SoS

I believe the way it works is the price moves per 1,000 units sold - actually sold. Only on the global market. I think any way other than the way it is would lead to disparity. It's definitely not perfect, but basing it on something other than completed sales would be trouble, IMO. I think the average price was never reset from SR.

Hopefully, it'll only be a year...not two years before this happens. Maybe the donation bonuses will boost the economy. Either way, if shit is too cheap, don't produce it or don't sell it. Buy it. Or wait. No one's twisting anybody's arm to make bad decisions.

I'll pay $280

Too-Shay. Yeah, you make a good point. If a nation were completely isolated, which continent would suck? Naw, I still don't get your point. Because, you can't compare continents any other way but how they compare in interaction with others. Suppose you had only two opposing nations in the game. They are enemies and they refuse to trade. They would be equal in every regard with these few exceptions; Munitions, pollution free power, missile and nuke projects. That's it. Everything else is relative to the value of exports/imports. Steel and aluminum are mostly useless without each other.

If/when you join an alliance you will receive an income bonus if your nation color is the same as your alliance color. You get a larger bonus the more nations and fewer alliances are on your color. Yellow has a nice bonus Good luck.

Is there an easy way to keep offers open despite that error? Wouldn't that be necessary to make open offers a viable alternative to contracts?

Actually it's just a passive observation. I tried to play with my eyes closed, but that didn't last long.

Regarding that, Sheepy...I don't know what exactly happened, so please enlighten me. I had a trade where the sender had insufficient funds. When I tried to accept it and received the error message, the trade was eliminated. Maybe the sender deleted it. How is it set up to work? As long as offers will remain open despite failures to collect, I think open trades are a good solution.

Diabolos was #1 once. To him, I suppose that's winning. However brief it may be.

So buy some stuff, man! My people are living the life of luxury with all these cheap foreign goods. Thank god for our wise leader who led our nation to a service, banking, and technology economy. Sweat away in your factories to provide my nation with their consumer paradise.

Pair of gold plated .45 pistols to make my last stand when my oppressed people finally overthrow my regime.

It's really not about what you can produce independently, because no continent can build advanced improvements without importing resources. The game was specifically designed to force us to depend on trade. Every continent does have coal or oil for power. If your primary goal is to refine the most finished products from your own native resources, then you'd do well to choose south America - gas, alum, munitions. But, that seems an arbitrary goal since in north America I can import oil cheaper than you can import coal and lead cheaper than you can import uranium. That may not always be the case, but it has always been that way so far. Also, consider how many slots you would need to fully utilize all the opportunities you think S America has...3 for gas, 3 for alum, 3 for munitions, 6 oil, 3 bauxite, 3 lead. Obviously, we have to make economic choices. We can't utilize everything we have available, anyways. So, it is asinine to want everything. Most of the time you'd be better off producing fewer goods and importing whatever you need. Most goods, most of the time, can be bought at near production cost. If you factor in the cost of pollution and pollution counter measures, then it's usually cheaper to import. All together, I believe all continents are made equal. The distribution of nations may eventually render some better than others, but that's a flaw in the players' preference not game design.

It'll make a big difference. But we've all seen the biggest nations brought down. I wish there were some alternative to pay for this, but I couldn't think of one. I'm just glad Sheepy tiered it. Otherwise, there'd be a handful of nations $6 mil ahead.

Especially considering no one will (any time soon) have thousands of aircraft. Although, I do love my aircraft. Please, keep in mind most people have a free move and the market will usually overreact. You're probably just fine wherever you are. Buy whatever you don't produce.

A quick, large profit instead of a tiny trickle of dividends.

SA and AF could be best. They were best in Alpha, cuz everyone was in E, AS, an NA. I was wiping my ass with big aluminum money. Now, SA and AF are much more common. But, don't move to AF so fast because just maybe everyone else will flee shrinking profits later.

I thought I had answered it well enough earlier. It would add a unique resource to the game. A additional goal and avenue for growth, speculation, and competition. The number of shares could be increased by the bank. In fact, the uncertainty of future supply adds to the speculative nature of buying and holding shares.

It would add a lot to the economic side.

Yeah but, as in the past, it would be short lived and return to the trend. That's why I think it's important to base any dividend on the resource, not on the share price. And to further discourage manipulation and to simplify the system, the shares can track the combined average of all resources. That way, we make one price to deal with and it evens out spikes in individual resources.

I mean the shares can be initially sold at a percentage of the price of resources. Their value (per the bank) would rise and fall at the same rate as the resource, but they wouldn't necessarily be the same price as the resource. That it is not consumable is the main point. It is an actual investment rather than something to use or flip. I envision it becoming a race to acquire the most shares, because they add to income.

1. The shares cannot be consumed in any way or spent on anything. 2. The shares wouldn't necessarily mirror resource prices. 3. The shareholders would receive a dividend of a small percentage of either the share value or the resource value (IMO, resource value would best mitigate abuse of the stock system). 4. The shares may be traded between nations on the free market.

But no one is buying...

First off, we're talking about a pretty simple game here. Y'all can add a simple feature to it or not - whatevs. I don't understand why all of a sudden there needs to be some underlying structure for a feature...like how the hell do mines operate without a machinery, tool, chemical, transportation, etc., etc., etc. Industries? Secondly, ahh forget it.

Food is selling for no less than $600. Is this the work of a cartel?

You misunderstand money entirely! You can't trade in an item that possesses utility, otherwise the poor will use the item and ruin everything I can't imagine what we propose being as difficult as you say. The shares would be an additional resource. They would be generated by only a special nation created by Sheepy. No one could consume this special resource. Thus, they are very distinct from the trade of resources every nation can produce. I suppose what I'm suggesting is akin to stock options, in the fact that it isn't direct ownership in a corporation. Resources futures would be quite easy for anyone to deal in. Simply agree to deliver resources (in the future) for a given price. I'd do it, but no one takes anyone at their word around here. So, I guess if you could create a system for delayed delivery, that would be nice. The "underlying mechanics of the stock market" is nothing more than a bunch of fools making guesses. Trust me on that as I am a long time day trader (fool making guesses).