Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[profit]

Nobody gets semantic jokes anymore. He was talking about how "Paper doesn't need to be made out of paper" which is a contradiction.

And seriously, no love for taxes?

Born free... Taxed to death....

for the first 130 years of the republic, the USA had no taxes.

1913 they introduced the income tax.... Hmm come to think of it thats also the year they introduced the federal reserve....

No wonder we have been in debt since.

The system is rigged folks.  The table's are tilted..  the dice are loaded.. and they sure are not in our favor... So... yeah no love for taxes.. even in the context of a game =p  Our cities can make money from exports.... And rent which I suppose could really be called property tax.

[Euld]

Oops!  Hehe I didn't mean to miss the joke.  I really need to stop visiting the forums at 3 AM...  But anyway, I don't like the idea of taxes either, the nobles would have no use for it   I ponder the uses of real world taxes like defense, a postal office, and fire departments and such, and I don't see those uses applying to DF very well.

[gordy]

>I dunno, if dwarves can fool the hummies into buying yet another stone mug....I just don't know what to say.....

What if, after the economy hit, your dwarves could only sell to the traders those items they agreed upon in the liaison meeting? Sure the list might need to be a bit longer ( so you actually stand a chance at being able to supply the demands ), but it would mean that if you wanted to focus on making a lot of money, you couldnt expect to keep chugging out obsidian crafts and mugs and still make a ton of money. It might make reasonable challenges and make players change it up a little, instead of just setting the stonecrafter to 'fire and forget'. I'd still say you could trade away those other items, but at a fraction of the regular cost.

[Dvergar]

I dislike the idea of limiting the items that can be sold to traders, instead imo items that are undesirable (esp. due to oversupply) should be devalued to the point where the trader decides they are not worth their weight to lug around

Your idea could work too, but it would be very gamey, forcing the player to have a flexible infrastructure and the ability to instantly expand.

[LordDemon]

Would it work well, if the liason would keep the negotiations up untill the caravan was leaving, and the prices of items were adjusted based on what the caravan was traded with?
For example, the first year you broken a deal to trade mugs at 100% value.
Next year, you are selling 10 000 dwarfbuck worth of mugs to caravan. This puts presshure to negotiations, and after the negotiations agreement only promises to pay 80% for mugs.
Year after that, you sell even more mugs (but get less per mug), and sell mugs 40 000 dwarfbuck worth(but  5 times the amount that previou syear). This presses the price down again, from the 80% to 20%.
Now you only get 20% of their value from mugs. You can keep producing them in mass, but the price will constantly go closer to 0%, maybe even reach it (at which point thetraders won't pay for them anymore)
Alternatively, items you constantly buy, and never sell gain price, so the gold ore you bought at 100% on first time will cost 140% on second, and 165% on third time.

This wouldn't even require very hard processing: The previous year treaty is already in memory, and if your trade with the dealer ends before the liason leaves, that info can be used for the changes.

Items you won't sell should slowly rise up to 100%, and items you won't buy should drop to 100%, but not less.
Amount of values changed by trade should propably be proportional to caravans full trade (compare amount to percentage for that caravans gains, not to absolute money), and your negotiator skill should effect it a bit.

This would make economy a bit harder, making the gain from all those rock crafts so much smaller.And it would not require a big overhaul.

[profit]

Would it work well, if the liason would keep the negotiations up untill the caravan was leaving, and the prices of items were adjusted based on what the caravan was traded with?
For example, the first year you broken a deal to trade mugs at 100% value.
Next year, you are selling 10 000 dwarfbuck worth of mugs to caravan. This puts presshure to negotiations, and after the negotiations agreement only promises to pay 80% for mugs.
Year after that, you sell even more mugs (but get less per mug), and sell mugs 40 000 dwarfbuck worth(but  5 times the amount that previou syear). This presses the price down again, from the 80% to 20%.
Now you only get 20% of their value from mugs. You can keep producing them in mass, but the price will constantly go closer to 0%, maybe even reach it (at which point thetraders won't pay for them anymore)
Alternatively, items you constantly buy, and never sell gain price, so the gold ore you bought at 100% on first time will cost 140% on second, and 165% on third time.

This wouldn't even require very hard processing: The previous year treaty is already in memory, and if your trade with the dealer ends before the liason leaves, that info can be used for the changes.

Items you won't sell should slowly rise up to 100%, and items you won't buy should drop to 100%, but not less.
Amount of values changed by trade should propably be proportional to caravans full trade (compare amount to percentage for that caravans gains, not to absolute money), and your negotiator skill should effect it a bit.

This would make economy a bit harder, making the gain from all those rock crafts so much smaller.And it would not require a big overhaul.

As long as some form of demand somewhere is calculated into this...

If prices of mugs plummet, humans and everyone will pay the significantly reduced price, until eventually there is a 20 mugs in every home.

Supply + demand, but what most don't realize is an oversupply stimulates more demand by driving down the price.
(undersupply causes hoarding, but usually does not increase overall demand)

For example, if your fortress makes a massive amount of dwarven sugar, the price SHOULD fall, but after it falls, the goods should be consumed at an exponentially higher rate as more and more of the populace has access to sugar *an extremely rare thing before 1600's*

Perhaps further consequences could happen... if humans had access to massive supply of plump helmet roasts they are only paying 1% of 100% for maybe there should be a population explosion as they have access to massive amounts of cheap food, then if the supply suddenly went down, there might be die off or more likely the price would rapidly spike.   

Kinda like we are with oil now... it was so plentiful and cheap it was used for everything.  Now that it is running out, our society is addicted to it, and cannot function without it.

[Dvergar]

I have just successfully hijacked a topic 

My original point was about what the currency would be backed by and about an inflation system conected to the wealth of the fortress and the ammount of currency circulating.

[Starver]

[...]
The previous year treaty is already in memory,[...]

Well, apart from the fact that the arrival of the liaison wipes the slate of the prior deal from your eyes, so you have to rely upon your external notes or pre-prepared stockpiles to work out what goods of yours you should be getting good deals on.

Not to say the code doesn't know, but it never seems to affect the present situation, IM(L)E.

Idea for Toady: if/when stuff like supply and demand 'works', and interface allows, how about historic graphs?  For you as "spirit of the fortress", of course.  Also useful 'pull-out' for, frexample, amount of stone stocks?  And if memory needs to be preserved, could emulate it semi-logarithmically by storing a week's worth of daily information of an item (or superitem) stock levels, before amalgamating it into weekly averages to cover the month, then after accumulating enough months in reserve, amalgamate those into seasonal average, then seasons -> years, years -> decades, and onwards?  Flavour to taste...