While We Wait: Part 2

[Symphony D.]

There is a significant difference between trade routes, trade agreements, and tarriffs. Switch your subject, and certain elements of your argument will become invalid.

Trade Route: General path along which trade flows.
Trade Agreement: General or specific agreement to facilitate trade by lowering tariffs.
Tariff: Taxation upon foreign goods.

Tariffs only really work at excluding items from the market if you have them to begin with. The existence of a trade route is more or less exclusively as a result of foreign luxury items not to be found at home, eg: silk, sugar, etc. Some of that is covered by colonies. Some is not. If you have no way of producing a good but want it anyway, obviously, you are going to have to get it from elsewhere. Ta-da, the trade route is born. It runs through several nations, does not consist of official government convoys typically, and is only occasionally protected by government forces from the predation of brigands and thieves. It is not built or conducted by either the governments at the origin or the destination of those goods typically. Colonies are an exception, but again, as previously said, colonies are not international trade, and are not involved in this discussion.

You can play with the semantics all you want, the fact is long-distance luxury trade--the kind that produces trade routes--is not dictated by government-to-government exchanges on a day-to-day basis at this stage in history, and, as I have repeatedly said, should therefore not be in their capability to execute.

 

[North King]

No, long distance luxury trading is certainly in government regulation. You are again applying an 18th century mindset to a 16th century problem. Look at the link to supply and demand that you yourself provided. Not one iota of history before the 18th Century. Individual merchants simply did not decide to trade on these scales. They not only were simply regulated by the government, they also needed government support in some areas. To assume that governments can't control this trade is hogwash, and a very modern view of economic systems that simply aren't modern.

 

[Symphony D.]

You are again applying an 18th century mindset to a 16th century problem. Look at the link to supply and demand that you yourself provided. Not one iota of history before Mr. Smith.

Because, once again, items and concepts do not exist in practice at all before they are named. Gravity only came into being when Sir Issac Newton discovered it. So are you thus saying that there was, for example, no demand for gold in Spain, to which they sought to find a supply in the Americas? Perhaps they just liked it because it was shiny and heavy?

Who regulated all this then, I wonder? Did the Bedouin and Romans and Indians and Khmer and Chinese and Central Asians all sit down and sign pretty little trade agreements with each other? No, they did not. Was every caravan master who set out Chang'an an official merchant under the government pay and order of the Chinese Empire? No, they were not. Did every man sailing a dhow out of Aden report to some tribal leader on his profit from going to the mouth of the Indus? I really do doubt it. Wonder how it all came about them. Hrm. The individual ambition of small groups of people wanting to get rich? Never!

I suppose that's why so many imperial cultures from France to the Holy Roman Empire to China to Japan had such difficulties in dealing with the rise of the merchant class in the cities as an independent source of wealth and power counter to the nobility--because they were all on a tight government leash and at the beck and call of the King or Emperor or Shogun or what have you to spend their money when and where He saw fit. All of a sudden around 1750 independent commerce just suddenly sprang into existence and took over the world.

To assume that governments can't control this trade is hogwash,

Funny, because historically they haven't. They have influenced it and functioned as parasites on it. They didn't start it, they barely maintained it, and they facilitated it if at all only for their own ends. China didn't build the Silk Road from Chang'an to Constantinople as a project. That is precisely what the system at present insinuates, and the system is therefore wrong.

 

[~Darkening~]

Oh a different note, I somehow remember someone wondering about the curse (and origion) of NAO. Looking back over, I think I found a little gem .

Update NAO!By: Silver_Steak

Narcissistic

Althistorians

Ohmyifanupdatedoesn'tcomewe'llformamob

Good promotion, SS. NAO is the official update demanding NESer organization. Join today!By: Thlayli

Originally I believe it came about the same as 'Teh', or 'pwn', but without any class . Anywho, I'm probably wrong, but here's my guess :]. Btw, found on page 59 of the original LINES II thread.

 

[Thlayli]

Huh. We never really hammered out that acronym...the tragic seeds of our downfall.

 

[North King]

Because, once again, items and concepts do not exist in practice at all before they are named.

Because, once again, items which exist in modern economics must obviously have existed through all of time. Besides this point, supply and demand is not actually the issue at stake here; obviously there have always been demands for certain goods, and supplies of those goods, but they have not been transferred between them in the same fashion for thousands of years. This transference is exactly the issue at stake here, and you seem to be arguing that individual merchants will be meeting the demands of the people in the 16th century: this simply is not true. Modern economic theory did not exist at these times.

Wonderful examples, by the way; it's just lovely to hear that gravity and gold are artificial.

Who regulated all this then, I wonder? Did the Bedouin and Romans and Indians and Khmer and Chinese and Central Asians all sit down and sign pretty little trade agreements with each other? No, they did not. Was every caravan master who set out Chang'an an official merchant under the government pay and order of the Chinese Empire? No, they were not. Did every man sailing a dhow out of Aden report to some tribal leader on his profit from going to the mouth of the Indus? I really do doubt it.

No, of course they didn't sit down and sign official agreements, and they didn't give every merchant the seal of the emperor. But do you think that individual merchants plotted out the entire course of the Silk Road? Ridiculous.

I suppose that's why so many imperial cultures from France to the Holy Roman Empire to China to Japan had such difficulties in dealing with the rise of the merchant class in the cities as an independent source of wealth and power counter to the nobility--because they were all on a tight government leash and at the beck and call of the King or Emperor or Shogun or what have you to spend their money where He saw fit.

Oh, yes, and they were so successful, weren't they, in the 15th and 16th Centuries? I mean, it's not like most trade convoys were protected by government ships, supported with government funds, sailing on routes plotted out by government explorers, going to and from government ports...

It's a lovely dream to believe that we've had economic freedom through all of history, but it's entirely wrong.

Funny, because historically they haven't. They have influenced it and functioned as parasites on it. They didn't start it, they barely maintained it, and they facilitated it if at all only for their own ends. China didn't build the Silk Road from Chang'an to Constantinople as a project. That is precisely what the system at present insinuates, and the system is therefore wrong.

Funnily enough, I never suggested that the governments were creating supply and demand. Your strawmen are duly noted and ignored.

 

[~Darkening~]

Well, its the first mention of NAO I've seen yet. But hey, it fits you somewhat Thy .

EDIT: Thy, correct me if I am wrong, but did you ever finish you most recent LINES story? You know, the Eldranian things underground in Veritas?

 

[Symphony D.]

This transference is exactly the issue at stake here, and you seem to be arguing that individual merchants will be meeting the demands of the people in the 16th century: this simply is not true. Modern economic theory did not exist at these times.

Your continued insistance on identifying "supply and demand" with "Adam Smith's economy theory" when I have repeatedly given my own definition of them that totally ignores the idea of free market dynamics, the popular market, or indeed the market at all considering I am talking about luxury items the populace cannot afford as the foundation of the long-distance trade route--and the obvious implication that you are totally ignoring what I am actually saying simply because you don't want to agree with me--is quite clear, thank you.

No, of course they didn't sit down and sign official agreements, and they didn't give every merchant the seal of the emperor. But do you think that individual merchants plotted out the entire course of the Silk Road? Ridiculous.

Well, NK, to pull a page from your book, I never suggested each merchant traveled the entire length. Your strawman has been duly noted and ignored. Also, thank you for validating my point that trade does not begin with government edicts and is not conducted solely by government employees. I'll be coming back to that.

Oh, yes, and they were so successful, weren't they, in the 15th and 16th Centuries? I mean, it's not like most trade convoys were protected by government ships, supported with government funds, sailing on routes plotted out by government explorers, going to and from government ports...

It's a lovely dream to believe that we've had economic freedom through all of history, but it's entirely wrong.

Virtually all such expeditions and convoys going to colonies or trade posts, or to create them, which yet again are not a part of this discussion, since all revenue from them falls under the domestic economy since both sides are owned by the same party, just geographically separated by non-controlled territory...

It's a lovely argument style to ignore what the opposition is saying so you can just repeat the same points over and over again, but it's not a very good one.

Funnily enough, I never suggested that the governments were creating supply and demand. Your strawmen are duly noted and ignored.

Well then, yet again I guess your point is the same as mine, because if governments don't create the supply and demand, why are they signing the documentation ("trade agreements") that generates the trade revenue in game into coming into being in the first place when it should be the other way around?

Thank you for agreeing with me. The system as it exists in BirdNES is broken. Your support is appreciated. I look forward to any future contributions on the subject you might wish to make.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You all have posted good stuff; keep it coming. I am getting some good ideas. Here, by the way, is one example of a very free market in 1634.

http://www.stock-market-crash.net/tulip-mania.htm

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I've learned to ignore Sym's and NK's posts in this thread.

 

[Insane_Panda]

I've learned to ignore Sym's and NK's posts in this thread.

Good for you.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here's what I'm thinking for trade rules:

I would use two existing stats to make a new stat called Trade. VoD and economic freedom would be used to calculate the EP generated by trade. There are 15 VoD, but for the trade calculation, 10 will be the highest number used.

Trade value is added to economy (or maybe trade * 50%)

Trade = the (number of VoDs -3) + net economic freedom

VoD > 10 = 10

Trading Posts will still count towards EP at the rate of 4:1

I will need to expand on how the "government Control" stat will affect things if it gets too low and what it might cost to change the economic freedom and government contrrol stats.

Comments? Suggestions?

 

[Perfectionist]

I would prefer arbitrary numbers, a la ITNESIb, but I doubt you'll do that. In that case, I have a couple of suggestions. Make it simply Economic Freedom, rather than Net Economic Freedom, put a floor under zero, and weight the VODs somehow. It doesn't make sense that WNA and NP should be as valuable as IOS and MED.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I would prefer arbitrary numbers, a la ITNESIb, but I doubt you'll do that. In that case, I have a couple of suggestions. Make it simply Economic Freedom, rather than Net Economic Freedom, put a floor under zero, and weight the VODs somehow. It doesn't make sense that WNA and NP should be as valuable as IOS and MED.

I did think about just using the Economic freedom number, but then thought that an oppressive government (like Poland at net -3 ) should have some negative impact. And by making it a net number than I can add a different, positive effect, of high government control so players will have to make a harder decision about where to put the sliders.

Maybe high government control will reduce the cost of armies or allow more armies. I am open to suggedstions on this.

I really like weighting the VoDs; it means a bit more work to do the math each turn, but has a great effect in the game. The second time these rules are used, will be a great game. I will play around with some values.

Your ideas...
Northwest Europe NWE =
Mediterranean Sea MED =
East coast of N. America ENA =
Mexico & Caribbean MC =
East coast of S. America ESA =
West coast of Africa WCA =
East coast of Africa ECA =
Indian Ocean Sumatra IOS =
West coast of S. America WSA =
West coast of N. America WNA =
Northern Pacific NP =
Southern Pacific SP =
China & Japan CJ =
Indonesia & Philippines IP =
Australia & New Zealand ANZ =

Perhaps values could be tied to existing number of TCs like I do the pirate stuff, That way, as areas are developed, the value of the trade will improve.

 

[Perfectionist]

I did think about just using the Economic freedom number, but then thought that an oppressive government (like Poland at net -3 ) should have some negative impact.

Not if we take the modern era as representative.

And there is really no reason why the same should not be true of this period. You can butcher all the dissenters you like; as long as you leave the merchants alone, they won't mind much.

Perhaps values could be tied to existing number of TCs like I do the pirate stuff, That way, as areas are developed, the value of the trade will improve.

That's more or less what I was thinking.

One more thing that's been bugging me: I think that larger size should add a bonus to economy. Perhaps 1-3 = +0, 4-6 = +1, 7-9 = +2, or something like that. As it is, expanding has no benefits, only costs. Adding an economic bonus to size would mean that expansion would make it harder to improve infrastructure, government efficiency and that sort of thing, but easier to raise armies, which makes sense I think.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not if we take the modern era as representative.

And there is really no reason why the same should not be true of this period. You can butcher all the dissenters you like; as long as you leave the merchants alone, they won't mind much.
That's more or less what I was thinking.

One more thing that's been bugging me: I think that larger size should add a bonus to economy. Perhaps 1-3 = +0, 4-6 = +1, 7-9 = +2, or something like that. As it is, expanding has no benefits, only costs. Adding an economic bonus to size would mean that expansion would make it harder to improve infrastructure, government efficiency and that sort of thing, but easier to raise armies, which makes sense I think.

Interesting. And a population bonus is good too. I was going to use pop size to regulate total army size, but it could easily contribute to a trade calculation too. Population already increases the cost of improving civil Leadership, Education, infrastructure, changing religion ( pop x 1 EP per level)

Here is a simple weighting (avg 2.8)
Northwest Europe NWE 4
Mediterranean Sea MED 5
East coast of N. America ENA 2
Mexico & Caribbean MC 2
East coast of S. America ESA 2
West coast of Africa WCA 2
East coast of Africa ECA 3
Indian Ocean Sumatra IOS 5
West coast of S. America WSA 2
West coast of N. America WNA 2
Northern Pacific NP 1
Southern Pacific SP 1
China & Japan CJ 3
Indonesia & Philippines IP 5
Australia & New Zealand ANZ 3

And it might be nice to say that you don't get the trade benefit of a VoD unless you have a trading post in the area. That would prevent wholesale map trading to quickly raise EP at no cost.

 

[alex994]

And there is really no reason why the same should not be true of this period. You can butcher all the dissenters you like; as long as you leave the merchants alone, they won't mind much.
That's more or less what I was thinking.

Actually, I beg to differ. It's actually as long as you butcher all the dissenters without people really noticing or any solid evidence coming up

How exactly are those numbers calculated bird? TCs + 1/4 TPs?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Actually, I beg to differ. It's actually as long as you butcher all the dissenters without people really noticing or any solid evidence coming up

How exactly are those numbers calculated bird? TCs + 1/4 TPs?

The VoD numbers from a couple of posts up were just made up and not calculated.

 

[Israelite9191]

I've learned to ignore Sym's and NK's posts in this thread.

As have I. Too long and too angry to waste my time on.

Trade = the (number of VoDs -3) + net economic freedom

In theory this would be good, but it does not take into account the most basic fundamentals of economics: supply and demand. Nations like China and the Aztec empire have huge reserves of supply that are in high demand in Europe generating huge amounts of trade. However, they do not have many VoDs. In this equation, this would not be reflected. Similarly, nations with large demand driven trade but few VoDs like Austria, Bohemia, Britain, France, Bavaria, and Brandenburg (which includes the centers of the House of Verner by chance) would be at a huge and unrealistic disadvantage. Furthermore, nations like Sweden and Poland that stand at the center of very wealthy regional trade but who, again, don't have many VoDs would be greatly disadvantaged. Even further than that nations like Venice, the Ottoman Empire, and the Safavids who act as middlemen in some of the most lucrative global trade routes, but who have very few VoDs would be completely cut out in terms of eco points.

I know that this is not nearly as innovative (and complicated) as what you prefer, but I must again insist that simply the best way to show and manage trade is through eco centers. They pop up where trade is the most abundant, whatever the reasons are, and thus avoid the complications, philosophical (the exact effect of gov't control on the economy) and otherwise, that arise with other systems. At the same time, they are more flexible when taking into account those afformentioned philosophies of economics, as you are not locked in to a broad "cookie cutter" solution or one opinion. As to the former, this is really very important, as gov't intervention or the lack there of in one case may be beneficial, while in another simply damaging (this is one think I really don't like about your system of economic freedom, it only allows the gov't to damage the economy). If in one case smart gov't intervention taken when and where it is needed/wanted causes economic growth, it is reflected in an increase in the number of eco centers, while if in another case foolish gov't intervention taken where it is unnecessary and undesired or with too much or too little gusto causes economic recession or deceleration, it is reflected in a decrease in the number of eco centers or a slowing down in the development of new eco centers. As to the later, with eco centers, you have the ability to decide whether or not merchants really do have freedom, or don't, by having eco centers developing or dissapearing without gov't action, or by not. Basically, eco centers are the most realistic, most representative, and most flexible option, even if they aren't the most innovative (or complicated).

 

[Disenfrancised]

Not if we take the modern era as representative.

Which we really shouldn't, modern regimes know the right steps to take to create wealth and thus can be oppressive and still grow quickly. Back in the day there is no model of economic development/catch-up to follow and oppressive states flounder due to lack of information and paths to follow that have already been trodden by more relaxed nations.