Print

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

[Footkerchief]

Then there is the claim that an obsessively ultra-detailed economy (meaning implementing an entire textbook of Economy 101, all ~1000 pages or so) would make DF a fun game.

Who's setting up straw men again?

Your first objection is somewhat valid though.  It's particularly important in a setting like DF's not to depend too heavily on "rational actors" type assumptions.

[Mikademus]

Then there is the claim that an obsessively ultra-detailed economy (meaning implementing an entire textbook of Economy 101, all ~1000 pages or so) would make DF a fun game.

Who's setting up straw men again?

The thread. That's what the implication of the suggestion is. The more aspects of current economic theory are included the better the economic aspect of the game is. All argued from a rather introductory academic perspective.

[Footkerchief]

The thread. That's what the implication of the suggestion is. The more aspects of current economic theory are included the better the economic aspect of the game is. All argued from a rather introductory academic perspective.

I'm not seeing that implication at all.  The suggestion covers maybe Chapter 1 of an intro econ textbook.

[Squirrelloid]

Then there is the claim that an obsessively ultra-detailed economy (meaning implementing an entire textbook of Economy 101, all ~1000 pages or so) would make DF a fun game.

Who's setting up straw men again?

The thread. That's what the implication of the suggestion is. The more aspects of current economic theory are included the better the economic aspect of the game is. All argued from a rather introductory academic perspective.

I have to agree with Footkerchief.  Where are you getting 'current economic theory'.  I talk about one aspect, supply and demand, which is like week 1 of a micro-econ course.  Of course its argued from an introductory perspective, I'm talking about introductory aspects that are really basic.  Its not rocket science, but it would be enough to give the economy some versimillitude.

Granite26 sums up my reaction to your position nicely:

Coming out against S\D is literally saying 'People won't pay less for things they've already got enough of, and the more of something there is, the less competition there is to get it'.

QFT.

You've been carrying on as if i'm claiming everything about modern economics is true.  I most certainly have not.  I have specifically claimed the S/D model is a true description of a lot of economic behavior, and that implementing a global accounting for it would be a positive change. 

Your claim

On the one hand is the claim that current micro and macro theory are perfect representations of actual reality

has absolutely nothing to do with any economics i've talked about at all.  I've talked about no macro theory whatsoever (which would require a discussion about topics like *aggregate* S/D and money supply - none of which show up anywhere in this thread), and haven't talked about anything even remotely complicated in micro (such as pareto efficiency).  But you'd rather attack a strawman than actually talk about the issues.

--------------------

In other words, having a real economy IS the goal of the Merchant Arc.  The consequent necessity for supply and demand is so obvious that it without saying.  That said, it's a long-term arc for a reason -- large-scale trade can't work sensibly until a lot of other components are in place, and Toady doesn't seem interested in adding more half-baked placeholders at this point.

It isn't clear to me what Toady means by a 'real' economy, especially as there are local economic things that would have been really easy to implement thus far and haven't been implemented.  (like rent decreasing to the point where dwarves can afford it when housing is abundant but unused).

It also isn't clear to me that modelling global supply/demand isn't actually superior to simulating everything.  Mature fortresses (10+ years) of mine run around 20FPS if i'm lucky and keep the pop cap fairly low.  I try to pop up into the 100+ dwarf range and I drop to single-digit FPS fairly quickly.  Simulating every settlement explicitly sounds like a recipe for dead processors, whereas modelling their economic footprint would take relatively little processor time and would only need to be computed at regular intervals.  The idea that simulating the whole world is a good idea ranks up there with the idea that getting real ewoks and speeder bikes would have been the best way to film SW:RotJ - its true, but you just can't reasonably do it.

[Rakeela]

Why do I feel like I could really mess people up right now if I came in with a full discussion of Say's Law?

I'd like to say that local S/D is more important to me than global S/D.  Dwarven economy shouldn't kick dwarves out of homes when housing space is underutilized.  If the variability in the house market is between "justapalace" and "OMGPALACE", that says less than you'd think about the variability of housing prices.  The 'low end' of the housing market is going to be a static thing.  In this case, we have a "justapalace" going for the same price as a shack in another location.

If you think about it though, maybe that's why dwarven fortresses aren't capped at their demand for labor.  Wouldn't you want to emigrate to a place where you'd get an awesome home just for showing up?  Wouldn't that kind of incentive cause populations to rise until demand for housing required putting up shacks and digging rooms into the plain dirt?

Thus, instead of being capped at their demand for labor, dwarven fortresses are capped at whatever number of allowed migrants has been determined will be allowed, and they have absolute enforcement of their immigration policies.

[Squirrelloid]

I'd like to say that local S/D is more important to me than global S/D. 

I fully support a local S/D economy.  But you get really weird arbitrage scenarios if there's a local S/D economy but not a global one, or alternately the ability of the local economy to function gets hampered by the global absolute value economy, and the local economy tends to just approach the absolute value economy anyway.  (ie, the absolute values become price attractors).  Obviously this only holds true for goods you can both trade locally and globally. 

Basically, the two changes should go hand in hand.

[Rakeela]

The note about price attractors is quite correct, but local values will nevertheless never achieve hardcode global values.  DF players are not economic creatures, even if the dwarves were.  Megaconstructions much?

It should be easier to implement a local economy than a global economy, anyways.

[Squirrelloid]

The note about price attractors is quite correct, but local values will nevertheless never achieve hardcode global values.  DF players are not economic creatures, even if the dwarves were.  Megaconstructions much?

Except there is no local economy in production goods like stone, because the government owns the means of production and orders the work.  Megaconstructions would never interact with a local economy.  This is to a large degree why i think a global economy is so important (because most of what the player *wants* are production goods).

The local economy only exists for consumer goods, food, drink, and real estate.  And for most dwarves you can ignore consumer goods to a large extent (they'll never see that kind of money).  And at least in my experience, if there are boatloads of food sitting around, nobles do slash prices on it.  Which means the major place a local economy matters to most dwarves is real estate.  And the absolute economy would keep the global price of clothing too high for most dwarves to afford anything reasonable (especially as your weavers, dyers, and clothiers start hitting legendary), because local prices couldn't dip below global prices (they hit the attractor) - and at least dwarves have a motivation to buy clothes (unlike goblin bone-encrusted gold mugs, for example).

Basically, just a local S/D economy only fixes real estate, and that's a fairly minor change overall (however useful it would be).  Not that I would object, but it wouldn't do much to bring versimillitude to the economic game.  (As it is, the best way to deal with the economy seems to be ignore it - get your dwarves to legendary ASAP).

[Granite26]

Guys,  one thing that may help quell this is transport costs.  Caravans are bringing your goods up into the mountains an mule-back.  They are bringing your finished products out the same way.

Tacking the cost of transportation on like a tariff will lower the relative prices of things like your giant stack of masterwork pantyhose  (Because hauling it down the mountain to someplace where people need more is expensive enough that your haulers can pay comparative value to the nobles on the other side of the continent, especially considering the nobles have their own tailors.)  Basically, primitive trade technologies allow for all sorts of funny behaviour at the Trade borders.  The caravans would be relying on this fact for their profits.  (That means you sort out the wierdness Squirrel was worried about behind the scenes with the Traders, and everything is presented to you in fort prices.  They just don't bring (out) anything that the prices in the outside world are higher for.  Remember, the Caravan drivers are monopoly sellers to your fort as far as the outside economy is concerned.

Transport costs also reenforce the slope of the price changes.  It doesn't take too many mugs at 10$ a mug to saturate the local market, but not only are there more locals willing to buy the mug at 9$, if the merchant can get it for that, he can cart it 1$ in transport costs further to a whole new market of 10$ folks.  This allows a precipitous dropoff on the first load, but will allow the prices to settle in to a nice stable relationship (as long as you keep producing the same amounts)

Since the world isn't currently running outside your fort (temporary, I know), it should be easy to calculate the model for the whole world once at embark, and have your changes be the only effects.  This makes a good short term solution of code that isn't wasted (coming up with the simulation is still coming up with the simulation).  It would simply amount to the export curves for various products.  Long term reusables (musical instruments) would fall fast and stay down for a long time, while replacables (mugs and swords) would have stable per-cycle output maxes.

As a second level sim, you'd eventually want monopoly behaviours and the price rising over time as you put competitors out of business, but that's arguable and may be too complex to be fun.

[Mikademus]

Granite26 sums up my reaction to your position nicely:

Coming out against S\D is literally saying 'People won't pay less for things they've already got enough of, and the more of something there is, the less competition there is to get it'.

QFT.

That's attempting to shift my position into something you can attack (see "debate the issue", below). What I am against is your ostensible proposition that current (as in "taught at uni and used today") economics is the "truth" of all economic transactions through all times.

You've been carrying on as if i'm claiming everything about modern economics is true.  I most certainly have not.  I have specifically claimed the S/D model is a true description of a lot of economic behavior, and that implementing a global accounting for it would be a positive change. 

(My emphases) That rewrite, innocent and prudent enough as it seems, apparently changes your claims to a stance a lot milder than what your earlier posts suggests. However, it doesn't solve anything: you're still saying that it is "true" (which it isn't: it is still a model and objective "truth" [which we can't know anyway] has nothing to do with it), and you're restricting the claim to an unspecified subset, which contradicts the use of "true" and your ideal of an analogue of a physical grand unified theory (which to you seems to be a fully exhaustive and perfectly true model).

But you'd rather attack a strawman than actually talk about the issues.

I especially appreciate that you avoided everything in this post
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=31736.msg447732#msg447732

Regardless, I do think that the DF economy could be improved a bit, but "improve" should mean "more fun", and perhaps "unique, different and stimulating", not "more aligned with microeconomic theory", which even if it were true would not mean that verisimilitude means fun. Perhaps some kind of S/D model would make it more fun, but also, perhaps not.

[Squirrelloid]

Granite26 sums up my reaction to your position nicely:

Coming out against S\D is literally saying 'People won't pay less for things they've already got enough of, and the more of something there is, the less competition there is to get it'.

QFT.

That's attempting to shift my position into something you can attack (see "debate the issue", below). What I am against is your ostensible proposition that current (as in "taught at uni and used today") economics is the "truth" of all economic transactions through all times.

You've been carrying on as if i'm claiming everything about modern economics is true.  I most certainly have not.  I have specifically claimed the S/D model is a true description of a lot of economic behavior, and that implementing a global accounting for it would be a positive change. 

(My emphases) That rewrite, innocent and prudent enough as it seems, apparently changes your claims to a stance a lot milder than what your earlier posts suggests. However, it doesn't solve anything: you're still saying that it is "true" (which it isn't: it is still a model and objective "truth" [which we can't know anyway] has nothing to do with it), and you're restricting the claim to an unspecified subset, which contradicts the use of "true" and your ideal of an analogue of a physical grand unified theory (which to you seems to be a fully exhaustive and perfectly true model).

For economics I have never claimed as a truth anything but the S/D model.

True statements can be conditional.  The S/D model assumes some things are true, such as that resources are limited.  By claiming something is 'true', I necessarily mean that 'if its assumptions are satisfied, then its consequents occur' and 'the set of instances where the assumptions are satisfied in reality is non-zero.'  I think it'll become apparent that the S/D model assumptions are satisfied quite frequently.

I would also be happy to discuss natural selection as truth with the same caveats.

I will also note that you accuse me of trying to shift your position, but if you're going to maintain that S/D is not true you're going to have to argue exactly what Granite26 says you will.  That S/D not being true means that there will be instances (when the model assumptions are otherwise met) that people won't pay less for goods they already have enough of (and so forth).  I currently find that position incomprehensible, I look forward to seeing you justify it.

But you'd rather attack a strawman than actually talk about the issues.

I especially appreciate that you avoided everything in this post
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=31736.msg447732#msg447732

Funny, I didn't answer that because your caricateuring of me was an ad hominem attack, and I didn't feel like gracing such tripe with a response.  If you want a debate, don't be an ass.  Especially since one of your caricateurs basically said 'caring to respond to all the substantive comments on a topic makes you a bad person, even if you started the thread,' at which point I will happily ignore potentially substantive comments when the poster has made a point of poisoning the well for any possible response.

[Granite26]

Can we agree to disagree?  I'd rather talk economics and DF than debate what he said you said I said.

Mik thinks that some of what we're talking about sounds like it would be too complicated to be fun.  His perogative, he can't be wrong about his opinions.  He also cautions us not to take pure capitalism versions of economics as writ of truth in the real world, another good point.

yay!

OK... 


Some things you may want to read Squirrel:

Trade Distances
Free Market Economics
More Economics

(benefits of hanging out here for a while include the ability to search for threads efficiently because you've seen them all before)

[Squirrelloid]

Some things you may want to read Squirrel:

Trade Distances
Free Market Economics
More Economics

(benefits of hanging out here for a while include the ability to search for threads efficiently because you've seen them all before)

Ah, the top one is quite interesting and I hadn't found it.  It certainly solves some problems.  I'll need to think about that.

I found at least one of the other two (and linked it under local economy), but they are mostly talking about internal fortress economic behavior, which isn't the aspect that's really bugging me right now (room prices aside).

I'd also like to keep this thought of yours in mind for the moment:

Since the world isn't currently running outside your fort (temporary, I know), it should be easy to calculate the model for the whole world once at embark, and have your changes be the only effects.  This makes a good short term solution of code that isn't wasted (coming up with the simulation is still coming up with the simulation).  It would simply amount to the export curves for various products.  Long term reusables (musical instruments) would fall fast and stay down for a long time, while replacables (mugs and swords) would have stable per-cycle output maxes.

You're entirely right, there isn't even population growth beyond your map.  Modeling that should be really easy and obviates any need for major recalculation (reducing processor load).  I approve, possibly even as the basis for a long term solution (although some more interesting dynamical behavior would be nice).

[Mikademus]

I especially appreciate that you avoided everything in this post
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=31736.msg447732#msg447732

Funny, I didn't answer that because your caricateuring of me was an ad hominem attack, and I didn't feel like gracing such tripe with a response.  If you want a debate, don't be an ass.  Especially since one of your caricateurs basically said 'caring to respond to all the substantive comments on a topic makes you a bad person, even if you started the thread,' at which point I will happily ignore potentially substantive comments when the poster has made a point of poisoning the well for any possible response.

Oh, I thought it was because I showed that your perception of physics and the scientific method and scientific progress are wrong, perhaps even two centuries outdated. Oh well, turns out I was being an arse instead. Thanks for rectifying my misunderstanding of the situation

Can we agree to disagree?  I'd rather talk economics and DF than debate what he said you said I said.

Mik thinks that some of what we're talking about sounds like it would be too complicated to be fun.  His perogative, he can't be wrong about his opinions.  He also cautions us not to take pure capitalism versions of economics as writ of truth in the real world, another good point.

Thanks for the diplomacy and elegant summing up, Granite! With that the uneasy harmony is hopefully restored for now

[Footkerchief]

Oh, I thought it was because I showed that your perception of physics and the scientific method and scientific progress are wrong, perhaps even two centuries outdated. Oh well, turns out I was being an arse instead.

That isn't an either/or situation.  Even if you're right, there's no excuse whatsoever for posting stuff like this in a discussion that had, up until that point, managed to remain civil:

The Blowhard flame warrior type
The Tireless Rebutter flame warrior type
The Filibuster flame warrior type

You're outspoken about your concern for the chaotic state of Suggestions, so why contribute to it like this?