You should always resort to witchcraft. It’ll help you out no matter which craft you’re in!
Also, just an FYI, ‘Initiative Mercenaries’ is Init’s feeder alliance, also living in Fountain. You’ll want to include them in the Imperium numbers. Initiative Associates, otoh, is their renters—living in Fountain, but not Imperium members. (Much like the Querious Fight Club alliances aren’t members. But they aren’t renters, either.)
Don’t worry he missed out lot’s probably on purpose.
1 Like
How about moving reactions into the .5 systems?
1 Like
I used the Sov maps to establish who is who - hence the exclusion of non sov holding entities - whether the maps are reliable, is of course a different matter
The ‘neutral states’ listings are… flawed, let’s say.
Heh…what is interesting is that the numbers are not quite as stark at least comparing Imperium to Legacy. On a per pilot basis Legacy is making 78% (76% if Iron Armada and Snuffed Out are removed) of what the Imperium is making.
All this hand wringing about Delve, Goons, etc. is greatly exaggerated to a large extent.
If you wish to redistribute the wealth and find ways of removing it from the economy, look to the markets (suggestions below which may also improve the loads on the servers).
Buy or Sell orders placed on a market should only have a 30 day max date (when changing a market order, this shouldn’t revert back to the original number which is generally 90 days). This way if an item hasn’t sold it is removed from market and then the player needs to put it back onto market with the market taxes being paid again. Players would need to think about a fair market price when placing an order.
As with everything in EvE there are consequences and the same should be with markets (orders).
I would suggest, if you change the price of items within orders, this has consequences this would be in additional taxes paid. Currently, if you change an order there is nearly nil tax paid.
I would suggest if you change an existing order, it would incur an additional tax to the new taxable value x 25% every time.
Also, systems with a high number of transactions incur a higher tax rate.
This would hit the capitalists mostly (myself included) and not the general or new players. Players would need to think about what a fair price is and not juggle their prices every few seconds.
An additional benefit would be to the servers dealing with less loads relating to market order changes. It may also mean that markets might spread from central hubs and spread across the universe as prices would be more stabilized.
This might close the gap between sale and buy orders and therefore ensure most players would get a fairer price for their goods. When a new player starts to make some item, they are likely to get a fair price for their goods.
Also, why not introduce “market buyers” who put in regional buy orders at 50-80% of the average weighted price. This would ensure all players get a fair(er) value for items and it goes out of the game.
Why? Why is income inequality even a problem?
Your an economist. You should know the answer to this already.
I know why it can be bad in real life…but I’d like to see an argument articulated in game. Can I buy a Dev for ISK?
In game has a sort of functional economy also, meaning the same issues arise in the in game economy as the RL economy with wealth inequality.
Also while isk isn’t a major balancing factor, someone who can only afford T1’s and still feels it when they lose them isn’t competing on a remotely even footing with the guy who can afford faction/abyssal fits and doesn’t care a dime if they lose them, so it causes balance issues if it skews too far, and removes the element of risk/loss if they are rich enough it doesn’t matter.
Some inequality is obviously good, as it separates skill at isk making to some degree (Time being the actual major factor), and it presents things to strive to achieve. But too much is bad. Especially when it comes to the multiboxed versions of isk making.
Again, can I buy a Dev like I can a RL politician? If so how much ISK?
I don’t think what one can afford is a big deal. In fact, if people are overall seeing an improvement in their personal situation they don’t care about inequality all that much. Take for example China (PRC). They went from being very poor with hundreds of millions living in extreme poverty to hundreds of millions living in not-extreme poverty. In fact, many saw significant increases in their standard of living. At the same time there was a rapid rise in inequality.
Now, would the typical Chinese person be upset with the inequality if it mean less inequality meant returning to extreme poverty or something like it? I doubt it. I doubt it alot.
Now if you are tempted to say, “Why not both?” as in less inequality and less extreme poverty…we humans have not figured that out yet. Socialism doesn’t work at doing that. Most likely because we are individuals not some sort of hive mind.
So again…can I buy a Dev for ISK? I’m guessing the answer will be forever, “No.” As such I don’t see inequality as being that much of a big deal. And to the extent it is…revel in the high PLEX prices which provide a mechanism for transferring ISK form the Have’s to the Have-Not’s.
Nice straw-man which sidesteps the actual economy issues and instead focusing on political corruption.
As for why not both, it can be done, it just involves stopping the selfish impulses and putting a limit on unhealthy wealth acquisition.
PLEX also don’t funnel isk like you claim, because they are manipulated by people who ‘have enough’ to do so, in order to make their large pile of isk even larger. CCP’s data supports this by the number of people an average plex passes through before it actually gets used, meaning multiple people make profit off them before the end user actually consumes them who is probably not one of the mega haves in many cases.
So yeah, there are issues with extreme inequality even in EVE. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
Do we have extreme inequality? Well last time CCP gave us a graph we were well on the way to it, if it’s got better or worse, CCP would have to release new figures showing us.
Perhaps you should read up on public choice, it is the nexus of political science and economics and in fact goes back to when economics was known more as political economy…
Really? Name a single real world example. To some extent there must be inequality if you are to have a market based system.
Really? So if a new player gets out his credit cart and spends $20 he won’t get about 2 billion ISK right now? And that 2 billion ISK will come from other low ISK players? Your data to support this is…?
Speculation is a good thing. I thickens markets and allows the speculators to enter into the market and try to reduce market swings. It isn’t perfect, but speculation typically has a bad reputation based on faulty reasoning and class envy.
You still haven’t explained why. Even if we accept that PLEX prices are manipulated for many players they have a viable and better alternative. If you are trading 45 hours/account to PLEX said account vs. say trading 2 hours of RL work…you are doing it horribly, horribly wrong.
What graph? Did CCP give us a Gini Coefficient? Please link it if they did.
And as for why extreme inequality is bad, I already gave you some reasons, you know more reasons based on economics. How extreme is a real problem, that’s beyond my knowledge, but I do see there being serious issues that are deepening at present in EVE related to the build up of wealth in certain groups hands that only seem to be accelerating with some of the recent changes. A fresh graph would indicate how much of this is simply viewpoint and how much is actually happening.
Edit: Yes I know that’s a wealth graph not an income graph. But well, the two do kinda have to be related :P. And it’s the best they’ve actually given us on this topic.
Economics gives no reasons. Political science and public choice theory give reasons and they generally tend to coincide with my question, “Can I buy a Dev for ISK?” That is, can I buy undue influence with those who make the rules based on my ISK.Is the EVE economy becoming one of crony capitalism? Crony capitalism in this context will usually mean CCP or a Dev granting a subset of players undue economic power.
When a person becomes fabulously wealthy that, in and of itself, is usually not a problem. For example, Nobel Prize winning economist William Nordhaus has estimated that entrepreneurs typically capture about 2% of the economic value they create. That implies that the economic value that flows to others is 50x larger. So if an entrepreneur is worth say $100 billion then the implication is he has created $5 trillion in value for others.
Take for example John D. Rockefeller. He created quite a little empire and was, by some estimates, the first billionaire. Did he do this by screwing over his customers? Charging them more and more and “robbing” them as per his moniker of being a “robber baron”? No. The price of kerosene in 1870 was about 26 cents/gallon, by 1897 the price was down under 6 cents/gallon meaning that the price dropped by about 77%. That means everyone buying kerosene could not only buy more kerosene and light up more of their dwellings…they also had more money for other goods and services. This is clearly a benefit not just to Rockefeller, who became ridiculously wealthy, but also his customers. Rockefeller was also very innovative as well. He had his machinery at his refineries so that they could use the other, at the time useless, by product of refining oil, gasoline, used to power their machinery vs. being dumped in rivers. They also marketed petroleum jelly. And Hell, he probably did more than every Green Peace member to save the whales. And lets not forget that by the time Standard Oil was broken up their share of the refining market was down from 95%ish do the mid 60%.
Another example…look at Sears, back in the day the Amazon of it’s time. It threatened to put many local stores out of business, but also brought lower prices to many consumers…and was a huge boon to the African American community. African Americans could order products via the Sears Catalog and have them delivered without having to worry about Jim Crow. Ironically, this company that initially was innovative and revolutionary could not figure out how to compete with the 21st century version of itself.
Unless ISK wealth can buy some sort of undue influence with those who set I am not really that worried about it.
So does massive ISK wealth buy undue influence with CCP? Why can’t you answer this question?
Because I’m not CCP and I don’t know how much weight they actually do or don’t give to specific people?
I have an opinion, I’m sure you have an opinion, but really that is just an opinion from both of us.
Also because you are dodging the question and setting up your own straw-man to argue against, and conveniently ignoring all the other economic stuff around income/wealth inequality and it’s effects on economies, instead masking it in political rubbish. While I am not sitting on a degree or job in the field, there is plenty of information out there that shows that excessive inequality leads to all sorts of social & economic issues, especially around factors like satisfaction.
Given we are talking about a game, not real life, and therefore people can just quit and go somewhere else, lack of satisfaction is a much bigger issue than normal, and poor in game economy or social situations also aren’t good for the games health.
Now if you want to demonstrate why none of these factors apply to EVE rather than arguing a straw man, please feel free. But right now, you are arguing in bad faith.
1 Like
Because the answer is likely that CCP doesn’t care. They certainly pulled the plug on the various casinos right away.
It is also the case that rising inequality is often associated with declining levels of poverty. The problems of rising inequality are more associated with the influence that inequality buys. Hence my question. If you think this is not the case I don’t know what to tell you.
Indeed, that another player has massive amounts of ISK does not bother me. Just as another RL person having considerable wealth does not bother me…provided they obtain it via creating economic value vs. using political connections and rent seeking to acquire the wealth. The first makes others better off, the second makes others worse off.
It isn’t a straw man. Buying influence in EVE, real influence, is not really a thing. This is why I think the inequality argument is empty. And I’ll note you cannot articulate an actual problem in a clear and concise manner.
This is not a reason by the way. It is just your own personal views.
This also is not an argument and it does not actually contradict my claim. If an ISK poor player buys a bunch of PLEX and sells them…he is not ISK rich. That other players use those PLEX as a store of value and to speculate in the PLEX market does not negate that the initial sale was for ISK.
What issues? You haven’t spelled anything out other than saying acquiring too much wealth is “unhealthy” which is a circular aregument.
In short you have articulated nothing. Nothing at all.
I didn’t mention income inequality. I mentioned wealth redistribution and as you quoted me ‘removing it from the economy’.
My suggestion looks to reduce the number of unrealistic changes to market orders and if you do make a change it would cost you. This would reduce the amount of price juggling and as a side benefit reduce the load on servers. Shortening the time of orders on the market is also a good thing as it would provide for buyers and sellers to actually think about their price points and whether these would be filled.
In the real world, you could also expect a floor to be set for items that would be between 50% - 80% of the value of an item. This would be beneficial as the item sold would be out of the market and the seller would be guaranteed a reasonable price. It also ensures in game efforts are properly rewarded.
And as a further note, how about putting a limit on the number of uses existing Tech 2 Blueprint originals have going forward? Its been about 10 years since T2 BPO’s were stopped from research agents. These should be converted to BPC’s with a reasonable number of runs remaining and then we can see how the true economy works. 