Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 28/07/2011 17:11:17
…and the good doctor disagrees. Or, well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by “supply” — sources or stockpiles.
Well not all economists are created equal and Iceland made a bunch of the worst ones recently when they thought they were a banking powerhouse and we see how well that worked out for them.
Best I can tell from reading EyjoG he's a supply side Chicago school, So called fresh water economists who can't accept that Keynes keeps getting proven right.
My definition of supply would be the whole production chain from raw resource to finished item that is bought by consumers.
Yes, but the problem is still that willingness limit, and that limit exist very much because of the existence of other things that give you ISK.
That unwillingness exists because the time/work vs reward isn't sufficient to motivate more investment.
Increase the liquid isk in the hands of the spenders and see demand increase and prices raise accordingly this will provide incentive to capitalize on those resources.
It's just like Oil in the real world, There are fields that simply cost more to exploit than others, These fields remain untapped until prices reach the point where they become economically viable at which point they are exploited.
Without knowing your corp history (read: being too lazy to look it up ), I can't say when that was. All I know is that the only bounty nerf I know of happened either before I started playing, or soon enough after I started that I hadn't begun running L4s yet. That puts it at 3+ years ago at least.
It would have been sometime between March of 2010 and Jan 2011. I remember the complaints in missions and complexes subforum and it definitely seemed like it was a reduction in bounties. Of course I'd not been doing missions for about 7 months by that point so my memory might not be 100% reliable on that matter.
Assuming I'm wrong you still have the direct double whammy of changing insurance removing both an isk faucet and a mineral sink.
Also on a macro level if people perceived missions as less rewarding and switch to other activities you would see a reduction of isk injection as well. Unless they went to run anoms in which case their isk injection would increase.
…and you'll simply have to excuse me if I believe what EyjoG says on these matters. Yes, we've mostly seen deflation, in spite of insistent claims to the contrary, but likewise, we've also seen inflation in spite of (admittedly much more quiet) claims to the contrary.
Now, if EyjoG says that the ISK influx alreay outpaces the rate of production, and that production is slowing down on top of that, I think there's reason to worry.
We've had this argument in the past, EyjoG has not supplied the necessary data to validate his assertion of 5% inflation in the money supply.
We don't know if they accounted for increases in the population (a 5% increase in the active player base would more than explain the isk growth he claims)
We don't know how he's accounting for the value added in the process of production.
There is also just the general mud-flation as a higher percentage of the game population gets better at earning isk this is offset by the fact that these people tend to have more expensive tastes in that they are going to tend towards more pricey ships and more expensive modules as they become more skilled.
In the end unless you have an overall increase in prices you don't have inflation no matter what the good Dr has to say.
That's assuming that the income sources those spenders use are in synch with the the ISK influx. And again, from what I understand, it's not the supply that is worrisome here, but the rate of increase — the (net) influx.
I'm saying that such concern is misplaced.
Damn character limit just isn't conducive to this sort of discussion.