Investment

[Shizzle]

(thanks for solving world hunger by the way)

World hunger is not dependant on the amount of food produced ...

[vonGenf]

And honestly, what the hell are people investing in to manage to make a small rural region's income double, without increasing food production, when everyone there is working on farms?

Inflation.

[De-Legro]

World hunger is not dependant on the amount of food produced ...

I'll mark things with sarcasm quotes next time, thanks.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Others are clearly as ignorant as yourself when suggesting that any patch of land has a theoretical maximum production capacity. There is no theoretical maximum production capacity, *especially* not in agriculture. You can always develop more productive breeds, invent better fertilizers, discover better crop management, etc.

Ooook.... First of all, you will probably remember from secondary school biology that for any population of living beings there is a carrying capacity above which the species begins to even out in population. This applies to all living things, and even if you didn't like botany (don't blame you, I didn't like it either), you'd still know that plants, even domesticated (er, are they actually called domesticated?) ones, also must fit within the constraints of a particular region's carrying capacity. The scope can change, whether it be a patch of arable land in a given location, or whether we are talking about Earth's biosphere's maximum capacity.

There is a maximum. How is this achieved? Well for one thing, growing too many crops together will place a strain on nutrients. There's one of your limiting factors. Can you come up with enough nutrients in the soil to support all those crops? The mere decomposition of crops does not yield anywhere near a 100% efficient recycling system. Sure, you can improve this ratio, and even get near saturation on your field.

Then comes your second limiting factor: space. You are aware that all matter occupies space (yeah, let's stick to very basic science please) and your crops are no different. Even if you manage to grow them on atop the other, their roots will still need space to impact into the soil and receive nutrients, and, just so you know, plants do respire as well. Cramping together would mean some plants might not have the proper gas exchange, and in terms of the light cycle, some plants might never get any sunlight, thus killing them because they don't have the means to conduct photosynthesis. Since the vast majority of food crop are dedicated photoautotrophs, that means they cannot synthesize their energy source without light.

Third, we have to consider our maximum scope. Even if we can make the entire Earth's surface arable, and somehow we learn how to create floating farms in the atmosphere, we cannot grow anything in the molten layers beneath the crust, and we cannot grow in the vacuum of space. If you want to talk about extraterrestrial agriculture, then unfortunately you are outside your desired realism, because BM takes place on the surface of whatever planet or world upon which it takes place. So we are limited ultimately by how much space we have in our potential "system".

I'm sure there are a number of further limiting factors that would make a carrying capacity have an actual practical limit, such that, short of figuring out how to get around the laws of our universe, we cannot further increase crop yield. Quick examples would be disease, pests, workforce, climate.

[De-Legro]

Ooook.... First of all, you will probably remember from secondary school biology that for any population of living beings there is a carrying capacity above which the species begins to even out in population. This applies to all living things, and even if you didn't like botany (don't blame you, I didn't like it either), you'd still know that plants, even domesticated (er, are they actually called domesticated?) ones, also must fit within the constraints of a particular region's carrying capacity. The scope can change, whether it be a patch of arable land in a given location, or whether we are talking about Earth's biosphere's maximum capacity.

There is a maximum. How is this achieved? Well for one thing, growing too many crops together will place a strain on nutrients. There's one of your limiting factors. Can you come up with enough nutrients in the soil to support all those crops? The mere decomposition of crops does not yield anywhere near a 100% efficient recycling system. Sure, you can improve this ratio, and even get near saturation on your field.

Then comes your second limiting factor: space. You are aware that all matter occupies space (yeah, let's stick to very basic science please) and your crops are no different. Even if you manage to grow them on atop the other, their roots will still need space to impact into the soil and receive nutrients, and, just so you know, plants do respire as well. Cramping together would mean some plants might not have the proper gas exchange, and in terms of the light cycle, some plants might never get any sunlight, thus killing them because they don't have the means to conduct photosynthesis. Since the vast majority of food crop are dedicated photoautotrophs, that means they cannot synthesize their energy source without light.

Third, we have to consider our maximum scope. Even if we can make the entire Earth's surface arable, and somehow we learn how to create floating farms in the atmosphere, we cannot grow anything in the molten layers beneath the crust, and we cannot grow in the vacuum of space. If you want to talk about extraterrestrial agriculture, then unfortunately you are outside your desired realism, because BM takes place on the surface of whatever planet or world upon which it takes place. So we are limited ultimately by how much space we have in our potential "system".

I'm sure there are a number of further limiting factors that would make a carrying capacity have an actual practical limit, such that, short of figuring out how to get around the laws of our universe, we cannot further increase crop yield. Quick examples would be disease, pests, workforce, climate.

Water is a common one, sure you can irrigate, but then you need to get the irrigation water from somewhere, eventually you run into either the limit of water achievable in the area. The effects of really large scale desalination and other methods are not really known at this time.

[Foundation]

Wow, Chenier, have fun arguing with yourself.

[Chenier]

If we are able to invest in radical new technology to improve our rural, then the gain from investment would be permanent though. If we then continue the line of thinking that there exist no maximum limit to food production (thanks for solving world hunger by the way) then we can constantly improve our regions to the point were they can provide the required food. Sure diminished returns would make that very expensive but if you take a very long term approach, or can't source food for import then people may well want to throw cash into making super rurals.

The thing we were trying to point out is that for the purpose of the game, rural technology is stagnate and can't be advanced further within the time frame, and in abstract terms everyone is assumed to have access to the best possible practise at 100%. Perhaps Tom would consider changing this, I'm not sure its ever been brought up.

You guys clearly don't understand the history or technical of agriculture all too much. Production can *always* be increased, but that doesn't mean that the marginal cost following the investments required to increase production are actually worth it. The more you invest, the lower the reward/$, especially at the bigger amounts.

If all rural fields were run like our western fields are, then hell yea, you'd say goodbye to world hunger. However, our insanely-subsidized agriculture is EXPENSIVE AS HELL. Why doesn't a crop field in rural Mexico yield as much as one owned by a big company in the states? It's not because the technology doesn't exist, it's because that mexican farmer can't afford it.

An investment is like buying a tractor. If the extra income you make on selling the extra products this tractor will allow you to produce doesn't equal the amount you paid on the tractor, then you won't be investing in new tractors for long and your old ones will rust and degrade. This is precisely how in-game investments are handled: production is increased to higher levels because of a one-time spending, but if that investment isn't recurring then production eventually returns to normal levels.

You can always have more efficient systems, regardless of available technology at your era, because the normal farm doesn't have access to infinite resources (quite the opposite, really). Your argument about plants is invalid. So what if x tomato plant has a maximum capacity of y pounds per year? Be creative and cross it with other species. You might be surprised by the outcome. You think all these specialized high-production breeds and species occurred naturally? Farmers did crossing experiments for millenniums to always come up with better and better species. With proper founding, one could afford to either do these experiments himself, or pay himself a trip and a few seeds from people who did it themselves. Need more water? The more cash you have, the more pipes you can afford to bring it from farther away, if needed. Need more nutrients? The more cash you have, the more you can import fertilizers from elsewhere.

Production will always grow with the more investment you make. As you go towards infinite investment, it will get closer and closer to a Z value, but it will never reach it. As such, one can keep investing to always increase their production, as nobody has infinite resources to spend. There is a clear difference between this and "we can raise food production to infinite", which you seem to believe I'm saying.

[ó Broin]

You guys clearly don't understand the history or technical of agriculture all too much. Production can *always* be increased, but that doesn't mean that the marginal cost following the investments required to increase production are actually worth it. The more you invest, the lower the reward/$, especially at the bigger amounts.

If all rural fields were run like our western fields are, then hell yea, you'd say goodbye to world hunger. However, our insanely-subsidized agriculture is EXPENSIVE AS HELL. Why doesn't a crop field in rural Mexico yield as much as one owned by a big company in the states? It's not because the technology doesn't exist, it's because that mexican farmer can't afford it.

An investment is like buying a tractor. If the extra income you make on selling the extra products this tractor will allow you to produce doesn't equal the amount you paid on the tractor, then you won't be investing in new tractors for long and your old ones will rust and degrade. This is precisely how in-game investments are handled: production is increased to higher levels because of a one-time spending, but if that investment isn't recurring then production eventually returns to normal levels.

You can always have more efficient systems, regardless of available technology at your era, because the normal farm doesn't have access to infinite resources (quite the opposite, really). Your argument about plants is invalid. So what if x tomato plant has a maximum capacity of y pounds per year? Be creative and cross it with other species. You might be surprised by the outcome. You think all these specialized high-production breeds and species occurred naturally? Farmers did crossing experiments for millenniums to always come up with better and better species. With proper founding, one could afford to either do these experiments himself, or pay himself a trip and a few seeds from people who did it themselves. Need more water? The more cash you have, the more pipes you can afford to bring it from farther away, if needed. Need more nutrients? The more cash you have, the more you can import fertilizers from elsewhere.

Production will always grow with the more investment you make. As you go towards infinite investment, it will get closer and closer to a Z value, but it will never reach it. As such, one can keep investing to always increase their production, as nobody has infinite resources to spend. There is a clear difference between this and "we can raise food production to infinite", which you seem to believe I'm saying.

My family are predominately farmers, so while I can see where you are coming from, most of us rural folk accept that there must be some sort of limit to things like water/space/required gases and nutriments. While we have advanced fertilizers in the past, there is no reason to expect that there is ALWAYS a more efficient form of fertilize to develop or that the the world has infinite capacity to produce that fertiliser or water for that matter. While a single farm or group could conviceably continue the trend as you describe, it would more then likely be at the expense of other agricultural areas, as you acquire their supply of water and nutrient supplements. By the way, the world already produces enough food to solve world hunger, the issue is actually two fold

• Rich western nations spend a proportionally larger amount of useful land on products that produce lower energy/nutrient outcomes, such as meat
• Many nations destroy produce/store it or otherwise deny its movement onto the markets in order to preserve a market price point that they want to sell at.

A smaller effect is the over eating that is prevalent in our western world. All those extra calories that expand our bellies, potentially come at the cost of food that could have fed the starving.
[/list]

[De-Legro]

You guys clearly don't understand the history or technical of agriculture all too much. Production can *always* be increased, but that doesn't mean that the marginal cost following the investments required to increase production are actually worth it. The more you invest, the lower the reward/$, especially at the bigger amounts.

If all rural fields were run like our western fields are, then hell yea, you'd say goodbye to world hunger. However, our insanely-subsidized agriculture is EXPENSIVE AS HELL. Why doesn't a crop field in rural Mexico yield as much as one owned by a big company in the states? It's not because the technology doesn't exist, it's because that mexican farmer can't afford it.

An investment is like buying a tractor. If the extra income you make on selling the extra products this tractor will allow you to produce doesn't equal the amount you paid on the tractor, then you won't be investing in new tractors for long and your old ones will rust and degrade. This is precisely how in-game investments are handled: production is increased to higher levels because of a one-time spending, but if that investment isn't recurring then production eventually returns to normal levels.

You can always have more efficient systems, regardless of available technology at your era, because the normal farm doesn't have access to infinite resources (quite the opposite, really). Your argument about plants is invalid. So what if x tomato plant has a maximum capacity of y pounds per year? Be creative and cross it with other species. You might be surprised by the outcome. You think all these specialized high-production breeds and species occurred naturally? Farmers did crossing experiments for millenniums to always come up with better and better species. With proper founding, one could afford to either do these experiments himself, or pay himself a trip and a few seeds from people who did it themselves. Need more water? The more cash you have, the more pipes you can afford to bring it from farther away, if needed. Need more nutrients? The more cash you have, the more you can import fertilizers from elsewhere.

Production will always grow with the more investment you make. As you go towards infinite investment, it will get closer and closer to a Z value, but it will never reach it. As such, one can keep investing to always increase their production, as nobody has infinite resources to spend. There is a clear difference between this and "we can raise food production to infinite", which you seem to believe I'm saying.

My understanding stops a secondary level biology, but to me your arguments sound a lot like Moore's law. Just because in the past we have developed technology or new high production species, it does not inherently follow that their is some infinite amount of similar improvements that will always result in increased production.

[Chenier]

My family are predominately farmers, so while I can see where you are coming from, most of us rural folk accept that there must be some sort of limit to things like water/space/required gases and nutriments. While we have advanced fertilizers in the past, there is no reason to expect that there is ALWAYS a more efficient form of fertilize to develop or that the the world has infinite capacity to produce that fertiliser or water for that matter. While a single farm or group could conviceably continue the trend as you describe, it would more then likely be at the expense of other agricultural areas, as you acquire their supply of water and nutrient supplements. By the way, the world already produces enough food to solve world hunger, the issue is actually two fold

• Rich western nations spend a proportionally larger amount of useful land on products that produce lower energy/nutrient outcomes, such as meat
• Many nations destroy produce/store it or otherwise deny its movement onto the markets in order to preserve a market price point that they want to sell at.

A smaller effect is the over eating that is prevalent in our western world. All those extra calories that expand our bellies, potentially come at the cost of food that could have fed the starving.
[/list]

Not all lands are equally inhabited. As far as the economy is concerned, there's no problem with draining uninhabited lands to supply the inhabited ones. I'm not making a moral statement, nor saying anything about feeding the earth's modern or future population. Nor am I saying investments should triple a region's food productions.

All I am saying is that the argument that it is not realistic that a temporary increase in funding (an investment) would result in a temporary increase in productivity (more food being produced) is completely fallacious. It would most certainly be realistic that food production could go over 100%. Just as realistic as investments increasing gold output, really. Some people don't think it would make sense for production of food to ever rise above 100%. That normal production *is* the maximum possible production, and that no amount of investments could increase this. That's just not how the world works.

And the limit you speak of is financial, not theoretical. It's not realistic to invest past a certain point, because the reward becomes negative. You could still do it, and seek to improve production as much as possible, but you'd just go bankrupt before seeing exactly how far you can take it. Financial limits are movable, and so things you'd consider past the limit today may not be tomorrow, just as many things they considered past that limit before are now the norm.

[ó Broin]

Not all lands are equally inhabited. As far as the economy is concerned, there's no problem with draining uninhabited lands to supply the inhabited ones. I'm not making a moral statement, nor saying anything about feeding the earth's modern or future population. Nor am I saying investments should triple a region's food productions.

All I am saying is that the argument that it is not realistic that a temporary increase in funding (an investment) would result in a temporary increase in productivity (more food being produced) is completely fallacious. It would most certainly be realistic that food production could go over 100%. Just as realistic as investments increasing gold output, really. Some people don't think it would make sense for production of food to ever rise above 100%. That normal production *is* the maximum possible production, and that no amount of investments could increase this. That's just not how the world works.

And the limit you speak of is financial, not theoretical. It's not realistic to invest past a certain point, because the reward becomes negative. You could still do it, and seek to improve production as much as possible, but you'd just go bankrupt before seeing exactly how far you can take it. Financial limits are movable, and so things you'd consider past the limit today may not be tomorrow, just as many things they considered past that limit before are now the norm.

Like I said, it all hinges on their being some area or under utlised resource somewhere else that can be aquired for your use. If you remove all financial restrictions, then eventually even those resources will be fully allocated.

No where in the game does it suggest that 100% is "normal production" that I know of, so it is just as reasonable to assume that it is maximum. The fact that we are mostly obsessed with making our regions run at this level doesn't mean it is normal level.

With regards to temporary increases in a field production capacity, I have had some experience with that. The methods we used gave a few years increase, after which the production capacity dropped below previous norms and we had to spend yet more money to repair the "damage" or fatigue that was caused. Doesn't happen in all cases, but there are reasons that farmers do things like rotate crops and let field lie fallow from time to time.[/list]

[Chenier]

Like I said, it all hinges on their being some area or under utlised resource somewhere else that can be aquired for your use. If you remove all financial restrictions, then eventually even those resources will be fully allocated.

No where in the game does it suggest that 100% is "normal production" that I know of, so it is just as reasonable to assume that it is maximum. The fact that we are mostly obsessed with making our regions run at this level doesn't mean it is normal level.

With regards to temporary increases in a field production capacity, I have had some experience with that. The methods we used gave a few years increase, after which the production capacity dropped below previous norms and we had to spend yet more money to repair the "damage" or fatigue that was caused. Doesn't happen in all cases, but there are reasons that farmers do things like rotate crops and let field lie fallow from time to time.[/list]

The BM universe, just like the real world, doesn't work in a context where economic restrictions are lifted.

Also, 100% is normal, because it's generally rather easy to get. Only poorly managed or otherwise unfortunate regions cap below 100%.

And finally, not all investments are good investments. It's often hard to tell before it's too late. That's why some investments result in less added wealth that it cost to do it.

Lowering the production % growth of investment in rurals and making it so food production isn't capped at 100% would be fully realistic and add interesting options to realm and region management. It would allow the trading game to develop even greater, as mercantile lords would have active means of increasing their outputs. If the average investment resulted in a 0 loss by selling at the 75th (or higher, 90th? 95th?) percentile market price, I think we'd have a balance encouraging people to involve themselves in trade, without being forced to.

[De-Legro]

The BM universe, just like the real world, doesn't work in a context where economic restrictions are lifted.

Also, 100% is normal, because it's generally rather easy to get. Only poorly managed or otherwise unfortunate regions cap below 100%.

And finally, not all investments are good investments. It's often hard to tell before it's too late. That's why some investments result in less added wealth that it cost to do it.

Lowering the production % growth of investment in rurals and making it so food production isn't capped at 100% would be fully realistic and add interesting options to realm and region management. It would allow the trading game to develop even greater, as mercantile lords would have active means of increasing their outputs. If the average investment resulted in a 0 loss by selling at the 75th (or higher, 90th? 95th?) percentile market price, I think we'd have a balance encouraging people to involve themselves in trade, without being forced to.

I believe that is actually part of the new estate plan. "Normal" food production will be below 100%. Adding knights to your region can improve food production over "Normal". So if you have no knights, production will settle at some level below 100%, instead of just collapsing like now[/list]

[egamma]

I think that Chénier is actually advocating a "research" element to the game, where an investment leads to a permanent increase in productivity.

That would be neat, but would mainly help regions that are well-sheltered from invading armies. My region of Raviel, for example.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Even so, there would have to be a limit on how much bonus research can do. Let's assume even that we could achieve Singularity in BM. You still have a limit as defined by the limits of your Universe. At the most basic level, you cannot create energy out of nothing, and for a succession of systems, you can at best achieve a net zero loss of energy (You won't in the real world, by the way. You'll lose energy, big time.)

So let's say that sure, we move agriculture into the age of Vinge's vision. Mind you we'd apparently still use swords and bows by then. But even then there is a cap on what we can do, simply because we're bound by the constraints of the Universe. Now, on the other hand, if you want to get around that and in fact say that we can increase production to no maximum and let the numbers go up to infinity because the counting numbers do that anyway, then what's the explanation for that? You better know how to get around current constraints on mass-energy conversion, loss of energy in consecutive processes, basically, you'd have to understand how to rewrite thermodynamics in order to achieve something that can come close to this theoretical "always increasing".

If you're trying to say something else, then use a better term. Saying "no maximum" is really wrong.

And I am aware that we could place a maximum that would never be reached within a normal human lifespan anyway. But just the theoretical thought is bothersome because that makes on wonder what the heck kind of agricultural sorcery is being done that lets them produce more bushels of food than would actually fit given the area of the continent. It is possible, although very difficult, to calculate the area of the continent, by the way.