Print

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

[Beeskee]

If there is an oversupply of something, that should drive the prices down, in general. Depends on how much the market is rigged. What I was thinking of with supply and demand was things like how in the DF economy, even if the only food you have in your fort is luxury meals, the price of them won't go down. The only alternatives are raw plants and meat out of the food stockpiles. But prices in DF are fixed, so your fort built entirely out of roasts (every single block!) has a bunch of "too expensive to eat" food, and a bunch of hungry dwarfs picking out of the stockpiles and maybe eating vermin, rather than the price of those meals dropping to an affordable level. 

Food was just an example, the prices for everything in the fort are fixed, and most of the numbers have little relation to the actual cost of producing that product. That's definitely not communism, capitalism, or socialism. 

What it is, is DF, and it is fun and Fun to work around, but an economy overhaul would be nice. The ability to pick an economic model, or parts of each of them that you like best, would be great too. As would the ability to designate a certain minted coin to have a certain value. While I am wishing can I get a pair of magic unicorns too? (so I can breed them for unicorn meat and horns, of course, of course.) I know this is all on the great big to-do list and I'm patient to wait.

[NW_Kohaku]

Having price roofs (or floors) does, indeed, fit the idea of a Command Economy (which is what actual Communism used). 

Fixing the price of goods is generally a common tactic among Command Economies, especially impoverished nations run by dictators, especially for basic commodities like food.  This is done because, even though it hurts the economy, because it means that the only way to turn a profit is to simply slash costs of production and overhead, leading to low quality and low worker wages, it also makes those dictators popular because then food or electricity or whatever is cheap.  Part of what shapes the modern geopolitical system is that nations that can subsist on exporting valuable natural resources, like, say, oil, can afford to be dictatorships with no functional internal economy because oil sales can pay for domestic handouts that keep the populace complacent (like low-cost food and energy), without actually empowering or educating the populace in any way or building the basic infrastructures of a real first world power. 

This also means that there is nothing to regulate demand, so you will have, say, long lines for goods because the only way to get goods that are in higher demand than there is supply when you cannot simply out-bid your fellow consumers is to simply be the first one in line when more supply comes out.

These were the things that crushed the USSR - Russia relied entirely on its sale of oil to prop up its completely derelict production capabilities.  As long as the price of oil stayed high, Russia was invincible.  As soon as the price of oil fell (from around a dollar a barrel to twenty cents a barrel) in the wake of the resolution of the Arab Oil Embargo (and the Arab nations started massively producing, dropping the price of oil), the Russian economy collapsed because it could no longer pay for state-owned industries that they never bothered to make turn a profit because oil could pay for the waste.

(And when you turn on the news, how much Russia threatens its neighbors and thumbs its nose at America is directly proportional to the price of a barrel of oil, even today.)

[Marconius]

There are two interesting points here:

The first is monopolies and, in connection, state fixed prices (or price ranges). While monopolies are generally frowned upon in capitalistic economies, exactly because they'd allow the provider to set whatever prices they'd want, it should be noted that for a number of products, monopolies exist naturally.

Think of products and services such as electricity, heat or public transportation. Many countries or regions only have one of these, essentially giving the providers a monopoly. If you feel electricity prices are too high, you do not have the option of switching to a different provider, so you either pay or go without power. Since infrastructure essentially prevents competition in these areas (you can't really run two electric cables to every house), the only thing that can be done is the state fixing the prices for these products... which is a socialist feature.

The point I've been trying to make is, most economies in the world currently are basically midway between a controlled and a free market. Some things are state controlled, some are left to roam free. How much the imaginary slider moves towards one direction or the other depends on many things, most notably the general economic situation of the country; ie. richer countries tend to have a more free economy, because the people can generally afford to buy overpriced things.

The other thing people seem to be misunderstanding is the idea behind communism. See, the basic idea there was that eventually society would change in a way that everyone would basically just share everything necessary to live; there would be no currency in this situation! Of course, getting to this state would be fairly difficult: the idea was that there'd be a temporary phase, during which there would be a government with fixed leaders. They'd work to turn society into this ideal and once it's been accomplished, they'd step down, since there'd no longer be a need for a state or leaders.

So the basic timeline Marx thought up was...
1) A communist revolution
2) A temporary phase, when currency and leadership still exists, setting up...
3) True communism, a utopia where everyone is equal and resources are shared, rather than sold and bought

Of course, in reality, the third phase was never reached. One could argue this was because the idea of communism is, in itself, flawed; or one could argue it was of more practical reasons, such as incompetent leadership, poor handling of problems and simply the fact the leaders weren't actually trying to reach true communism.

In the above, Marxist sense, "communism" never actually existed during history and still does not. Correctly, only "socialist" states existed (and exist to this day). But just to get back to the topic, pre-economy Dwarf Fortress is actually very much like what Marx envisioned as a true communist society.

[smokingwreckage]

I'd say it isn't communist to the extent that (probably because of size) doesn't exhibit the communistic structure. It is collectivist, to an extent. It could as well be a small corporation or large partnership as a commune. The fact that there's a player who wants to game, and the dwarfs are so damned stupid, would restrict it from explicitly exhibiting capitalist/ classical liberal/ libertarian/ anarchist, but really, co-operation at the level of 100 individuals or less doesn't really say anything about big-picture theories of society and commerce. Just the fact that dwarfs are so unpredictable and individually detailed does suggest individualist thought as a cornerstone of the game design, though.

With regards to Marx, the problem is that phase 2 is an intractable and stable authoritarian state. The other problem is that Marx considered money as a thing rather than a technique. Sharing is an exchange, and therefor in the broad definition is an economy. Even more difficult to eliminate would be status both as a good and as a medium of exchange. Within DF individuals are far from equal and status is of massive importance: just ask your Master Cheesemaker about that. That the status conferred (by the player) is related entirely to skill-set and productivity suggests meritocratic capitalism or philosophical "objectivism" (Ayn Rand).

[antymattar]

Is thisbecause of the comment I said towards your idea of a watter tower?

[nil]

SOMEBODY LOCK THIS THREAD

[NW_Kohaku]

With regards to Marx, the problem is that phase 2 is an intractable and stable authoritarian state. The other problem is that Marx considered money as a thing rather than a technique. Sharing is an exchange, and therefor in the broad definition is an economy. Even more difficult to eliminate would be status both as a good and as a medium of exchange. Within DF individuals are far from equal and status is of massive importance: just ask your Master Cheesemaker about that. That the status conferred (by the player) is related entirely to skill-set and productivity suggests meritocratic capitalism or philosophical "objectivism" (Ayn Rand).

Heh, nothing livens up a party like brining Ayn Rand into it.

The problem with that is that "legendaries" are generally selected completely arbitrarily.  If you have a legendary armorsmith, it's either becuase you hit the fey mood jackpot (which is completley random, and has nothing to do with any one dwarf's "earning" it), or else because that dwarf was selected by whatever arbitrary means the player used (she was the #3 dwarf in the starting seven) to determine who would get the armorsmith training, while other dwarves, who may well be far more intelligent and hard-working, never get a chance to do anything but haul. 

While there is some meritocratic reward in the player's eyes to hard work in terms of promoting a skill, they generally don't have any real status above the other dwarves in game-terms, and may be just as much a homeless hobo as any of them while the nobles own everything and do nothing. 

[Eugenitor]

So it's like real life, then.

[claer_runway]

I dont think so much that its communist so much as a capitalist venture by the starting 7 dwarves. everything is shared because they all work for the same company. Making money (or increasing the total value of your fortress, w/e) is one of the objectives of the game, is it not?

[GreatWyrmGold]

It seems more like a monarchy to me. When the fort first starts, everything's communal because survival depends on it. Then a king shows up and coins are minted and everything goes to hell.

Really? I thought it started that way.

[Lord Dakoth]

Three-Panel Soul describes it pretty succinctly, and very accurately.

I would say that most fortresses go through stages, though.

"FAMILY" (Embark to 16 dwarves): A "family" sort of unit. Everyone knows almost everyone else. EVERYONE works and contributes to the "society."

"CLAN" (17 to 40 dwarves): A group made up of smaller "family" units. Everyone shares food, families share some things, (like bedrooms) individuals own items. Almost everyone works.

"PSEUDO-SOCIALISM" (40 dwarves to start of economy): This is the stage that most of us are familiar with. Families share rooms, everyone shares everything else. A growing portion of the population is composed of useless Soapmakers and Fishcleaners who are nothing but freeloading beer guzzlers.

"MONARCHICAL-RUN ECONOMY" (Start of economy and onwards/downwards): Tax collector/baron arrives, and the economy kicks in. Nobles juggle prices like hot potatoes. The idlers are now steadily going into debt and blubbering to your mayor about it. The Soapmakers' Guild is up in arms about the lack of jobs. Half your fortress is slap-happy and ecstatic, and the other half is busy getting Hammered, evicted, and throwing tantrums.

Somewhat of note: All belongings of a dead dwarf transfer ownership to his/her spouse. If not applicable, it's a free-for-all.