Economic Catastrophe

[Felkey]

You should want to go play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

That game, we do not speak it's name.

 

On a side note, the world can't handle Milton having more forums at his disposal.

[Guest Karl VII]

hello guys my name is Karl

[Buck Turgidson]

Shut up, Karl.

[Guest Karl VII]

Shut up, Karl.

:/

[ComradeMilton]

Hi Karl. I forget what this thread is for except it's all cool cats posting thus far.

 

Also the economy seems fine to me. There's plenty of competition going on in the markets I've been entering.

Edited June 22, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Buck Turgidson]

The market continues to be saturated with all resources at all time lows for weeks. Pixels are the only ones winning.

[Don Juan]

Hmm, maybe global events? That doesn't sound too bad as a general premise.

[ComradeMilton]

How so? It's just a buyers market ATM.

[Buck Turgidson]

Here's another potential event that would be wildly unpopular:

- "A major power, drowning in debt, compounds the short term thinking that got it in trouble in the first place and cancels national healthcare for the poorest in their nation. Realizing that their situation is dire, these disenfranchised members of society arm themselves and make their rich overlords pay by other means. Damage to commercial property and inventories is extensive, resulting in 25-50% of saved resources being destroyed overnight."

[Joel James]

15 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Here's another potential event that would be wildly unpopular:

- "A major power, drowning in debt, compounds the short term thinking that got it in trouble in the first place and cancels national healthcare for the poorest in their nation. Realizing that their situation is dire, these disenfranchised members of society arm themselves and make their rich overlords pay by other means. Damage to commercial property and inventories is extensive, resulting in 25-50% of saved resources being destroyed overnight."

If they have that few resources, how on earth did they manage to organize and arm themselves on such a scale so that they destroyed half a nation's stockpile overnight? 

Also, you said a "major power" not "your nation". Why are the citizens of this imaginary power destroying your resources? Furthermore, this is could hurt the market more than help. Assuming that people don't walk away from the game cause of this event, it would cause those same people to flood the market with resources in order to recoup their losses, or they would be reluctant to buy more resources in fear of it being destroyed. 

This entire idea is ridiculous. So what if prices are down? They have been climbing ever slowly since the end of the last global war, and if you are that frustrated with how little your resource production is making, then invest some time and start brokering. It's a much better idea than punishing thousands of people to fix what isn't even a problem. 

[Buck Turgidson]

Thanks for your input Joel. Clearly you haven't read the rest of this thread, and are not playing the Orbis market.

As for 'major power', the idea is to have an event that affects all. Crushed under their monarchy, the French managed to arm themselves fast, and export their revolution to most of Europe. It is unfortunately extremely plausible that a nation that has a massive divide between rich and poor, and whose population is armed, badly fed, and deprived of basic care, would have a revolution and kill the rich. I think it happened in Russia on more than one occasion - about 100 years ago, things got so bad the revolution started in the army. It has also happened countless times in ancient, medieval, and modern times. It is going on now in Syria. 

The funny thing is that every time it happens, it follows the same pattern: rich, arrogant, and immoral leadership behaves so extraordinarily badly (think Marie Antoinette and Rasputin for example), that the already armed population (probably because of lax gun control laws at the time, which can sort of be excused because they didn't know what we know now), organizes. It rallies against corruption and the divide between rich and poor, until their intellectuals write a manifesto. Until the army gets on board, it's a revolt - once they do, it's a revolution. Even the US followed this pattern, though the 'War of Independence' was not a revolution - they just replaced a monarchy with a local oligarchy, and funny enough, achieve full democracy long after England did.

Then, organized for revolution, and facing a foreign affairs situation where most countries will have ties to the old regime, and few will stick their necks out to help the new one, the revolution goes into export mode. By destabilizing and replacing neighboring governments in favor of friendly ones, the revolution is secured militarily and economically. This explains Napoleon and Vietnam.

Arrogant, out of touch leadership is always surprised, deluded that they are loved by at least a fiercely loyal but large minority. Deprived of education, and too busy chasing their next meal or tending curable illnesses, the poor are don't realize that this cycle happens all the time. If people knew it was coming each time, you would see massive migration happen before the outbreak of war, not after...

So are you a rebel or a leader? A rebel only tries to undermine the other's position, and leaders make their own proposals and open themselves to criticism. Got a better idea to fix this very boring cycle?

[Joel James]

On 7/1/2017 at 5:16 AM, Buck Turgidson said:

Thanks for your input Joel. Clearly you haven't read the rest of this thread, and are not playing the Orbis market. (1)

As for 'major power', the idea is to have an event that affects all. Crushed under their monarchy, the French managed to arm themselves fast, and export their revolution to most of Europe. It is unfortunately extremely plausible that a nation that has a massive divide between rich and poor, and whose population is armed, badly fed, and deprived of basic care, would have a revolution and kill the rich. I think it happened in Russia on more than one occasion - about 100 years ago, things got so bad the revolution started in the army. It has also happened countless times in ancient, medieval, and modern times. It is going on now in Syria. (2)

The funny thing is that every time it happens, it follows the same pattern: rich, arrogant, and immoral leadership behaves so extraordinarily badly (think Marie Antoinette and Rasputin for example), that the already armed population (probably because of lax gun control laws at the time, which can sort of be excused because they didn't know what we know now), organizes. It rallies against corruption and the divide between rich and poor, until their intellectuals write a manifesto. Until the army gets on board, it's a revolt - once they do, it's a revolution. Even the US followed this pattern, though the 'War of Independence' was not a revolution - they just replaced a monarchy with a local oligarchy, and funny enough, achieve full democracy long after England did. (3)

Then, organized for revolution, and facing a foreign affairs situation where most countries will have ties to the old regime, and few will stick their necks out to help the new one, the revolution goes into export mode. By destabilizing and replacing neighboring governments in favor of friendly ones, the revolution is secured militarily and economically. This explains Napoleon and Vietnam.

Arrogant, out of touch leadership is always surprised, deluded that they are loved by at least a fiercely loyal but large minority. Deprived of education, and too busy chasing their next meal or tending curable illnesses, the poor are don't realize that this cycle happens all the time. If people knew it was coming each time, you would see massive migration happen before the outbreak of war, not after...

So are you a rebel or a leader? A rebel only tries to undermine the other's position, and leaders make their own proposals and open themselves to criticism. Got a better idea to fix this very boring cycle? (4)

1. Oh, I have read the rest of the thread. It's just that I'm going to respond to the comment on the merits of that comment only. Furthermore, the market is down, but it is still possible to turn the profit. I would know this, because I AM playing the market, unlike you. Even if prices are down, there is still a gulf between the buying and selling points of each resource.

2. I fail to see how what happened in France impacts what happens here. Your solution to "fixing" the slump in the market is to incite mass violence and slaughter? I believe that is much like cutting your throat to cure a nosebleed. It'll work, but in a way that defeats the purpose of the act. And if you say this makes no sense, then you know my reaction to you bringing up France and Syria. 

3. The fantastic difference that you are clearly overlooking is twofold: First, so-called richer nations have to labor under the same market. They don't get tax breaks or special treatment that Marie and Rasputin had received. If money is the issue, then your alliance may be able to provide. If not, raiding is an option if you wish to risk it, as is taking loans from a bank. The market is not the sole source of revenue. Trying to compare European monarchies to PnW is comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't make sense. 

4. What on earth are you talking about? If you're worried about resources not being consumed fast enough (which is something that I noticed in the past global war), then petition Sheepy to alter resource consumption for military units instead of this harebrained scheme to just up and delete half the resources in the game. Why introduce unnecessary game mechanics when mechanics that already exist can be altered? 

 

Honestly, your entire post completely side-stepped the one question that I asked. Furthermore, your response had absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand, which was the market. However, that last line looked like a recruiting statement. If that's the case, then please take your grievances to the alliance recruitment section, which is the place that such statements should be taken. 

And changing the status quo? Yeah, that isn't going to happen. BK tried that with the last global war, and while the execution was more or less poorly handled, they at least tried to change the status quo by removing OO's supremacy. They did their best to eliminate the possibility of an Oculus-like supergroup here in PnW. How were they rewarded? They were vilified on OWF, and with the Syndisphere victory in the past war, who knows what's going to happen next. KT being unaligned with IQ and tangentially aligned with Syndi may shake things up, but only time will tell. (If anyone has a problem with this paragraph, feel free to yell at me in a PM. I'd rather not derail this entire thread altogether)

Let the game change the status quo by itself. Your event, even if it made sense, wouldn't do anything to change that, since everyone would be equally affected. You almost sound as if you would stand to gain if everyone lost a great deal of their war chests...

[Buck Turgidson]

On 7/1/2017 at 1:28 AM, Joel James said:

Words

Hahaha. Ok I will use simpler language in an attempt to bridge the intellectual divide:

1) If you read the thread, then I suggest you do so again because you did not understand it. The reason I say this is because of your 'major power - your nation' comment, and the fact that the market was at it's all time low, for weeks, since the beginning of the game years ago, and this has been a long running trend. Welcome to Orbis BTW!

In the simplest terms, I proposed that we have events that affect all nations in some way, and where reactionaries like yourself can stand on one side, and others can stand on the other side of a given issue. BTW I play the market literally every day, several times a day - and I produce as well, hence the concern by me and so many others about the Credit Sale Depression. What is your basis for questioning whether I play the market?

2) I know you fail to see it - just re-read my previous post because you seem like the kind of fella who needs to take things in twice to understand things. The point happens to relate to 1) as well. Now re-read these last two lines just to be sure. Try it again so we don't keep going in circles - 3rd time is a charm. Feel free to cure your nosebleed however you like, but your analogy does not apply here.

3) It will never make sense to someone who is purposely trying to misunderstand. I said the rich - as in individuals - not rich nations. I was responding to your comment that the proposal was unrealistic, by demonstrating how it actually happens regularly throughout history. It is not unrealistic, for the reasons I stated. I have overlooked nothing.

On the other hand, you demonstrate a significant ignorance of basic economics: where I bemoan the state of the market, which is a major source of profit for most nations, you confuse this with capital, which eventually must either be repaid or represent some sort of cannibalism. So, what kind of 'money' are you referring to? Profit, Assets, Capital, Working Capital, Expenses...etc? A loan, for example, could be used in all of these ways except one - which one is it? Haha google it - it won't help you! Better to ask someone who knows how to count. Again, try re-reading what I wrote - a dictionary might come in handy.

BTW I was a founding member of Arrgh -  know a few things about piracy, and I was not comparing European monarchies to P&W...

4) You are a rebel, not a leader.

 

Honestly, I am the OP - I called you out for not staying on topic, but I am the one side stepping? LOL Which question did I sidestep? I am known for my walls of text and love to debate - I don't think I missed a thing. Correct me if I am wrong, and I promse that I will re-correct you.

My last line was absolutely not a recruitment statement - you have a way of misconstruing others' words easily, and let me explain why: you value opinion over fact, are a troll, probably a T-booster, and the written form is an imperfect form of communication. To make it more perfect, you should respect the words that someone else gives you, and read to understand instead of reading to respond.

With regard to your politics, I don't understand what you are talking about, nor do 95% of people on the forums. You sound like you have a form of verbal diarrhea spurred by a desperate need to be noticed. Good luck with that.

Yes I would gain if I and everyone else lost and the situation became volatile: I would have more fun. This is supposed to be a game, as in entertainment. Now that the Credit Sale Depression's underlying cause is over, we will all make more profit from production, but it does not change the fact that there is insufficient disruption on Orbis.