that with her excellent website form service. i suggest other land traders take the effort to hire a web developer for this little gizmo. i know i would if i wanted to maintain a stake in the land trade.

It seems to me that the land baron class would like to perpetuate its own existence by raising the claim that newby wannabee barons and end-users bidding against them are raising the prices for us all, and making land more expensive throughout the game. They'd like to be able to say that if we go on leaving the driving to them, that they will keep prices lower and stable and saner. That's because they each have a business plan, sometimes a very rigid one, in which they know exactly what their margin is, and place bids on a given land based on shrewd calculations as to its reselling possibilities factored for variables like mature/PG, telehub, other location factors like waterfront or flat, proximate builds, etc. So if we leave the driving to them, we are assured that people bidding are tied to some "real" common-sense factors about how they will re-sell.

Maybe they are correct. I believe this needs more field research and an analysis of past won auctions (updating Tiger Crossing's records).

I personally had the experience of outbidding a "baron" a few times by only a few dollars simply because they had their margins and that was that. Maybe they need to re-think them? Let's scientifically look at all past auctions to see *by how much* barons are outbid, and if the amounts are small, then it's hard for me to believe that we need to castigate newby wannabees and end-users as quite the "wreckers and splitters" the barons would have us believe. I do think it's funny that even barons in this game attempt to appeal to socialist values and norms like "you are wrecking the game for everybody" whenever they need something in their interests. When will the free market be more valued in this game?

I think Jauani is right that there are new people in the game and their behaviour is different. I can't be sure that that prices are rising due to more end-users who really want a certain parcel, then want the parcels next to that to secure their investment and attempt to buy their views OR whether it really is wannabees who think it is get-rich-quick and aren't factoring in the tier wall that will hit in 30 days or the great amount of labour that must be invested in parcelling and selling land effectively.

Because it's in land barons' interest to have us believe the latter, and not celebrate increased end-user purchases for richer game development (let's say, to be charitable), it all needs more real research. The Lindens could tell us how many new accounts are premium, and of these, how many buy first land, how soon do they turn over their first land, and then what do they tier up to. But I suppose those secrets are somewhere in a locked trunk on the Magellan Expedition lol.

If it is wannabees whose eyes are bigger than their stomach, the main barons will be on hand to buy out the wannabee experiments probably at less than cost anyway, so it merely means a 30-day delay in gratification.

I would agree with Jauani that barons could focus on more in-world liquidation but I'll go you one better, they could FIRST focus on liquidating their own back inventory, which is all over the world, sitting there. Coming down from their 10-9-8 per meter in some areas where they are just patches especially, and helping longer-term residents of sims to buy up remaining unsold land, would help reduce their tier and give them more liquidity to position themselves to pay those bit-higher prices on the auction : )

But then, land barons aren't running social charities, so I will watch to see what they do and trust not in the labour theory of value, but in the theory that what's good for Ford is good for the country : )

Perhaps the premium in auctions is worth not contributing to the bottom line of certain land-holders. At least it ALL goes to Linden Lab, that way.

I'm starting to prefer it as well.

.

I think Buster Peel is right in the other thread, this is more of a religious than an economic discussion.

You seem to ascribe infinite good will and wisdom to your gods, the Lindens, in wishing them to capture all the money from sold land, and not your fellow players. Your belief is that the aggregate of self-interest displayed by land barons and other players is not a benefit to virtual society, but only a guided, socialist-style norm with control of supply and demand by a central authority like the Lindens.

The desire to make sure Lindens get auction money, and higher pricers, rather than sellers in-game or on the auction appears to support that belief.

I don't share this belief because it is not demonstrated by fact, but furthermore, I think the aggregate of barons' or players' self-interest is a phenomenon lending itself more easily to transparency, and that means that information can be accessed to make more informed decisions, so it is a more free economy. Example: if I see a piece of land in the game, it has a price-tag on it, I know what is next to it, and I can ask the seller, often a land baron, why they have that price and even negotiate a lower price or a swap with them. Whereas with the Lindens auction, only they know what will be next to the land they are making in the future, and the only form of negotiation I have with them if I don't like their opening price is to not play that round of auction. And that often happens.

I do not believe there is anything especially sacred about Linden Labs, nor do I believe there is anything inherently evil about land barons who serve as a buffer and a transmission belt between the despotic and unpredictable supplier of new land and the hungry masses. But then...it's because it's about belief...so if you have a different belief, then it's a religious, not an economic discussion, as so many economic discussions really are.

Prok'n'Beans, I tried to read all that, but I'll just shorten it up a bit.

DEJA WHINE.

Now, lets proceed on topic. I think auctions work, and I don't mind that they are an economic shunt to Linden Lab directly. I choose to use them when applicable, and for large lots they are the only way to go, as in-world large parcels are usually chopped up and not sold unto themselves. (Omitting whole-sim sales, of course.)

The Lindens could choose to be more laissez-faire, but wide currency and land price fluctuations wouldn't help anybody.

Land scarcity is not socialism. And we decide how to use our property far more than in RL.

The Lindens don't play the sort of mind games and dirty tricks some land barons do. When I pay the Lindens, I know I'll get the land I was promised.

If Linden Lab is despotic, it's a very representative tyranny!

SL is like no other online world I've seen. Here developers, employees, and the CEO talk directly to players. In no other case have I ever wondered if a company might be *too* responsive to its customers. (And no, they aren't. But I *did* wonder.)

They can produce bad spelling, too, like the word "consciousness" LOL.

Google "what's good for Ford is good for the country" and you will see this cliche, substituting "Ford" for "General Motors" is used just as often as the original GM phrase.

Vexx-Maxx, that isn't even one of my longer posts, and it is a carefully thought-out and crafted essay on topics larger and more philosopohical than this thread, read it or don't. It is not DEJA WHINE any more than your chronic whining about all other players outside your little circle being ebil is a DEJA WHINE.

Maybe you don't get out much, because there are huge parcels being offered all the time by land barons, they are not always chopped up, and I find land barons often merely selling to each other to position themselves on various sims, projects, etc. and sometimes they will give you a good deal if you buy a large parcel. Sure, you get a better deal on the auction if you want to spend the time on it and risk bidding up too high. Sometimes what is available in-world isn't that much more or even the same price as an overbid auction.

Bickering aside...If I follow you, you want to see WHO does the bulk of the bidding over the then-current average land prices. Do the heavy-bidders (aka: "land barons" really stop at just under the going rate, then sell at the going rate in-world, or do they often go over the average price and contribute to a rise in land prices overall. Good question, and worth checking.

It's time for me to do a new data run on the auction data I've collected, so I'll do that soon, update my auction pages, and see if I can track that particular issue.

"Representative tyranny" is one of the most interesting oxymorons I've seen in a long time.

I swear it was intended.

Land prices near telehubs are likely inflated by land seller activity. There's much less inflation away from telehubs.

tiger,
can you show a comparison for say the new period you are prcessing vs the same length of time preceding that period for in world and auction prices and bidding performance of individual players? oh boy do we abuse your wizardry

Competition is good for customer. In long term competition bring down price.

What create undesired fluctuations of prices is wrong economic decisions and overspeculation. It is the quality of one person's economic analysis, predictions and investment decisions that define wether that person is beneficial to the economy or not. It would be assuming though to try to judge anyone's investment strategy. To properly balance opportunity and risk is one art and I myself could still be proven wrong.

well said Anshe..

Yes, part one of this statement we can all agree on, that competition is healthy, it creates more dynamism, more feedback, more innovation and that's good for the customer, he or she has more choice.

What troubles me about this remark, Anshe, however is the notion that there are "wrong" economic decisions and "overspeculation" that is defined....by those who have something to lose, i.e the oligarches in a system where supply is controlled and unpredictable (the manufacture of Linden land).

Who is to judge what is "wrong"? And what is "overspeculation" in this artificial hothouse environment of a pioneer Internet game? Perhaps a newbie wannabee baron makes what seems like a good buy on the auction, chops it up, and puts it on the market with lots of day-glo spinning signs. Maybe he sets it to 10/meter in PG 800 meters from the telehub and savvy land barons chuckle as they watch him flounder trying to do this. But...maybe they are wrong, and to their shock, his group of 10 friends in a fight club from another game all buy from him. Who is to know what is "wrong"? It's "his" economy, not just "yours" LOL.

Economic decisions have to be free in a free market. The only punishment should come from the free market itself, not the oligarchs in an unfree market who create a climate of opprobrium and threat. If the newb wannabee can't unload his PG for 10/meter, then gradually he is taught by his consumers who hold out on him that he has to come down to 5/meter and he begins to eat his tier and curse his rash decision. But he should have the freedom to try and fail in a free market, without being informed by the top oligarchs that his ideas are crap, that he is "overheating" the economy and driving up prices and "hurting the game for us all". You yourself concede this by saying that investment is an art and a balance.

Still, there's also a terrible communistic notion lurking under this idea of some people being "beneficial" and others "not being beneficial" -- it adds a mission-statement to a "free" economy that already makes it unfree, because only those "free" decisions are acceptable if they "benefit" the economy in someone's eyes. This is called in Soviet Russia "socially useful". Who determines what is "beneficial" to an economy? For example, some people don't find it beneficial that land barons buy up land at 5 and resell it at 7. They might figure out to go on the auction and buy at 6 if they have to, by overbidding your long-customary "safe margin" LOL! Now maybe that doesn't benefit *your* economy, but it sure benefits theirs, now that they have paid 6 instead of 7, eh? And if the aggregate of their free decisions drives up auctions for you AND them in the long run, well, the market found the proper valuation of land, did it not?

The aggregate of numerous free economic decisions with the necessary free flow of information, goods and services and the kind of feedback that people can use to make informed economic deicions are going to be the "good economy" -- at least according to liberal free-market "invisible hand" type of theories. According to socialist theories, some force -- the state? only those properly educated informed analysts with MBAs? only large buyers? -- get to decide what is "beneficial".

I am not for handing over the concept of "beneficial" to a group of 5 land barons, I'm sorry, that's just me. But go ahead, crush me with your shrewdly economically-analyzed prim-rich stiletto heel if you must, because I realize it's not free lol.

Someone who makes bad investment decisions is contributing to the economy and the financial well-being of others if they buy high and sell low. However, they are probably doing so in an unsustainable way.

Land is the only Gold in SL. And LL has the biggest Gold Reserve and can break any Cornering of the Market.

No, somebody who makes bad investment decisions destroys value. It is bad for the overall economy.

Of course the price for this the investor has to bear, and sometimes others can profitate if the investor pays them too much or sells too cheap. But if you add up all value created/lost in whole process then bad investment always destroy value while good investment generates value