Economy Balance

Discussion in 'Marketplace Discussion' started by mrdragonfire, Feb 14, 2013.

  1. So as people have said the server shop seems unreasonably overpriced.

    I dissagree.

    People may not realize it but it is actually the player shops that are underpriced.

    People keep trying to undercut each other and this has reduced the value of the rupee to next to nothing. So I have a proposal that makes a good bit more sense.

    1. Instead of constantly lowering prices player's would set prices at their own shops to only 5r under those of the servershop.

    2. players who include a sell option to their shops would keep the payout at only 10r under the servershop.

    Those reading these two guidelines might be thinking that this would make it too hard to gain enough rupees to buy any thing they might need.

    That idea is incorrect.

    If players were to follow these guidelines they would be making more money from their own shops off each sale. As well as the player price would still be lower than the servershop maintaining playershop priority.

    If all shops priced this way then shops created by small time players would still be able to make money while the larger shops would maintain superiority by better stocking and larger variety.

    Without the need to undercut each other shops would have sales more evenly distributed between each other.

    All these reasons show how adding two simple guidelines would balance the economy.
  2. The point of having player owned shops is so that the players can set their own prices. People want their items sold so they have to sell lower than one another. Eventually they reach a point in which they will not go any lower and that becomes the set price for the time being.
    JabrZer0 and jkjkjk182 like this.
  3. I do not think you understand the concept of a competitive economic structure, in game or out.

    72volt, M4nic, and a few others understand the concept - and will have time to explain it I'm sure. :D

    Your plan, while very idealistic, does not account for the individuals who will still undercut you. Also, if everyone were to abide by these rules, the value of the R would increase.... but it would not make anyone wealthier.

    The high prices of the Empire Shop are high for a few reasons. It is a never-ending supply and it is always in stock. It's always in the same place. And, it keeps player shop prices at a manageable level.

    Go ahead, volt and m4nic :p
  4. I dont think you said about servers.

    My brother shop's around finding the cheapest places to buy. We both noticed that SMP1 is very expensive while (not like bragging but...) SMP4 is very cheap compared to every other server - yet people choose to shop else where.
  5. SMP1 and SMP9 should both have low prices due to their high traffic volume....
    Gap542 likes this.
  6. Well, shop owners there know that more people go to smp1/smp9, which gives them a higher chance to be bought from at higher prices.
  7. The problem is not that shops are underpriced, but money is overvalued. People are doing "whatever it takes" to get money. Rupees just aren't worth killing yourself for so you can sell a stack of diamonds at 4o-50r each
    jkjkjk182 likes this.
  8. I hope you're talking about per diamond, not per stack.
  9. Yes the "each" in that sentence refers to diamonds not stacks. :)
    ninjaboy5656 likes this.
  10. A competitive market economy will balance itself out due to how economies work. Eventually, prices get to a certain level of which the seller is content will that price, and the buy is content with that price. The prices adjust to inflation as needed, pretty much on their own. So, based off of economic laws, the average player prices are actually the value of the item. The reason why your idea of undercutting doesnt work, is because to undercut, you have to sell items at a loss. Anyone who actually undercuts goes out of stock very fast, makes little money, and gets a reputation for being inconsistently stocked. Soon, they arent a successful shop, but a yard sale. EMC is almost a pure market economy, with the price ceiling (/shop) being the only "government" meddling (besides free rupees). We dont have issues with monopolies, and no problems with exclusion. Our economy is nearly perfect, besides inflation and /shop intervention.

    Also, you have been here a week. Just so you know, item prices have actually been rising for months, not falling.
    Gap542 and ninjaboy5656 like this.
  11. Instantly, this song comes into my head:

    Anyways, the players try to make their prices cheaper so people choose to buy from them instead of the shop that's cheap now. The EMC shop is overpriced so that people buy from player shops.

    Also note the economy isn't a main aspect of EMC. It's there, as a feature, but it isn't to be focused on.
  12. Yeah, it's called competition. There's plenty of ways to make money and I'd argue the competition means you can buy more with a rupee.
    This is anti-competitive. Stifling competition is bad for the economy.

    Again, anti-competitive.

    The idea is correct, you can't place such a restriction on the economy. There are other industries other than the playershop market, like the service sector. They would suffer from this due to stifled economic activity in the main playershop sector.

    You can't restrict pricing to such a strict degree and expect that the playershop sector would still be as active.

    Yes, but there would be less incentive to compete in the market and make an awesome shop.

    Read a book on economics and re-evaluate your proposal.
  13. I was waiting for this. :D
  14. A competitive market economy is by default, an inefficient one. It is designed to take money from many people and concentrate it on a very few people. It means some people live in ridiculous luxury while others don't get to live much at all.
    MissFable and ninjaboy5656 like this.
  15. Thats what you see in a "real world" competitive market. Unfortunately, because of our current world, thats how it is conveyed to everyone. But really, a market economy is extremely efficient. On its own, it will get to the equilibrium level, which maximizes efficiency. Its also better for the consumer, because the competition drives prices down to the equilibrium level. Yes, it is true that some people are incredibly rich, while others are very poor, but that is due to the human factor, not the economy type. In a pure market economy, anyone, absolutely anyone, can get to the top with enough effort. Anyone who can get through a highschool program can attain incredible wealth. But, when you have a large factor like, lets say, government, that goes in and tries to "fix" things, it hurts the whole system. Now, IRL, a mixed system is needed. But in minecraft, a pure market economy is the best thing we can have. Because everyone is on an equal level. Supportership kind of hurts that equality, but there are many rich "normal" members. *cough* Zabriel *cough* We dont have to worry about minecraft monopolies, because monopoly tactics will lead to their own "death."
  16. Greedy people, like me wouldn't like to do this, rather earn more..more..more and more..
  17. The existence of an economy presumes a human factor. There are systems of injustice in the world.

    I don't know where you come from, but the rich people where I grew up didn't want any more rich people around, so they will screw with the market, underprice, etc, etc to keep others out of their captive economy. Which means saying that anyone can "get to the top" whatever that means, is not always possible, even in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
  18. I should have explained more clearly what i meant by human factor. There are people out there who try to inject what they see as "fairness" into a pure market economy through government. That just ruins a pure market system. Sure, they can screw around with the market, but the consumer is in charge of the market. The consumer is at fault there. People will complain about prices and such, but they wont actually do anything (as a whole). They can underprice, but only to a certain point, at which they have to stop. As long as the consumer is informed, and the consumer acts, that isnt successful. If the consumer decides to buy the cheaper item, knowing that in the long run it will hurt them, its (IMO) the consumers fault. The consumer needs to be in control of the economy. I see you are referencing the US. We are not a market economy. We are mixed. Go back in time to about 100-150 years ago, then we were a market economy. We are (unfortunately) steadily gaining parts of socialism.
  19. Who is going to stop employers from abusing their workers if there is no government?
  20. The workers can. That "(unfortunately)" of mine was aimed at "steadily." I agree that there are some socialist idea that are good. But to continue adding on is not going to help in the long run. I like that the government protects workers from abuse, but it should stay there. In my state, there was a person who owned several hundred acres, and he hosted a trailer park on it for 192 families. During the recession, those families couldnt pay their rent. So the land owner couldnt afford to keep the land. He decided to sell it, but the government stepped in and creating a zoning law (dont remember exactly what it was) that prevented him from selling, just so that those 192 families could stay put. What ended up happening? Well the land owner couldnt make his payments on the land, so the bank seized it. Now, that ex-land owner is poor, and the families lost their homes without warning. The bank also doesnt get the money it should, due to them having to sell the land off for very cheap (zoning laws were at fault for that, i believe). What im saying is, is that the government shouldnt meddle with things unless the case is very major. Another thing that was addressed last night by Obama was minimum wage. He wants to raise it. Horrible idea. What is going to happen, and what has happened in the past, is that businesses will (at least) cut employees hours (and many will have to let employees go), and keep the costs the same. So what we might end up with, is higher unemployment due to the government trying to help people where help really isnt needed. We will end up with higher partial unemployment, due to those workers who had hours cut looking for jobs elsewhere. So while the minimum wage worker will be earning the same amount (due to cut hours), business productivity will drop. As productivity drops, and production costs increase, so will prices. So in the end, there is a good chance that workers will make the same (but have more free time), but prices will rise. Government, in major and/or extreme cases, is welcome to step in and do what is necessary. But when this "fairness" stuff starts increasing, all it will do is hurt us all in the end.

    I just realized that i was totally ranting there. Sorry, i had this same discussion in my Econ class today with this self-labeled communist:p