Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo
Economics is not as hard of a science as physics is, but there are well-known and understood concepts. Thus, someone going from those base concepts doesn't need to provide proof; they are going from what is normal. The burden of proof would lie with those trying to provide a theory that is outside the normal outcome. That is why I don't see a need for me to provide much of anything, because I can't prove a negative.
|
I'm not buying it. You reduce economics to it's base cores, and even then eliminate the core principles that do not fit your point of view to pick only the one that lets your argument come out the best. You ignore the legions of other economic concepts (incentives, opportunity cost, productive resources, business cycles the list goes on) to just focus on the profit/loss ratio to hammer an argument home without backing it up.
So, I will ask again. Before you started shifting goal-posts, you made a claim that StrikerS somehow wasn't profitable. In fact, you claimed it was a financial loss and that this is the reason for no season 4. Can you back that up?
Because let me make this clear, I at no point denied economics wasn't at the center of the decision to not make season 4 (even "we're busy" is an economic decision, see "productive resources"). The only claims I have from the start of this debate tried to disprove was that StrikerS was a financial loss and that this is the reason for no S4.