Re: Olympia - Free Market Economy

From: elw@netx.com (Edwin Wiles)

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 21:01:32 +0000

In article <Jun.19.19.43.38.1992.6352@romulus.rutgers.edu> morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) writes:
>Yes, but suppose you will arrive at Kircarth on day 20.  You know there
>is a sword merchant there and you have 50 swords to sell.  The merchant's
>quota is set for 100, so you assume you are safe.  You set your orders
>accordingly.  On day 10, Willy the Annoying arrives and sells HIS 100
>swords.  You are screwwed.  THAT is what I am worried about.  On the other
>hand, if there IS no quota, the merchant only has enough money to buy
>100 swords, what happens?  Oh, you can add extra commands to deal with
>this but how many?

<<<<THIS one I can deal with!>>>>

That's right!
Willy the Annoying arrives before you and sells his swords.
You're now stuck being unable to sell your swords.

This is what *I* would call *realistic!*  In olden times, it was always
a problem carrying your goods from one place to another, only to discover
that someone had beat you to the market.

That is why only scarce/expensive goods (spices, jewelry, etc...) were
shipped long distances.  Anything else, like swords, were far too common
to make a living by carrying large lots of them from one place to another.
That is unless you had a PRIOR AGREEMENT with someone at that remote
location to buy ONLY from you.

With scarce/expensive goods, you have a MUCH better chance of being able
to sell your goods for two reasons.

First, demand is almost always going to outstrip supply.  If it's truly
scarce, no one merchant is *likely* to obtain enough of the item to fill
demand in a 'major' market.

Second, expense means that only the rich, or at least well-to-do would
be able to buy your goods.  That would tend to imply that they're going
to have the money to buy your goods, even if someone gets there ahead of
you.  (Though you might have to settle for a lower price than if you had
gotten there first.)

Selling large lots of common goods farther than a day or three away from
your source of those goods is probably a bad idea.  The local suppliers
will normally keep the local demand well filled.

Selling small lots of a large number of common goods in many different
locations over a wide area, is probably a good idea.  This is the rough
equivalent of a traveling salesman/tinker.  Having small amounts of lots
of common items means that in any one market, you will probably do enough
buisness to keep going, and will never be totally blocked out.

The only time it makes sense to carry large lots of goods over many days
travel to get them to market is when the items are expensive/scarce enough
to make sure that you're not going to be blocked out of the market.

As far as the idea of E-Mail being used to handle price negotiations,
I don't think that's really necessary.  (IMHO!  I could be missing
something here!)  There were mistakes being made all over the place in
olden times.  There's a story of one merchant who heard of a major market
which was to take place in a certain city at a certain time of the year,
in a certain year.  He and his local friends gathered goods from their
area to take to that market.  He was put in charge, and got the goods
to the city.  Unfortunately, they'd gotten the WRONG YEAR, and were a
good few years ahead of schedule!  (The merchant eventually did make
out quite nicely, but not at all in the way that he thought he would!)
[The above story comes from a PBS show that detailed the development
of western culture over a broad span of time, using particular
well-documented examples to make their points.  No, I don't
remember the title.  I wish I did, I'd like to see it again!]

It's the old argument between realism, playability, and enjoyability.

Realistically, it is entirely possible that moving goods from one place
to another will not result in the expected sales.

Playability is decreased, the more complex you try to make the orders.
If you go for realism, then the proposed set of orders that I've seen,
and the consequences of them (to wit, failure to sell because someone
else beat you to it) are quite realistic.  However...

Enjoyability means that you shouldn't get the feeling that you're being
shafted very often.  This would require more complex order structures
to avoid getting the shaft more often than you'd like.

As usual, it is terribly difficult to get agreement on a balance between
these three factors.  I wish you all good luck!
--
ONLY: elw@netx.com				Edwin Wiles
						NetExpress Inc., Suite 300,
Who?  Me?!?  Responsible!?!  Surely You Jest!	Vienna, VA, USA 22182

References

Re: Olympia - Free Market Economy
morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Fri, 19 Jun 1992 23:43:39 +0000
Re: Olympia - Free Market Economy
morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Wed, 17 Jun 1992 21:52:14 +0000
Re: Olympia - Free Market Economy
rsocia@renaissance.cray.com (Rick Socia)
Wed, 17 Jun 1992 23:43:16 +0000