Merchant's Guild

[Aeson]

There have been some talking going on about protectionist tarrifs arising in cities now that we are getting connected. I would assume if one city goes this direction, all will have to. This can help/hurt all of us, and probably varies from session to session which.

Session 2 will be a good indication of the power of this sort of protectionism on the market. The Asylum is a completely protected market for it's landholders in Session 2, while the other two cities are 'free' trade (if tarriffs are not enacted before then). This is a 'natural' protectionism which will likely be gone by Session 3 when we are connected to the rest of the empire by roads.

To deal with the market on an empire-wide basis, perhaps we should form a guild to help set (or offset) trading regulations set by cities.

Functions of the Guild would be to set up commodity trade between members (within a city or not), protection of member's interests on an empire-wide basis, and influencing city decisions to implement/retract tarriffs or embargoes.

Simply put, this guild would form to make sure that city governments are not soley responsible for dictating our rights as traders.

Members: (membership open to all landholders)

Uber KruX
GhengisFarb
Aidun
General Locus
Aeson
TORARADICAL
=OttomusCeasar=
Esoteric

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I don't see what's wrong with city's implementing small tariffs. If a city plans to grow its population to be a far more profitable market than others and wishes to charge a small tariff to support it for doing so why is that wrong?

Why should a few outsiders impose their will on the citystates? If Feudality builds some suburbs and generates a profitable mulitmarket economy why should The Asylum dictate its market rules?

And should this be attempted, what's to say X or Feudality simply ignore you and close off all trade with the other cities (ie, imposing a 100% tariff).

[Aeson]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I don't see what's wrong with city's implementing small tariffs. If a city plans to grow its population to be a far more profitable market than others and wishes to charge a small tariff to support it for doing so why is that wrong?

You'll notice I didn't say we would specifically support or oppose tarriffs, just that merchants could band together to make sure that city governments aren't the only deciding factor in what is deemed reasonable.

There are empire-wide trading concerns that for some may supercede city-wide trading concerns. This would be a forum to express those views and find consensus on a larger scale about how the market should be run.

Why should a few outsiders impose their will on the citystates? If Feudality builds some suburbs and generates a profitable mulitmarket economy why should The Asylum dictate its market rules?

You seem to view this as a closed guild. It's open to everyone.

And should this be attempted, what's to say X or Feudality simply ignore you and close off all trade with the other cities (ie, imposing a 100% tariff).

Good example of what the Guild would be trying to avoid. Ideally everyone from every city would be active in the guild, and a larger consensus about what is reasonable will be achieved. That way a few hardliners in a city couldn't close it off for everyone else as easily. They would be facing an empire-wide opposition (in and out of their city(s)) instead of just from in their city.

The Merchants Guild could be a powerful force in keeping a spiral effect of tarriffs from forming and leading us to a completely closed market.

As an example, the 10% tarriff proposed in X will likely lead to the other cities following suit. You may feel your market is the most powerful, and it might be, but what happens when The Asylum and/or Feudality then decides to go with a 100% tarriff so the the members there can sell off only 1 good each and split the entire income, while dumping all the spare goods in X? What happens when the first Settler decides to grab 3 tiles in X's radius, using those tiles to dump tarriff free goods into X while closing off their market completely? To protect yourself X probably now has to up the tarriff rate.

The end result is going to be all cities at 100% tarriffs (and even tarriffs against certain landholders in a city) if policy is concerned only with city market health, and there is no representation of empire-wide market health. By having that empire-wide concern represented, we won't be eliminating city concerns, but helping offset them when they would be detrimental to traders as a whole.

[Inverse Icarus]

I'll join this guild.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I'll join this guild, but I'm staunchly citySTATES RIGHTS in my political leanings.

[Aeson]

Yah sure, Liberal.

As I said, the actual policy of the guild would be determined by the membership. It could even be used to help uphold citySTATES RIGHTS...

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I thought States Rights people were ultra Conservative.

[Aidun]

I'll join this guild to and I hang towards Ghengis's idea as long as the nation's interests aren't harmed too much.

Aidun

[General Locus]

Sign me up! I wish to join!

[Inverse Icarus]

I would also like to state that I will be alongside Ghengis in this guild. I am joining to make sure this guild does not utterly destroy the city's ability to determine prices, not the other way around.

[Aidun]

is there a maximum of players that can be involved in the guild? Or is this guild only open to certain players?

Aidun

[TORARADICAL]

I would join. I may not add much, but know that what I do add will have been very much thought oot.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Aidun
is there a maximum of players that can be involved in the guild? Or is this guild only open to certain players?

I suppose if the membership wanted to restrict future membership it could be voted on. Excluding anyone would be undermining the purpose though. You can't come to an empire-wide consensus on market issues without input empire-wide. The smaller the membership the less influence the guild could have.

-----------

I do find it a little weird that so many see tarriffs as a good thing. Obviously GF gains leaps and bounds as the only landholder in more than one city... the rest of us are facing up to a 20% disadvantage in comparison to him if the tarriffs are enacted. (and that 20% could skyrocket in short order)

Once there are multiple players with shared tiles it makes more sense to support. Before then it seems to be counter-intuitive for the vast majority of the players.

[Octavian X]

I'll join this guild as well, if only to provide another opportunity to spam.

As I see it, from the standpoint of a landowner in the City of X, I stand to make a bit of a profit by having the city solicit a tariff. A small one, of course, so that business will still come our way. No harm, no foul.

Though, looking at Aeson's statements, we probably do need to enact some sort of restrictions on a few items to prevent exploitation, and to keep the overall game fun.

First, there should be a limit to how high a city may set a tariff. 10-20% seems reasonable enough. Granted, this takes away from the rights of the city, but it's only fair for everyone else in the nation. And, at least I know I'd be less inclined to participate should my potential profits be taken away by excessive tariffs that are everywhere else in the nation, should Aeson's predicted scenarios play out.

Second, there should be some sort of restriction on tiles that are in two city radii. When this phenonom occurs, one person stands to profit greatly, especially since that very valuable double-city tile is acquirable by normal means. I'd propose either doubling the purchase price (as well as making them unavailable as first-time picks) to properly account for the doubled influence, or outright simply deciding that one tile belongs to one city, period.

That ends my daily rant.

[General Locus]

I think, Aeson that the people of city of X fear that those of us in Futility will come over and saturate their market, driving prices down... it's no surprise that the city of Lepers... or whatever it's called now... it's no surprise that all of their citizens are relatively wealthy... an unsaturated market...