In the new tax system, there is a line-item called "crown's total income." It is the sum of revenues taxed from duchies, and an "other revenues" line, explained as "fines, etc." I have noticed that this line-item, "other revenues" or "fines, etc" is never zero, and seems very stable, such that it has been the same number in one realm I've been watching for 3-4 weeks.
I am curious where this revenue comes from, as neither realm I'm in has had any fines recently, and the sum of gold it provides is large, especially since it goes straight to the crown.
QuoteIn addition, the realm made 3 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 184 gold.
In addition, the realm made 151 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 290 gold.
In addition, the realm made 618 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 779 gold.
D'Hara Tax Reports. I was wondering if it had anything to do with Nobles leaving and their bonds returning to the Realm (If that even happens) and going straight to the Ruler's pocket. I believe, not sure, a Lord of one of the Townsland paused in the week of the third report.
The fourth week had another high amount, but since there was no Ruler in the third week, I assumed the money went nowhere and was distributed the week after, explaining why it was so high again.
This is the second tax period in a row that Astrum has gotten nearly 1,000 gold from "other sources". Once could be anything, but twice in a row seems odd.
Apparently, in some instances the other income was kept in addition to being paid. Fixed now.
I think there's still a bug in there somewhere. As much as I'm loving it, it just doesn't seem right:
Quote24 days ago:
The crown has received 757 gold tax income thanks to a realm share of 5 %.
In addition, the realm made 175 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 932 gold.
16 days ago:
The crown has received 736 gold tax income thanks to a realm share of 5 %.
In addition, the realm made 974 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 1710 gold.
8 days ago:
The crown has received 781 gold tax income thanks to a realm share of 5 %.
In addition, the realm made 974 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 1755 gold.
Today:
The crown has received 755 gold tax income thanks to a realm share of 5 %.
In addition, the realm made 0 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 2379 gold.
Also, taxes are being collected every 8 days, instead of every 7.
Quote from: Indirik on December 05, 2011, 09:54:07 PM
I think there's still a bug in there somewhere. As much as I'm loving it, it just doesn't seem right:
Also, taxes are being collected every 8 days, instead of every 7.
It is good to be the king.
Hmm.. maybe this is a new feature:
Things you can do:- Mint coins ... as ruler, you can direct the Royal Treasury to mint new coinage in your honor.
Indeed, taxes are coming every 8 days.
I'll see what my taxes are next time.
I started getting suspicious when I saw I was getting over 1,000 gold from "other income." If it stays that way this tax, I'll post here again.
Quote from: Indirik on December 05, 2011, 10:18:53 PM
Hmm.. maybe this is a new feature:
Things you can do:
- Mint coins ... as ruler, you can direct the Royal Treasury to mint new coinage in your honor.
Sounds like a fame point to me.
Details?
Quote from: Vellos on December 05, 2011, 10:36:44 PM
Sounds like a fame point to me.
Details?
I think he meant that as a proposal, not as a factual feature :)
Sorry... it was just a joke. :P
ah... but does it also screw everyone else?
"too many coins and your old ones are worthless"
depends what they are made of, or at least what they APPEAR to be made of.
You'd have to add (or make optional) national currencies (the Lurian Suns, worth 0.1 gold; the 'moot Point in the 'moot, worth 0.25 gold; the [Astroist] Stars, worth 0.05, and so on) besides gold, and play with its inflation.
(Was) very fun in eR, don't know how well that would mix with BM, or what benefits it would bring, though it's a fairly simple system. Maybe for economic war, though I'm quite sure that would be out of place before mercantilism.
You have a modern concept of money that doesn't really apply to the world we simulate.
A gold coin is worth the amount of gold in it for most of the middle ages. The mint doesn't create money - it turns lumps of gold into coins of precise weight and the kings head is the official seal of approval. Many of the details we still have in modern coins were originally invented to prevent common methods of removing a little bit of gold from each coin that passed through your hands and collecting it until you had enough to melt it and sell it. Merchants were known for that, as were inn-keepers. The riffled borders of coins, for example, or the intricate patterns and images pressed into the surface, were all there so you could easily spot if someone had scrapped off a little bit from the coin.
Which also meant that currency fluctuations were practically non-existent. Because gold is gold. I think the first inflation in Europe happened when the spanish brought back tons of the stuff from the new world and suddenly the value of gold changed (not being quite so scarce anymore).
Quote from: Tom on December 06, 2011, 12:16:30 PM
Which also meant that currency fluctuations were practically non-existent. Because gold is gold. I think the first inflation in Europe happened when the spanish brought back tons of the stuff from the new world and suddenly the value of gold changed (not being quite so scarce anymore).
That's discounting the inflation due to debasing, of course.
But even discounting that, the supply of precious metal coins is far from fixed. I saw a study once (sadly can't find a reference) about trade between the byzantine and persian empires. The Byzantines used silver coins for trade and gold was mostly hoarded as family treasure and jewels. The persian on the other hands used gold directly for coins.
What would happen is that some traders would arrive in Byzantium with their gold coins and sell them against silver. They would then use the silver to buy stuff from the markets and bring it back home. The gold would be melted in Byzantium. Others did the reverse and silver was melted in Persia. Overall, the amount of precious metal was constant, but the amount of coins in circulation was in steady decline, leading to deflation with no underlying economic cause.
There's a reason we are off the gold standard. It was stupid.
Quote from: vonGenf on December 06, 2011, 12:30:08 PM
That's discounting the inflation due to debasing, of course.
But even discounting that, the supply of precious metal coins is far from fixed. I saw a study once (sadly can't find a reference) about trade between the byzantine and persian empires. The Byzantines used silver coins for trade and gold was mostly hoarded as family treasure and jewels. The persian on the other hands used gold directly for coins.
What would happen is that some traders would arrive in Byzantium with their gold coins and sell them against silver. They would then use the silver to buy stuff from the markets and bring it back home. The gold would be melted in Byzantium. Others did the reverse and silver was melted in Persia. Overall, the amount of precious metal was constant, but the amount of coins in circulation was in steady decline, leading to deflation with no underlying economic cause.
There's a reason we are off the gold standard. It was stupid.
Tom mentioned debasing, and some of the techniques taken to prevent it. I'm not so sure about the Byzantium story. Because of currency was based on precious metals part of the whole advantage was they could increase the circulation of currency, without devaluing the currency. The value of currency wasn't based on some abstract value of the economy that produced it, but based solely on the price of the precious gold. Conversely this meant that the ruling bodies often tightly controlled the mines and industry for the appropriate precious metal, in order to have some control over the supply and thus maintain the value. Obviously if the value of the metal dropped or rose, that affected the currency, but the amount of coins in circulation should not be as important as the relative scarcity of the metal itself.
I believe the gold standard you refer to, the modern gold standard was a Gold Exchange Standard or a Gold Bullion Standard, where the gold standard of medieval times was a gold specie standard.
mint dodgy coins?
... or declare certain coins to be worthless because it's got someone's ugly mug on it.. and confiscate them.
Quote from: De-Legro on December 06, 2011, 12:39:44 PM
Tom mentioned debasing, and some of the techniques taken to prevent it.
He mentioned coin scrapping, but there was also official debasing. This was done on an immense scale in the late roman empire: soldiers would be promised a pay in denarii, which were a silver coin, but the silver content was re-defined when time came to actually hand out the cash. This was harder to do in the middle ages because there was not much contract law to go about and people indeed weighed gold, while in the roman empire it was possible for citizens to sign long term enforceable contracts labelled in some currency.
(Amusing irrelevant fact: the denarius' name is a derivation from the root latin word den which means ten, because a denarius was worth ten asses. Yes, asses. Make of it what you will.)
Quote from: De-Legro on December 06, 2011, 12:39:44 PM
I'm not so sure about the Byzantium story. Because of currency was based on precious metals part of the whole advantage was they could increase the circulation of currency, without devaluing the currency. The value of currency wasn't based on some abstract value of the economy that produced it, but based solely on the price of the precious gold. Conversely this meant that the ruling bodies often tightly controlled the mines and industry for the appropriate precious metal, in order to have some control over the supply and thus maintain the value. Obviously if the value of the metal dropped or rose, that affected the currency, but the amount of coins in circulation should not be as important as the relative scarcity of the metal itself.
That is true, of course, but the morale of the story is that you can never control anything that happens to your metals. Since the metal production, melting and coinage has nothing whatsoever to do with actual economic activity, you get two independent variables where you only really need one.
Also, the value of money is not imposed from above through some abstract calculations. There is an actual offer and demand going on; money is worth what you will give up for it. I give 41 hours a week for a certain of money, that's what it's worth to me, not grams of gold. Gold could be a means of exchange, or many other things, but it only counts as a means of exchange, not as gold.
Quote from: De-Legro on December 06, 2011, 12:39:44 PM
I believe the gold standard you refer to, the modern gold standard was a Gold Exchange Standard or a Gold Bullion Standard, where the gold standard of medieval times was a gold specie standard.
True.
Quote from: vonGenf on December 06, 2011, 12:30:08 PM
There's a reason we are off the gold standard. It was stupid.
No more stupid than fiat money, where the currency is backed by an entity which would gladly devalue it and create inflation by printing wads and wads of currency. Many governments just print money and create massive debts only to show "economic growth". Short term gains for the economy and the interested politician, and long term hell for the country.
You mentioned the denarius, that's an excellent example of how governments debase their own money so they can pay of outstanding debts. Or the post world war one Germany, which tried to print its way out of the reparations it had to pay.
Fiat money is like crack with it's short term high. But you keep on wanting more and more of it, and it compels you to have/make more. Ireland in January was making euros out of thin air, even now we are hearing the ECB may start printing money... Just digging themselves into a deeper holes.
Quote from: Lefanis on December 06, 2011, 03:32:20 PM
Fiat money is like crack with it's short term high. But you keep on wanting more and more of it, and it compels you to have/make more. Ireland in January was making euros out of thin air, even now we are hearing the ECB may start printing money... Just digging themselves into a deeper holes.
Sounds to me like the gold standard has inherent problems, while our current system
can work better, but tempts governments to do stupid things with it that cause other problems (which may or may not be worse than the problems inherent in a precious-metal standard).
Its because the banks are not public and are owned by powerful banking families that we have all this hassle. I mean if the Federal Reserve is the 'standard' that most people think it is for banking, then its a miracle we still cling to some abstract idea that we are free...
Going on a Standard (whatever we, pretty much no one cares at this point, heck do it on a Bubble Standard so long as it is on a standard!) just curtails those banking families from printing all this worthless money.
Having money based on nothing but trust leads to our current financial and economic state.
Saddam and Gadaffi had the brilliant idea of not accepted $US but only accepted gold/money based on a gold system for oil/services as well as making a new currency (in Gadaffi's case) for the African continent based on a gold standard (or the money would actually be gold, something along those lines) and look how quickly they got invaded and overthrown. Yes they were right gits and deserved what they got in the end but if they had not breached the human rights and committed the mass murders they had, they would still have been invaded and overthrown.
And all because it would have meant that they would dictating the cost and not the $US and those who control it.
Or at lease some people say...
"In addition, the realm made 0 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 2589 gold."
YEah.... not fixed at all. Gotten worse.
Quote from: vonGenf on December 06, 2011, 01:50:50 PM
(Amusing irrelevant fact: the denarius' name is a derivation from the root latin word den which means ten, because a denarius was worth ten asses. Yes, asses. Make of it what you will.)
I once wrote a pen&paper roleplaying game with every country in the background world having its own currency, variable exchange rates, the whole nine yards.
Players very quickly started to inquire about the prices of a very short list of common goods when they reached a new coin. They based their perception of the value of local coins not on exchange rates (which not only changed, but they were also constantly exploited by the money exchangers who abused their ignorance of the "proper" exchange rate), but on the price of pants and beer.
So there's your answer. Asses most likely because they were a common property of some value that most people could easily grasp.
Quote from: Anaris on December 06, 2011, 03:36:32 PM
Sounds to me like the gold standard has inherent problems, while our current system can work better, but tempts governments to do stupid things with it that cause other problems (which may or may not be worse than the problems inherent in a precious-metal standard).
Actually, no. Your "can" is based on an incorrect assumption - that you could ever have a government that is not stupid and corrupt. That's like saying if we could exceed the speed of light, we could solve world hunger by importing grain from the future when we've solved world hunger. Yes, it is true in a pure logic sense, but unless you can prove point a) first, everything following it doesn't work out.
Quote from: Ramiel on December 06, 2011, 04:58:17 PMOr at lease some people say...
MMmmmm... Gotta love me a some good conspiracy theories...
/me starts making a new tinfoil hat and mashing them taters...
Quote from: Vellos on December 06, 2011, 05:19:31 PM
"In addition, the realm made 0 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 2589 gold."
YEah.... not fixed at all. Gotten worse.
What do you mean? Should the total sum be lower or should the other income not be zero?
Quote from: Tom on December 06, 2011, 09:06:11 PM
What do you mean? Should the total sum be lower or should the other income not be zero?
The total is not being zeroed out when taxes are distributed.
You fixed this a few days ago; the fix just hasn't gone live yet.
Quote from: Anaris on December 06, 2011, 09:09:13 PM
The total is not being zeroed out when taxes are distributed.
You fixed this a few days ago; the fix just hasn't gone live yet.
The total is calculated during tax collection. The other income wasn't zeroed out, and I fixed that and put it live. Most realms are now at 0.
Astrum's "other" income was indeed zero. My tax report goes like this:
Libidizedd: 634 gold
Duchy taxes from the other two regions in the duchy: 17 gold
Realm taxes from the other duchies: 104
Crown's total income: 755
The game reports: The crown has received 755 gold tax income thanks to a realm share of 5 %.
All good so far. The table all calculates out and adds up. But then we get this:
In addition, the realm made 0 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 2379 gold.
So, we had 0 income from other sources, which is probably right. But 755 + 0 does not equal 2,379! Where did that extra 1,624 gold come from? And I really did get it, too!
Quote from: Indirik on December 06, 2011, 09:44:59 PM
Where did that extra 1,624 gold come from?
Wait... WHAT?! Gimme back my monies you thief!!!
Hey, I told you I'd keep it safe, and I have. It's safe, right here in my pocket!
Quote from: Tom on December 06, 2011, 07:09:31 PM
Actually, no. Your "can" is based on an incorrect assumption - that you could ever have a government that is not stupid and corrupt.
The technical term is "time inconsistent." And it can be mitigated through automaticity and commitment mechanisms--- which basically creates a "functional" or "de facto" gold standard (see "Euro Zone Crisis").
Quote from: Ramiel on December 06, 2011, 04:58:17 PM
Going on a Standard (whatever we, pretty much no one cares at this point, heck do it on a Bubble Standard so long as it is on a standard!) just curtails those banking families from printing all this worthless money.
Unfounded and largely anti-Semitic paranoias aside, it is true that a fiduciary rather than a fiat system developed AS A RESTRICTION ON BANKS. We perceive it now as a restriction on government, but it began AS A PROJECTION of state power over "bank note" currency.
Quote from: Anaris on December 06, 2011, 03:36:32 PM
Sounds to me like the gold standard has inherent problems, while our current system can work better, but tempts governments to do stupid things with it that cause other problems (which may or may not be worse than the problems inherent in a precious-metal standard).
A fiat money system is largely not understood. The modern post-Bretton Woods system is the first even semi-long term attempt at global fiat money. Niall Ferguson has some interesting research on the matter (and some interesting and occasionally semi-offensive opinions). Thus, we seem to have enjoyed some benefits from a fiat system, and it seems to work, but we should remember that we have literally
thousands of years of market and institutional experience with fiduciary and commodity moneys, and
less than 100 years with fiat. Furthermore, to my knowledge, only one fiat money system has ever lasted more than 100 years, and that was in Song China, and it's longevity was based on other Song policies that served to mitigate the disastrously bad monetary policies they implemented. And, even then, it ended in hyperinflation. Furthermore, in the 400 years or so in which Western societies have had institutions capable of running fiat money systems, quite a few have had successful short-term experiences with them, but we have a handfull of disasters (Wiemar Germany FTW!).
That said, a fiduciary system is hardly as simple as people like to think. Fiduciary monetary systems were not "simpler" or more egalitarian than fiat ones (indeed, fiat systems more easily expand credit down the sociological strata, making them possibly more egalitarian). We just imagine them that way because they were in the "good old days."
Quote from: Lefanis on December 06, 2011, 03:32:20 PM
You mentioned the denarius, that's an excellent example of how governments debase their own money so they can pay of outstanding debts. Or the post world war one Germany, which tried to print its way out of the reparations it had to pay.
Fiat money is like crack with it's short term high. But you keep on wanting more and more of it, and it compels you to have/make more. Ireland in January was making euros out of thin air, even now we are hearing the ECB may start printing money... Just digging themselves into a deeper holes.
You just contradicted yourself.
Fiat money creates the desire and need for "more and more".... but the denarius... wasn't fiat money? (though, in a sense, the seigniorage is a fiat-ish return for the government as it ultimately derives from legal factors).
Quote from: vonGenf on December 06, 2011, 01:50:50 PM
That is true, of course, but the morale of the story is that you can never control anything that happens to your metals. Since the metal production, melting and coinage has nothing whatsoever to do with actual economic activity, you get two independent variables where you only really need one.
Also, the value of money is not imposed from above through some abstract calculations. There is an actual offer and demand going on; money is worth what you will give up for it. I give 41 hours a week for a certain of money, that's what it's worth to me, not grams of gold. Gold could be a means of exchange, or many other things, but it only counts as a means of exchange, not as gold.
The classical problem of Indian hoarding is worth considering here. The "stable" gold standard of 1870-1914 is largely a function of "irrational" (I put in quotes because I'm using it in a purely technical, not pejorative sense) hoarding of precious metals by private Indian consumers during that period. To this day, India has shockingly large gold hoardings (especially for a country of that income level), and gold is one of its largest imports. Shift the cultural norms about gold hoarding a bit, and the value of any fiduciary or commodity money based on gold... has uncontrollable results.
The curse/blessing of fiduciary or commodity monies is their internationalism. Everybody can hurt everyone, and everyone can pretty freely trade with everyone. 1870-1914 (the "classical gold standard" period) was a time of global trade, investment, communication, and immigration completely unmatched until our present day (which humorously/terrifyingly similar rhetoric on many things like technology and global peace issues).
Quote from: De-Legro on December 06, 2011, 12:39:44 PM
Tom mentioned debasing, and some of the techniques taken to prevent it. I'm not so sure about the Byzantium story. Because of currency was based on precious metals part of the whole advantage was they could increase the circulation of currency, without devaluing the currency. The value of currency wasn't based on some abstract value of the economy that produced it, but based solely on the price of the precious gold. Conversely this meant that the ruling bodies often tightly controlled the mines and industry for the appropriate precious metal, in order to have some control over the supply and thus maintain the value. Obviously if the value of the metal dropped or rose, that affected the currency, but the amount of coins in circulation should not be as important as the relative scarcity of the metal itself.
I believe the gold standard you refer to, the modern gold standard was a Gold Exchange Standard or a Gold Bullion Standard, where the gold standard of medieval times was a gold specie standard.
The deficit of gold coins in Medieval Europe is a well-documented fact. Unsure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you here. But the markets at Constantinople and Antioch (and to a lesser extent in Spain, Provence, and Italy) where "points of trade" fueling Europe's major trade deficit. Europe was a net exporter of precious metals, and a net importer of goods and services until the major shifts of the 13th and 14th centuries; and then after 1492, everything changed even more radically. This deficit of precious metals led to inflation of their value in Europe, where good mines for silver and gold were also comparatively few (though Medieval mining technology continued to progress throughout the period).
---
Sources:
1. Ally, Russell. "War and Gold–The Bank of England, the London Gold Market and
South Africa's Gold, 1914-19." Journal of Southern African Studies 17.2 (Jun.,
1991): 221-238.
2. Balderston, Theo. "War Finance and Inflation in Britain and Germany, 1914-1918."
Economic History Review New Series 42.2 (May, 1989): 222-244.
3. Bordo, Michael D., Hugh Rockoff. "The Gold Standard as a 'Good Housekeeping Seal
of Approval.' " The Journal of Economic History 56.2 (Jun., 1996): 389-428.
4. Ferguson, Niall. "Earning from History? Financial Markets and the Approach of
World Wars." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2008 (Spring, 2008):
431-477.
5. Ferguson, Niall, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World (New York:
Penguin Press, 2008).
6. Flandreau, Marc, Jacques Le Cacheux, Frédéric Zumer, Rudi Dornbusch, Patrick
Honohan. "Stability without a Pact? Lessons from the European Gold
Standard, 1880-1914." Economic Policy 13.26 (Apr., 1998): 115-162.
7. Gallarotti, Giulio M. "Hegemons of a Lesser God: The Bank of France and Monetary
Leadership under the Classical Gold Standard." Review of International
Political Economy 12.4 (Oct., 2005): 624-646.
8. Helleiner, Eric. "Economic Nationalism as a Challenge to Economic Liberalism?
Lessons from the 19th Century." International Studies Quarterly 46.3 (Sep., 2002): 307-329.
9. Knafo, Samuel. "The Gold Standard and the Origins of the Modern International
Monetary System." Review of International Political Economy 13.1 (Feb.,
2006): 78-102.
10. Obstfeld, Maurice, Alan M. Taylor. "Sovereign Risk, Credibility and the Gold
Standard: 1870-1913 versus 1925-1931." The Economic Journal 113.487
(Apr., 2003): 241-275.
11. Officer, Lawrence H. "The Remarkable Efficiency of the Dollar-Sterling Gold
Standard, 1890-1906." The Journal of Economic History 49.1 (Mar., 1989): 1-
41.
12. Redish, Angela, "Anchors Weigh: The Transition from Commodity Money to Fiat
Money in Western Economies," The Canadian Journal of Economics 26.4
(Nov., 1993): 787.
----
Thank you for reading an "applied summary" of my term paper.
And, yeah....
This bug is making rulers really, really rich. I received over 2,500 in tax income.
Allison should watch out then, Vellos has his fortune ready ;)
Quote from: Indirik on December 06, 2011, 10:05:56 PM
Hey, I told you I'd keep it safe, and I have. It's safe, right here in my pocket!
I hate it when you're right...
Worst. Deal. Ever.
Quote from: Indirik on December 06, 2011, 09:44:59 PM
In addition, the realm made 0 gold from other sources (fines, etc.), bringing the crown's total income to 2379 gold.
So, we had 0 income from other sources, which is probably right. But 755 + 0 does not equal 2,379! Where did that extra 1,624 gold come from? And I really did get it, too!
Actually, it turned out to be a text bug. I nulled it before printing out the message, so you will always have a 0 there, when in fact it isn't 0. My bad. You probably did have other income accumulated from before I fixed the bug. Upcoming taxes should be fine.
Now if someone wants to argue with Vellos they need to get more sources. I never knew things from the Medieval ages were so well documented.
Quote from: Zakilevo on December 06, 2011, 11:14:29 PM
Now if someone wants to argue with Vellos they need to get more sources. I never knew things from the Medieval ages were so well documented.
None of that, except Ferguson's book, is about the Medieval period. It's all about the classical gold standard.
Sources about the Medieval period you'd need to find elsewhere.
Yeah; much of what I said about the Medieval period wasn't in those sources. But if it was about anything contemporary or about general monetary issues, it's there. Or else, if it isn't, my marks are going to SUCK come end of term.
That would suck. How long is it anyway? 5000?
Quote from: Zakilevo on December 07, 2011, 01:31:25 AM
That would suck. How long is it anyway? 5000?
Over 9000, I hear.
Sorry, couldn't resist...
I take offence at you saying I am anti-semitic...
I am not a prejudiced person except againts those that are prejudiced. (exceptions being bankers, lawyers and politicians who I believe are all scum... especially politicians and bankers... no wait not lawyers.. I know a few and they are alright guys)
Quote from: Zakilevo on December 07, 2011, 01:31:25 AM
That would suck. How long is it anyway? 5000?
Yep, 5000.
Quote from: Ramiel on December 07, 2011, 04:43:18 AM
I take offence at you saying I am anti-semitic...
I am not a prejudiced person except againts those that are prejudiced. (exceptions being bankers, lawyers and politicians who I believe are all scum... especially politicians and bankers... no wait not lawyers.. I know a few and they are alright guys)
You said:
"Its because the banks are not public and are owned by powerful banking families that we have all this hassle."
Which, aside from being basically false, I assumed, perhaps wrongly, to be based on the same intellectual foundations that saw groups like the Rothschilds as some type of international bankers' conspiracy. And "banking families," in most populist circles at least in the US, is often a reference to Jews. Especially when combined with theories of global geopolitical gerrymandering leading to aggressive wars to enforce a specific financial objective (in your case you identified alternative monetary regimes). Perhaps I misconstrued you. If so, it will be the first time I have personally had a discussion with a person who was politically vocal about international conspiracies of banking families controlling nations who was not also some variation of racist or anti-Semite.
Then again, I am probably oversensitive right now, as the class for which I wrote that paper is a class in European history from 1914-1945.... so the question of racism is kind of on the forefront of my mind. If I have misconstrued your position, and you would like to provide evidence of an international conspiracy of international banking families (who are not Jews) manipulating governments into wars or corrupt policies, I would be glad to hear it. I had no desire to impute beliefs on you which you did not have, and if I have done so, I do apologize.
I do find it funny that you say you aren't prejudiced, then identify at least 2 prejudices.
And I guess you don't object to the "paranoid" ad hominem?
(sorry-- a side tangent in my research, which my advisor told me to drop in my paper, was about interlocking directorates and structures in WWI European finance, and a tangent from that led me to all sorts of exciting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories)
Quote from: JPierreD on December 07, 2011, 04:11:05 AM
Over 9000, I hear.
Sorry, couldn't resist...
I about died laughing at this.
Quote from: Vellos on December 07, 2011, 05:20:30 AM
Yep, 5000.
You said:
"Its because the banks are not public and are owned by powerful banking families that we have all this hassle."
Which, aside from being basically false, I assumed, perhaps wrongly, to be based on the same intellectual foundations that saw groups like the Rothschilds as some type of international bankers' conspiracy. And "banking families," in most populist circles at least in the US, is often a reference to Jews. Especially when combined with theories of global geopolitical gerrymandering leading to aggressive wars to enforce a specific financial objective (in your case you identified alternative monetary regimes). Perhaps I misconstrued you. If so, it will be the first time I have personally had a discussion with a person who was politically vocal about international conspiracies of banking families controlling nations who was not also some variation of racist or anti-Semite.
Then again, I am probably oversensitive right now, as the class for which I wrote that paper is a class in European history from 1914-1945.... so the question of racism is kind of on the forefront of my mind. If I have misconstrued your position, and you would like to provide evidence of an international conspiracy of international banking families (who are not Jews) manipulating governments into wars or corrupt policies, I would be glad to hear it. I had no desire to impute beliefs on you which you did not have, and if I have done so, I do apologize.
I do find it funny that you say you aren't prejudiced, then identify at least 2 prejudices.
And I guess you don't object to the "paranoid" ad hominem?
(sorry-- a side tangent in my research, which my advisor told me to drop in my paper, was about interlocking directorates and structures in WWI European finance, and a tangent from that led me to all sorts of exciting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories)
Could be a UK thing. We don't have any banking "families" down here in Australia that I know about, but if someone WAS to talk about Banking Families I would assume they were having a go at the supposed international Jewish Conspiracy.
Quote from: De-Legro on December 07, 2011, 05:37:06 AM
Could be a UK thing. We don't have any banking "families" down here in Australia that I know about, but if someone WAS to talk about Banking Families I would assume they were having a go at the supposed international Jewish Conspiracy.
Indeed, that was my assumption as well.
Quote from: Vellos on December 06, 2011, 10:25:40 PM
You just contradicted yourself.
Fiat money creates the desire and need for "more and more".... but the denarius... wasn't fiat money? (though, in a sense, the seigniorage is a fiat-ish return for the government as it ultimately derives from legal factors).
Depends on how you look at fiat money. The denarius didn't start out as fiat money, as it was initially almost pure silver. However, as the roman emperors began reducing the amount of silver in it,
the denarius lost its intrisic value, and it's value Was expected to reflect the amount of silver it had once contained. So I stand by my statement that the denarius did become one of the earliest examples of fiat money.
Just because you yanks like to be anti-semitic and/or racist when it comes to politics and money, doesnt mean that the rest of the world is...
In Britain, if I was racist, I would have to be racist against myself since the British Nazi Party... oh sorry the British National Party, lay the claim that anyone not of pure Briton blood (which is an impossibility. After all we have Saxon, Viking, Celtic, all provinces of the Roman Empire, French, Norman, Spanish, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German blood in our "racial" blood. There is no 'Pure Briton' that died out when the Romans invaded and then everyone else invaded) is a foreigner and so open to be discriminated against racially. Now since my mother is Portuguese and I consider myself of dual nationality, being racist would be silly. Now if you want to try and say I am anti-skin colour, I would just say no. Whats the point? We are ALL descended from the African peoples after all. Yes that includes those of Asian and European descent. Every human in existence is descended from the African people, it is where the human race began for crying out loud (I do not subscribe to the BNP's view that at the same time there was a tribe of already white ice-man people living in the glaciers covering Britain. I consider the idea absurd and recommend that the BNP go back to school and get educated).
Also I do not consider the Jewish people to be 'a race' just like I do not consider the British people to be 'a race'. Jewish people are a religious group. A lot of them are in the Country of Israel. A lot of them are not, I personally know one ex-military Jewish guy who now lives in Kiwi land (New Zealand*) he is a great guy and when last we spoke had a new boyfriend and was very happy.
Just because the descendants of the american rebels like to be racist, doesnt mean the rest of the world is. Heck we brits can give it a go but we just cant live up to the yank standard.
Here is Britain being racist:
Yank - American
Kiwi - New Zealander
Ozzie - Austrailian
Sheep Sh**gers - Welsh
Incest Land - Cornwall (think its more of a Devon v Cornwall thing though a few other counties also hold the same joke)
Canuk - Canadian
Frog - French
Scum of the Earth - refers to Bankers, Politicians and Lawyers (popular opinion) Lawyers also known as Blood-Suckers.
Scouser - Liverpool or around there, or anyone who speaks with that stupid crappy accent (Mainly we in the south use it)
Chav - Council House and Violent (Dictionary defination) or anyone who wears those sorts of clothes and speak in a stupid form of slang including saying 'init' 'bruv' 'blood' 'ya get me blood?' etc etc. Usually idiots who try to start fights.
Damned Immigrants - Anyone who comes to our country from anywhere in the world and merely seeks to live off benefits (IE those that do not work, fake illness to not work and otherwise just get every single benefit that anyone has heard of)
Damned Leechers - As Damned immigrants but those who were already in the country/born here.
Pig, Bacon - Police Officer (mainly used by Chavs)
As you can see, we can try but we ultimately fail.
Other than those terms, we generally think of all scots as being an excellent drinking contest. But even then we really just cannot pull it off.
So again, just because it might be the american way of thinking - do not presume the whole world thinks that way. By banking families we refer to anyone who has a major stake in a bank and usually the person who actually owns a bank.
Oh another thing to laugh about in reference to the BNP - I think they use HSBC as their bank. HSBC being the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation! I mean the BNP really do fail as being the racist political party - they cant even discriminate correctly!
Hmmm I guess I could say that mostly in Britain we would live the BNP to be deported somewhere else... damn Human Rights laws...
Quote from: Ramiel on December 07, 2011, 03:29:33 PM
Just because you yanks like to be anti-semitic and/or racist when it comes to politics and money, doesnt mean that the rest of the world is...
Look I'll admit I have no idea what your post was getting at, but personally I hate seeing "anti-semitic" being thrown around much more than actual racism itself. It's just so !@#$ing annoying.
Could we all get back on topic, please? Thank you.
Quote from: Lefanis on December 07, 2011, 11:13:33 AM
Depends on how you look at fiat money. The denarius didn't start out as fiat money, as it was initially almost pure silver. However, as the roman emperors began reducing the amount of silver in it, the denarius lost its intrisic value, and it's value Was expected to reflect the amount of silver it had once contained. So I stand by my statement that the denarius did become one of the earliest examples of fiat money.
Devaluation does not a fiat make.
From Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning "let it be done", as such money is established by government decree."
The denarius never derived its value because of any declaration by the Roman government, except maybe under Diocletian's attempted price reforms, which was sort of an attempt at indirect fiat-ization. When the silver value went down, merchants figured it out pretty fast (and specie volume rose, which pretty directly creates inflation in such an economy), and changed prices to adjust for that fact.
Not fiat. Denarii are commodity money. Not fiat. They never derived a major share of their value from any type of legal tender or government guarantee effect. I don't have a dataset on hand to compare the purchasing power of a denarius vs. an equivalent sum of silver, but I suspect the denarius had only a very slight advantage, and that probably not a fiat effect, but rather a "commonly understood means of exchange" effect, to make up a term on the fly.
Quote from: Tom on December 07, 2011, 04:49:03 PM
Could we all get back on topic, please? Thank you.
Oh. Err... right.
Crown's total income. Way too high. 8-day tax periods. Mysterious apparitions of thousands of gold.
It might be happening due to the fact all the extra incomes being focused on one person. In the old system, the extra incomes were distributed among other government positions but now the crown is the only one who takes it?
@Zakilevo: But where do those thousands come from? With no more property/wealth taxes, the only sources are from: Paused characters and fines. I can't remember the last time that Astrum fined someone. And definitely not in the range of thousands of gold per week. And we haven't had that many paused characters. So.... where?
Hmmm... forgot we don't have property tax anymore... crap... Oh well free gold is better than negative balance.
Quote from: Zakilevo on December 07, 2011, 08:41:02 PM
Hmmm... forgot we don't have property tax anymore... crap... Oh well free gold is better than negative balance.
But my character receiving 2500 gold seems like a pretty large bug.
We'll see if it's fixed in the next tax.
Quote from: Zakilevo on December 07, 2011, 08:41:02 PM
Hmmm... forgot we don't have property tax anymore... crap... Oh well free gold is better than negative balance.
Not if you are at war and you just realised the realm you are fighting is getting thousands of extra gold every tax, while your returns from this bug are significantly less.
Quote from: De-Legro on December 07, 2011, 11:44:38 PM
Not if you are at war and you just realised the realm you are fighting is getting thousands of extra gold every tax, while your returns from this bug are significantly less.
Yes, but I don't manually intervene for bugs that affect everyone. I could never make a fair fix anyways.
Quote from: Tom on December 08, 2011, 12:50:02 AM
Yes, but I don't manually intervene for bugs that affect everyone. I could never make a fair fix anyways.
Completely agree, bugs happen every can work around them. Even if a realm was destroyed who could say the bug was the only reason?