Why do corporations need maintenance anyway? There's already a huge opportunity cost in spreading a corporation. Using your great people to create a golden age instead of founding a corporation, building military units instead of corporate executives, not having to spend gold to spread corporations means you can build tanks and go conquer cities.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Huge inflation
- Thread starter Tatran
- Start date
Why do corporations need maintenance anyway? There's already a huge opportunity cost in spreading a corporation. Using your great people to create a golden age instead of founding a corporation, building military units instead of corporate executives, not having to spend gold to spread corporations means you can build tanks and go conquer cities.
Never did take Econ 101. I did take Econ 201, 301, and 401+.
I am rarely good at explaining stuff, so I'll try again.
While money changing hands is good - called Cash Flow - it really doesn't do much for increasing the money of the US - Net Worth. The same amount of money is always there, except for when the gov prints money to combat deflation.
Money does increase taxes, and that is the Number 1 reason a local municipality would invite a corporation to "set up shop." Number 2 is to create jobs. But neither of these, again, increases the net worth of the US as a whole.
In my poor example above, I was trying to illustrate that a nation always gains in economic prosperity by selling goods outside their borders. This is why China is currently outpacing everyone in the world. They are exporting vastly more goods than they are importing.
In it's basic form, a franchise would start a business in say, Moscow. Let's use McDonald's as an example. McD's builds a resturant in Moscow using local resources. It then purchases local food to process and sell. Moscow benefits because McD's is spending money there to buy resources. At the end of the day McD takes all the profits, and sends them back to McD's Headquarters in the US.
So McDs spends a little money in Moscow, uses their resources, reprocesses, takes their money, and removes it from their economy into ours.
Thus you can see why Franchises HURT Moscow and benefit the US.
On the flip side, the local McD down the street is using US resources and taking US dollars, only to send that money somewhere else in the US. Sure, it may appear things are prosperous locally. McD sends its B&O tax to the State you live in, which in turn gives a portion to your city, which in turn uses most of that money to fund local projects like building roads, buying property, etc, which ultimately ends back up in our hands. Who then go buy cheeseburgers and the cycle repeats.
monkspider
Warlord
I think the person who did this spread a few too many corporations around, as I understand it, corporations should be used sparingly domestically, and only in key circumstances where they would be most beneficial. Running free market, and having wall street in the city the corporation is founded can offset a great deal of these costs.
-edit spreading your executives to foreign cities can help subsidize the domestic cost as well.
-edit spreading your executives to foreign cities can help subsidize the domestic cost as well.
Nikis-Knight
Deity
Slightly off topic:
So just by creating jobs, money or it's equivalent in time or serveices is added to the country.
I disagree with #2 not increasing US net worth, or perhaps misunderstand. When someone works, their labor adds to the value of a product or service. When I work an hour (except this one, of course, since I am wasting time on CFC), even if what I make is sold in the US, there is $15-20 more in the US economy. If my labor had not been worth that much, I wouldn't have been paid. So I get money, and my employer gets a product, or small part of a potential product, that it can trade for even more money.
So just by creating jobs, money or it's equivalent in time or serveices is added to the country.
but then I'll also earn more through population increases in my cities, the growth of cottages and cities building other economic improvements.
The benefit of that +18and +3
that I'm generating at the moment, as well as the income from the headquarters, should not be overlooked. I should expect to pay something towards that. It's fairly major during the late game.
but is that more cost effective than SP? the benefits of hammers for civic isnt unique. the culture somewhat is.
largedarryl
Prince
Well that is the way a free market world and corperations are supposed to work. That is why I actually liek the inital application of corporations in BtS. I'm sure they will be improved with future patches to try and balance them.
As in what acuoio said, right on with your assesment of international trade and corporations. I think future patches will add some tweaking of the economic traits to change the corporations effects.
And I do agree that the inflation mechanic in CivIV is a bad one. I think the Europa Universalias is much better, but it would not work in CivIV because of the way income works in Civ. To try and emulate more of a EU type of inflation, inflation would need to be directly related to the amount of money being "minted" by your civ. Something where the more money you make, the higher the rate of inflation. Something like this could be implemented, but it would require a change to income/maintenance/upkeep.
As in what acuoio said, right on with your assesment of international trade and corporations. I think future patches will add some tweaking of the economic traits to change the corporations effects.
And I do agree that the inflation mechanic in CivIV is a bad one. I think the Europa Universalias is much better, but it would not work in CivIV because of the way income works in Civ. To try and emulate more of a EU type of inflation, inflation would need to be directly related to the amount of money being "minted" by your civ. Something where the more money you make, the higher the rate of inflation. Something like this could be implemented, but it would require a change to income/maintenance/upkeep.
DrJambo
Crash-test dummy
So, do the dissenters reckon that halving the inflation rate would work? Or, if not, halving corporation maintenance?
Never did take Econ 101. I did take Econ 201, 301, and 401+.
I am rarely good at explaining stuff, so I'll try again.
While money changing hands is good - called Cash Flow - it really doesn't do much for increasing the money of the US - Net Worth. The same amount of money is always there, except for when the gov prints money to combat deflation.
Money does increase taxes, and that is the Number 1 reason a local municipality would invite a corporation to "set up shop." Number 2 is to create jobs. But neither of these, again, increases the net worth of the US as a whole.
In my poor example above, I was trying to illustrate that a nation always gains in economic prosperity by selling goods outside their borders. This is why China is currently outpacing everyone in the world. They are exporting vastly more goods than they are importing.
In it's basic form, a franchise would start a business in say, Moscow. Let's use McDonald's as an example. McD's builds a resturant in Moscow using local resources. It then purchases local food to process and sell. Moscow benefits because McD's is spending money there to buy resources. At the end of the day McD takes all the profits, and sends them back to McD's Headquarters in the US.
So McDs spends a little money in Moscow, uses their resources, reprocesses, takes their money, and removes it from their economy into ours.
Thus you can see why Franchises HURT Moscow and benefit the US.
On the flip side, the local McD down the street is using US resources and taking US dollars, only to send that money somewhere else in the US. Sure, it may appear things are prosperous locally. McD sends its B&O tax to the State you live in, which in turn gives a portion to your city, which in turn uses most of that money to fund local projects like building roads, buying property, etc, which ultimately ends back up in our hands. Who then go buy cheeseburgers and the cycle repeats.
If they do hurt eventually, we wouldn't have the system we have right now. Your explanation seems like each country would benefit most by adopting the jutze system (since having foreign corporations in their lands would hurt them) and we all know how that is working in North Korea.
But then your next door neighbor just spent $20 to buy the item you just made, therefore the country just lost $20.
Of course, that isn't right. No one lost money. It just changed hands. The net worth of the US is only increased by selling items overseas.
I will concede that jobs could increase net worth, but only if the goods are sold outside the US. Until then, you are always just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
For example, working for Microsoft would be good because many of their products are sold all over the world. You taking a job at BMW wouldn't help. All profits go back to Germany.
How about not scaling the upkeep with the number of resources? That way with only one resource consumed it would not be worth it, but with a monopoly of say 5-6 consumed resources it could be very worthwhile? I suspect this is too strong.
I think inflation is a big game balancing factor so any change to it needs to be carefully decided.
I think inflation is a big game balancing factor so any change to it needs to be carefully decided.
Nikis-Knight
Deity
Then economics is a zero sum game? It's impossible to benefit if you look at the whole world as a system?
I think you are ignoring the effects of specialization. When my neighbor spends $20 to buy the product that my company paid me 20$ to make, they both got richer! How? because if the neighbor didn't value the product more than 20$, he would have kept the money, and likewise the company the product. They both believe that they got the better part of a deal, and they are both right! (The beauty of a Free Market). because the neighbor can put the product to better, more, erm, productive use than the $20 he started with, and likewise my company the money.
At the moment, I'd say have inflation ignore corporate payment, if possible, then take it from there.
Raider
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Messages
- 169
This system seems broken both practically and conceptually. Spreading corporations to cripple other civilizations and have spread of corporations hurt you--that is just not how it works in real life. Corporations generate tax and services--they are not weapons used to bankrupt a country...
1- change inflation to be Cost*(1+rate)^turn in game and then scaled to game speed
2- seperate inflation calculations from corp maitenance so that Cost*(turn*rate)+Cost-Corporations
3- Free market confers -50% costs
4- Free market confers -50% to ones you own and -25% to ones owned by others in your territory
5-Adjust maintenance for resource consumption to get smaller as the resource amount increases
6- Own Executives in city prevent decrease chances foriegn executive from setting up a corp
These are all things that don't require huge adjustments and might go some way to makign corps more competitive and less exploitable.
1 - this benefits the free market by reducing overall costs and not double counting them
1a- this also means that those with less costs will pay less regardless
2- this benefits solely corporations
3- makes the civic stronger for the inteneded purpose it has
3a- Must have a cap on max reduction
4- Makes civic stronger but also encourages outward growth and corporate invasions
4a- same as 3a
5- Can actually get to a point where production from resources outpaces costs
5a- makes having foreign corps in your city not as bad
6a- free market/enviro benefit for protection
6b- used in case of UN vote for enviro
I choose 1, 4, 5, 6
2- seperate inflation calculations from corp maitenance so that Cost*(turn*rate)+Cost-Corporations
3- Free market confers -50% costs
4- Free market confers -50% to ones you own and -25% to ones owned by others in your territory
5-Adjust maintenance for resource consumption to get smaller as the resource amount increases
6- Own Executives in city prevent decrease chances foriegn executive from setting up a corp
These are all things that don't require huge adjustments and might go some way to makign corps more competitive and less exploitable.
1 - this benefits the free market by reducing overall costs and not double counting them
1a- this also means that those with less costs will pay less regardless
2- this benefits solely corporations
3- makes the civic stronger for the inteneded purpose it has
3a- Must have a cap on max reduction
4- Makes civic stronger but also encourages outward growth and corporate invasions
4a- same as 3a
5- Can actually get to a point where production from resources outpaces costs
5a- makes having foreign corps in your city not as bad
6a- free market/enviro benefit for protection
6b- used in case of UN vote for enviro
I choose 1, 4, 5, 6
The real world isn't as simple as that. Franchises create jobs and wealth. A country doesn't need to simply "export more than import" to create wealth - thats grossly oversimplification.
There could be 2 countries, both of whom had a net neutral trade balance [import:export] but one country is more wealthy.
The reason is that unlike the theory of the "conservation of energy" which states that energy is never created or destroyed but merely changes from one form to another, wealth CAN BE CREATED.
In the 2 countries example, if the countries both had 10 people as residents then in:
- CountryA 9 out of 10 people work to produce cars+homes+food+tvs+DVD players
- CountryB 5 out of 10 people work to produce food+homes+tvs
In this case, the people of country A are richer and live a more luxurious life.
So let me go to your example of MCD's and use a Civ analogy. Rather than MCD simply being terrible for people and being a tax by the US on Russia [lets not mix cities and countries it complicates], you should see it as:
McD provides a
boost, a 
boost, a little :sic: and also gives the HQ 5
To simply say the McD is absolutely terrible for Russia is not only simplifying it, but most certainly WRONG - if this were the case then Britain, France, Russia and all other countries would simply shut down all foreign corporations.
The reality is that corporations tend to make at most a 3-4% net profit [sometimes less] whereas most of the trade done is boosting the places the branches inhabit.
Believe me I'm no fan of capitalism, but as much as I'd consider myself a socialist, I'm not gonna fool myself.
I wouldn't even ask for that much, all I want if for my corporations to cost the same as they do - and not increase as time goes by.
Corporations tend to be "just right" when I incorporate them in terms of balance, its just that inflation ends up multiplying the cost by upto 3.5x whilst the effect remains exactly the same.
it's pick and choose. some of them are better than others but these are some of the solutions i have in my mind.
But you still only have $20. And the US still only has $20. I think I'm thinking bigger picture than you are, to which case we both may be right.
And yes, economics is a zero sum game, WITHIN itself. Economics is a factor of many things though, not just the bottom line. I'm just speaking to net worth, which I think is the level Civ4 is at.
In terms of Civ4, it's either money in or money out. It doesn't go any deeper than that, which is why I think the concept of Corporations fit.
Let's back up a minute here. I think what Firaxis did with BtS is to create a further level of the game. A concept I will call "national disruption." How can you pester your competition outside of war?
Privateers - can destroy ships and fishing nets
Blockades - reduce trade
Spies - wreak havoc
Corporations - wreak havoc
Similar threads
