|
Post by Sojourner on Dec 24, 2004 7:23:13 GMT -5
How so? You're saying a unit of any given commodity should be that quantity which is worth a fixed amount of currency?
I thought about that, but can't see how it would work. Every commodity will have a different worth depending on where you are. I suppose we could fudge it using exchange rates, but that's a very complicated way to go about it.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Dec 24, 2004 7:26:30 GMT -5
We could ascribe terms such as abundant, limited and rare to said stuff, and then give an arbitrary number to how much each unit/tonne of it would be worth.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Dec 24, 2004 9:43:26 GMT -5
I don't think so. I'd prefer to do it in terms of its standard trading unit, personally. Tonnes for bulk goods, individual units for stuff like lasguns. This is unambiguous as a tonne is a tonne wherever you are i.e. 1000kg.
|
|
|
Post by Zholud on Dec 24, 2004 10:57:02 GMT -5
I don't think so. I'd prefer to do it in terms of its standard trading unit, personally. Tonnes for bulk goods, individual units for stuff like lasguns. This is unambiguous as a tonne is a tonne wherever you are i.e. 1000kg. Let’s decide what we are after. If we need to calculate capacities to transfer goods then we need tonnes or cubic metres, depending on what is binding. But I guess we need to get exports and imports, totals which are way better accounted in currency. Which prices? We use more or less arbitrary prices because we need estimates for values of broad baskets of goods. See my post above. Thus we write resources meaning gold, oil, cobalt, etc. We do not need to know details on how much magnesium ore with given content of the clear material. What for?
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Dec 24, 2004 11:06:29 GMT -5
For things like raw ores though, you can use examples from Earth to suggest what sort of content your planet's ores may have and how difficult they are to extract.
I am, at the moment, considering raw production, so units of actual mass/quantity are the best method, I think. You're the economist, so when we come to interplanetary trade, you're the boss.
The way I understand it though, you can only pay other worlds for their goods in your own currency or a common currency to the region you're in. As such, your profit on any sale can only be spent on more products for sale on your buyer's world. This is why most countries hold some stocks of US dollars or Euros, or typically both.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Dec 24, 2004 11:18:16 GMT -5
I thought the imperium had a standard currency, and I think credits would be a better solution to interplanetary trade as they don't have to be subject to things like devaluation, differeing interest rates, nor the price of gold. The impeirum sets the flat rate then every one follows
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Dec 24, 2004 11:25:16 GMT -5
It would be a good idea in theory, but I think given the size of the Imperium and the difficulty in communication, it's entirely possible that worlds or even whole regions could possess bank balances vastly disproportionate to their actual material wealth depending on how long it takes for them to catch up with the rest of the Imperium.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Dec 24, 2004 11:30:55 GMT -5
Thats the problem with having such a pourous, ill managed empire, the thing is there isn't really any viable alternative, at least not one I can see. If its managed sector by sector then it might not be to bad if they are close to each other, but going from one sector to one thats half way across the galaxy might pose greater problems in terms of banking
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Dec 27, 2004 19:32:02 GMT -5
Incidentally, and as a quick question since I'm running out of time on the computer, how much would historical 'empire' models be of use. Yeah, we might not be working with a strict mineral currency (i.e. silver, gold, whatever) but perhaps the basic concepts would be useful rather than shifting to an economy entirely dominated by modern ideals?
|
|
|
Post by Zholud on Dec 28, 2004 5:19:02 GMT -5
Incidentally, and as a quick question since I'm running out of time on the computer, how much would historical 'empire' models be of use Alas, I’m unsure what you are referring to. One thing for empires in that there is metropolis/centre and colonies/provinces. Usually the centre is parasitic agency that squeezes all juice from the colonies. Often this is done indirectly through wage and price differences, tax levels and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Dec 28, 2004 11:45:02 GMT -5
I believe, at least as my video games tell me, that medieval europe used a unified currency called the Florin. This was simply a standard weight of silver minted into any old coin and as long as the weight was correct, any florin was accepted anywhere that dealt in them.
Something tells me this isn't entirely adequate. But then, going all theoretical, the only disadvantage of this system is the uneven distribution of silver, correct? Well, what are modern day 'credits' made from? Logic. Modern 'virtual' currency is made of nothing, so every nation has a theoretically infinite supply. Thus this imaginary currency must be controlled by other methods entirely.
What methods?
|
|
|
Post by Zholud on Dec 28, 2004 14:04:33 GMT -5
I believe, at least as my video games tell me, that medieval europe used a unified currency called the Florin. Not fully correct. First of all there were different currencies with different silver content. Secondly every minor lord with a castle and one and half village had own mint, where he minted coins. Most coins in reality where taken from other, larger states, esp. Merchant centres and just get local warlord emblem added to them. Ones that actually re-minted coins, added lots of copper into them in order to get more money from less. This was simply a standard weight of silver minted into any old coin and as long as the weight was correct, any florin was accepted anywhere that dealt in them. yep, florin, pound sterling or Hryvnia all came as weight of silver. But when coins were re-introduced (after fall of Rome) everyone tried to decrease their silver content. Thus this imaginary currency must be controlled by other methods entirely. What methods? Fear of death for forging currency And trustworthy central banker, who will not issue virtual money… or you are more interested on what is used in the Imperium as a currency? On interplanetary level at least.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Dec 28, 2004 15:03:48 GMT -5
I guess the point I'm making is that a standardised currency will be very difficult to implement from the Imperium's point of view. The best solution I can think of is to say that the Imperium uses a form of barter in which bonds are issued that can be used in a mandatory exchange in return for a 'free' tithe.
|
|
|
Post by Zholud on Dec 31, 2004 6:59:04 GMT -5
I guess the point I'm making is that a standardised currency will be very difficult to implement from the Imperium's point of view. It is in no way harder for the Imperium to have a single unit for accounting than for the Earth today to have only 3 major currencies – dollar, euro and yen. They are in reality are not backed by anything but trust of their holders that they have the value written on them. The only problem is that the more high-tech the world becomes, the harder to prevent forging of the currency. However, the Imperium has the best possible crime-preventing agencies just because they have to fight other crimes as well.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 1, 2005 18:34:46 GMT -5
Alas, I’m unsure what you are referring to. One thing for empires in that there is metropolis/centre and colonies/provinces. Merely that looking at 'feudal economy' might be as usefu as imposing modern economic principles on the Imperium. That's all. Just a thought since, to be fair, we still need some form of working system for determining economy that doesn't require that all the worlds be created first... And and incidentally, socially the 'core-periphery' theory is highly debateable, so one would presume that it doesn't quite work that way with economics...?
|
|