Originally by: Eigenvalue

---

I wanted to point out my unhappiness at the shuttle nerf in the last patch.

a) It's purely academic. There exist plenty of real world instances like this that are institutionalized. FOr instance, it could be a charter mandate by concord that all stations supply plenty of shuttles for citizens at reasonable prices as a regulation. This removal was academic in nature and adds little to game play.

b) You nerfed trit prices for a while, and the transient effects still aren't done yet. Steady state will take a while to achieve. This is painful for producers.

c) Everyone who had production queue's last week for expensive items suddenly had their margins completely nerfed, and they should have reprocessed all their items for trit because of this absurd "fix" to no real problem.

d) Even worse, market prices lag so far for production that items are still selling pre-nerf pricing of trit, so every sale you're effectively losing money.

e) Your justification that nerfing the shuttle owners is so poorly thought out a justification -- nerfing the market should have been your primary thought. I understand it's transient, but come one folks, it wasn't broken, why did you "fix" it?

f) Are all base prices for all ships going to adjust accordingly now that you nerfed trit pricing to be totally stochastic while we're in this transient period?

---

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

Originally by: Eigenvalue

---

I wanted to point out my unhappiness at the shuttle nerf in the last patch.

a) It's purely academic. There exist plenty of real world instances like this that are institutionalized. FOr instance, it could be a charter mandate by concord that all stations supply plenty of shuttles for citizens at reasonable prices as a regulation. This removal was academic in nature and adds little to game play.

b) You nerfed trit prices for a while, and the transient effects still aren't done yet. Steady state will take a while to achieve. This is painful for producers.

c) Everyone who had production queue's last week for expensive items suddenly had their margins completely nerfed, and they should have reprocessed all their items for trit because of this absurd "fix" to no real problem.

d) Even worse, market prices lag so far for production that items are still selling pre-nerf pricing of trit, so every sale you're effectively losing money.

e) Your justification that nerfing the shuttle owners is so poorly thought out a justification -- nerfing the market should have been your primary thought. I understand it's transient, but come one folks, it wasn't broken, why did you "fix" it?

f) Are all base prices for all ships going to adjust accordingly now that you nerfed trit pricing to be totally stochastic while we're in this transient period?

---

All problems in a free market are self-correcting.

---

Originally by: Gamer4liff

---

I think you need to brush up on your Keynesian economics.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

So basically this is a thread to whine about being inconvenienced for a week even though the changes will make the game better for years to come?

Suck it up.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

So basically this is a thread to whine about being inconvenienced for a week even though the changes will make the game better for years to come?

Suck it up.

---

Originally by: dumbutt

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

So basically this is a thread to whine about being inconvenienced for a week even though the changes will make the game better for years to come?

Suck it up.

---

I fail to see how keeping trit prices high is good for the game Shar. All it does is force even more miners into empire.

---

Originally by: dumbutt

---

Personally, I would have kept shuttles in game and lowered the price to cap trit at 2.8, to force the rest of the min basket back up where it needs to be.

---

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

So... you think force is bad, apparently. Ok, we'll hold onto that for a little bit. But how does removing a price limit on an item force anyone to do anything? It actually does the exact opposite. That's like saying if you change the price of coke from 0.50 to a dollar, you force everyone to drink pepsi! And this change didn't even change the price directly! Market forces are doing that.

Now back to force...

---

Originally by: dumbutt

---

I wasn't referring to the sales of shuttles... I'm referring to the sales of trit for production and mining profit. why mine anywhere other than empire.

I mean it's been that way for awhile now, but this really just put the cap on the grave for low/null mining.

That is unless drop rates for things like drone regions, etc.. are cut. Which I'm sure is coming because as we all know CCP has the best handle on economic factors of their game.

---

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

All problems in a free market are self-correcting.

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

So basically this is a thread to whine about being inconvenienced for a week even though the changes will make the game better for years to come?

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

I fail to see how keeping trit prices high is good for the game Shar. All it does is force even more miners into empire.

---

Repeat after me, Shad is not Shar.
I know it gets confusing:

Shad is rich and arrogant, Shar is not rich and arrogant.

Shad is a jerk with some surprising good sense, Shar is a jerk with some surprising good sense.

The biggest difference between us is a simple matter of reading and spelling. Besides, I generate enough hostility of my very own. I really don't need his as well!

---

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

Originally by: dumbutt

---

I wasn't referring to the sales of shuttles... I'm referring to the sales of trit for production and mining profit. why mine anywhere other than empire.

I mean it's been that way for awhile now, but this really just put the cap on the grave for low/null mining.

That is unless drop rates for things like drone regions, etc.. are cut. Which I'm sure is coming because as we all know CCP has the best handle on economic factors of their game.

---

Why is mining in low/null something to be preferred? If they do something artificial to make mining lowsec/null more profitable than empire will you complain that it's now unfair to miners in highsec? Left on its own supply and demand issues will work themselves out.

If everyone stops mining lowsec/null and only mines in highsec, rare raws will go up in price and common highsec raws will go down. This seesaw effect will continue until at least a periodic balance is achieved.

---

Originally by: Moran Trayga

---

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

All problems in a free market are self-correcting.

---

That is a pretty outlandish statement, the world is not as black and white as this. For example, free markets are horrible when it comes to dealing with externalities.

PS. I hate The Chicago School of Economic thought >.<

---

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

Originally by: Moran Trayga

---

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

All problems in a free market are self-correcting.

---

That is a pretty outlandish statement, the world is not as black and white as this. For example, free markets are horrible when it comes to dealing with externalities.

PS. I hate The Chicago School of Economic thought >.<

---

Name one country that has a free market in "the world" and I'll retract my comment. Hong Kong was the last one. What externalities are you referring to? Government regulation? Competition from other countries that don't have free markets? Basically everything that the Chicago School refuted, huh? Go back to Austria.

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

Originally by: Gamer4liff

---

I think you need to brush up on your Keynesian economics.

---

Oh wow... Keynes. Yeah, that's really great. Consumers drive the economy, eh? Things are created by destroying them? Keynes helped create a sub-depression within the great depression! Production drives the economy, not consumption. Yes, people need to buy products, but value is created by the people who produce them, not those that consume them. I suppose you subscribe to the labor theory of value too?

Keep your Keynes, I'll stay with Jean-Baptiste Say myself.

---

Originally by: Moran Trayga

---

Milton Friedmen after all said the best time to push through radical economic change was when people were in shock and so couldn't do anything to stop it.

---

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

---

No you are staying with Adam Smith.

"All problems in a free market are self-correcting." is a terrible fallacy. In THIS case the market will probably auto-regulate, because trit is highly available and nobody can really control the market, but that is CERTAINLY NOT the case in general.

Keynes theory does not apply to several aspects of today's economy, but it still is a MUCH better approximation than Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, which you paraphrase with your assertion.

---

Originally by: Cpt Fina

---

Originally by: Moran Trayga

---

Milton Friedmen after all said the best time to push through radical economic change was when people were in shock and so couldn't do anything to stop it.

---

Doesn't the "shock" in the shockmethod imply the rapid and extensive privatization of the "commanding heights" just after a revolution.

I could be wrong but that what I thought it meant. I'd be glad if you could provide a link.

---

Originally by: Petyr Baelich

---

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

---

No you are staying with Adam Smith.

"All problems in a free market are self-correcting." is a terrible fallacy. In THIS case the market will probably auto-regulate, because trit is highly available and nobody can really control the market, but that is CERTAINLY NOT the case in general.

Keynes theory does not apply to several aspects of today's economy, but it still is a MUCH better approximation than Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, which you paraphrase with your assertion.

---

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." ~ Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Smith's "Invisible Hand" refers to the self-regulation of a free market because of the profit motive of all involved. Smith was a good economist and was right about many things, including this model of a free market. Jean-Baptiste Say, however was a superior economist and one of my heroes, so when I say that I'll stay with him, I meant that his writings encompass my personal beliefs more completely.

The theory of the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to the all individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole. The reason for this is that greed will drive actors to beneficial behavior. Efficient methods of production will be adopted in order to maximize profits. Low prices will be charged in order to undercut competitors. Investors will invest in those industries that are most urgently needed to maximize returns, and withdraw capital from those that are less efficient in creating value. Students will be guided to prepare for the most needed (and therefore most remunerative) careers. And all these effects will take place dynamically and automatically.

It also works as a balancing mechanism. For example, the inhabitants of a poor country will be willing to work very cheaply. Entrepreneurs can make great profits by building factories in poor countries. But since they increase the demand for labor, they will increase its price. And since the new producers will also become consumers, local businesses will have to hire more people in order to provide for them the things that they want to consume. As this process continues, the labor prices will eventually rise to the point at which there is no advantage for the foreign countries doing business in the formerly poor country. Overall, this mechanism will cause the local economy to function on its own.

What is your argument against this? You can email me if you wish to continue the discussion outside of these forums, just convo me ingame or send an evemail and I'll give you an addy.

---