|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thrasymachus TheSophist
   |
Posted - 2010.03.19 21:27:00 -
[1]
There is no need to "reduce supply" - just remove the price support (insurance fraud) and the market will correct any "oversupply" that exists.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 01:26:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Block Ukx
Edited by: Block Ukx on 19/03/2010 22:49:26
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
There is no need to "reduce supply" - just remove the price support (insurance fraud) and the market will correct any "oversupply" that exists.
Wrong. The EVE market will never correct "oversupply". Supply and demmand model assumes supply is constrained by fix resources, which is not the case in EVE.
I don't think you've thought that through. If all ore was only worth 0.00001 ISK/unit, but was still infinitely available, do you think people would still mine? Limited supply exerts an influence on the supply/demand curve - this is true without doubt. But infinite supply does not render the model invalid - it merely means something other than scarcity is setting the price - namely the time value of the labor to collect the resource.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 03:38:00 -
[3]
The ubiqitous "L4 missions pay too much" makes little sense.
I've done lots and lots of L4s. They pay fine.
The money you can make from trading, with almost NO RISK AT ALL, completely dwarfs L4s.
If you're intent on finding a nerfable golden calf, look at the trading mechanics. If you're dealing with under 1 billion, you can easily - easily - double whatever you have in a few hours of game time spread over 2 weeks. And the most you risk is a minimal decrease in the price of the goods ...
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:57:00 -
[4]
Now I'm confused. I thought the beef with L4s was that they paid too much. But the below posts seem to imply that the reason people complain about L4s is b/c they increase M1 (the total money supply) too much.
Yet, if this were really an issue, wouldn't we expect to see rampant inflation? Yet ... we don't.
Originally by: Umega
There is a very BIG difference between the two..
One pours Isk into the economy.. one does not.
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
You don't understand the problem, trading does not bring new isk into the system, it just makes isk change hands.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 16:17:00 -
[5]
I like your post and you make a very valid distinction re: M1.
However, I don't understand the below assertion, and my inclination is to disagree. Use of the "highest level" seems a particularly inappropriate baseline/gauge since the "newest/best" is always particularly expensive for numerous reasons beyond its utility. Thats not to say that it has some value extraneous to its seemingly-inflated price (its price IS its value) but rather that it seems an odd metric against which to measure the effect of ISK inflow in the economy.
Or, perhaps that is the point - you are trying to measure disposable ISK?
Even still, aren't *all* newly released ships insane expensive for some time? Haven't Titans/SuperTitans always been over 1B?
I guess I'm not following your logic.
Originally by: Kenz Rider
(snip)
In EVE what this means is that you can't base your basket of goods on what Pye and Trit are doing, or even T2 components -- you need to determine how much it costs to do PvP at the highest levels.
|
|
|
| |
|