Trade Unions

[Alex]

Another thought struck me the other day - Trade Unions.

 

It would be an organization, similar to an alliance, that nations could voluntarily join. Trade Unions would be able to set limits on trade prices, both for selling and buying that would be imposed on the nations within the trade unions. It would only apply to global trades, and the nations within would be able to leave at any time.

 

Basically, I would foresee alliance grouping together for mutual economic benefit, they could get all their nations to join a particular trade union and then, for example, set a bottom cap on selling prices for Steel. It would be a player-regulated way of trying to keep prices high (or low) and allow them to cooperate together.

 

Thoughts?

[Brooklyn666]

I like it, but it seems like it could just be bundled in with the rainbow council, no?

[Alex]

I like it, but it seems like it could just be bundled in with the rainbow council, no?

 

Like giving 20 players in the game complete control over everyone's trade prices? I think that's a bit extreme.

 

I'm simply talking about little player created organizations (that anyone could make, like an alliance) with the power to regulate global prices only of nations that voluntarily joined that particular trade union.

[Shellhound]

Keep it with the players, no need to make any sort of game mechanics or anything like that.

[Alex]

Keep it with the players, no need to make any sort of game mechanics or anything like that.

 

We have yet to see any player "trade unions" though where prices are set for members. If it were easier to do, I think it might be attempted more.

[Dwynn]

We have yet to see a lot of things though... We just got started. The game has to redevelop basically. In Speedround there was talk of a steel union to stabilize pricing etc. It just hasn't materialized because at this point nobody is playing PvP with the market, they're playing "I need to build my nation asap before I get wrecked!"

[Aenir]

We have yet to see any player "trade unions" though where prices are set for members. If it were easier to do, I think it might be attempted more.

Why make a trade union when there's no market yet?  It'll be a few months before there's any kind of demand.

[Taureg]

Keep brainstorming Sheepy, I'm with ya.  I don't think you've hit on it exactly yet, but I'm all in on what you're going for with these ideas to add new political elements to the game.

 

The current power structure...

 

 

...definitely needs to be challenged. 

[George W. Bush]

Like giving 20 players in the game complete control over everyone's trade prices? I think that's a bit extreme.

 

I'm simply talking about little player created organizations (that anyone could make, like an alliance) with the power to regulate global prices only of nations that voluntarily joined that particular trade union.

So basically OPEC like organizations but in P&W. I like it, but wait for the current prices to normalize first.

[Nicholas II]

I like it... the name does not quite fit however. Not that it really matters.

 

I realize that Politics and War is fictional, but trade unions in real life occupy a different defintion. Trade unions are worker oriented, not unions of countries. "Trade union" is British-English for what we in the states call "labour unions".

 

Perhaps a Trade Organization? Upon researching OPEC, it is classified as both an internaitonal organization (but that is not economics, which we are concerned with here) and an international cartel (what we are going for).

 

... Although, the name Trade Union itself does make sense and suits its P&W purpose. So by all means, use it if you want.

Edited August 12, 2014 by TsarNicholasII

[Alex]

I like it... the name does not quite fit however. Not that it really matters.

 

I realize that Politics and War is fictional, but trade unions in real life occupy a different defintion. Trade unions are worker oriented, not unions of countries. "Trade union" is British-English for what we in the states call "labour unions".

 

Perhaps a Trade Organization? Upon researching OPEC, it is classified as both an internaitonal organization (but that is not economics, which we are concerned with here) and an international cartel (what we are going for).

 

... Although, the name Trade Union itself does make sense and suits its P&W purpose. So by all means, use it if you want.

 

The name could be anything, we could simply call them "Cartels" as well. Trade Union was just the first thing that came to mind.

 

---

 

I also understand that we have a very fledgling global economy currently, but for those of you that played before the speed round you certainly remember what the economy looked like then. For a while the price of Steel was 4K, then it dropped to the point where it was around 1K, and then came all the way back to a pretty steady 3K. I'm not trying to end price fluctuations, by all means let there be supply and demand, however I always imagined someone trying to form some sort of trade group where they got everyone in their alliance, and then maybe the next couple of alliances to all agree to sell Steel for no less than $2K, or maybe no more than $4K, to try and keep some stability and control in the market. I don't think that kind of thing is feasible, though, without some sort of in-game mechanic. If you had something that when you agreed to it, it actually kept you from selling your resources at $1,999 or w/e then it just might be possible to form a trade cartel for a resource, even though you'd never get 100% control and there would be undercutting you could potentially work together for mutual profit. Small nations could band together to get higher prices, larger nations could band together to get lower prices. It's an interesting concept, and I don't feel it would take anything away from the game.

[SoS]

If we could have a parallel "alliance" in addition to our alliances to regulate trade agreements, that would be interesting. There could be a mechanism for setting the members' floor and ceiling price to sell. Players could just do this on their own. The only difference in all the coding this would take is members of the union couldn't deviate from the set price (as long as they are a member). So, there may need to be some additional advantage to being a member. A bonus to production or a bonus to cash received from trade. Otherwise, leave it to PvP.

 

Another way to shake up trade is monopoly. There's currently no way to gain control (other than war) of global resources. We could let a nation buy the production capacity of another nation. Example: I can have 3 steel mills, I could buy the right to build a 4th steel mill from another nation, then that nation could only build 2 steel mills (until/unless they buy another). We could feasibly put these on the global market. Early, nations would increase their production. Eventually, when they have gained enough control, they would take production off-line to increase demand.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

As an aluminum producer, I did try to organize an aluminum cartel.  Utter failure.  If the prices are too high, someone else will come in and buy it cheap and sell it cheaper then your cartel price.  If you keep prices too high, people will say "Let's not focus on air forces, its too expensive", and you'll have to decommision some aluminum factories as demand withers(but prices might remain ok).

 

One way to implement this despite the limitations might be to allow players to join a cartel, and the cartel can set price restrictions that you must follow in the cartel.  Joining or leaving a cartel cancels all world market orders for you.  Cartels should be an entirely in-game entity, I don't want to have to join a cartel forum in addition to my alliance forum, so we need a basic "vote on prices" mechanism and "elect officers" thing.  

 

The cartel would have no normal way to enforce its prices on non-members save warfare, a sphere ordinarily reserved for alliances on mass scale.  Maybe give the cartel an embargo feature, where any nations selling outside its parameters can be embargoed, and all cartel members are forbidden from trading with those nations?

[SoS]

That's the funny social phenomena with these games - it's like herding cats and you can't force anyone to do anything.

 

In RL it's easy for the rich and powerful to exercise control.

 

Even if we were to build an adequate cartel, we can't force anyone to buy at our market prices. Best we can do is try to control supply and demand.

 

Another possibility is the ability to kick nations off continents. That way groups could control supply.

[Alex]

As an aluminum producer, I did try to organize an aluminum cartel.  Utter failure.  If the prices are too high, someone else will come in and buy it cheap and sell it cheaper then your cartel price.  If you keep prices too high, people will say "Let's not focus on air forces, its too expensive", and you'll have to decommision some aluminum factories as demand withers(but prices might remain ok).

 

One way to implement this despite the limitations might be to allow players to join a cartel, and the cartel can set price restrictions that you must follow in the cartel.  Joining or leaving a cartel cancels all world market orders for you.  Cartels should be an entirely in-game entity, I don't want to have to join a cartel forum in addition to my alliance forum, so we need a basic "vote on prices" mechanism and "elect officers" thing.  

 

The cartel would have no normal way to enforce its prices on non-members save warfare, a sphere ordinarily reserved for alliances on mass scale.  Maybe give the cartel an embargo feature, where any nations selling outside its parameters can be embargoed, and all cartel members are forbidden from trading with those nations?

 

This is more or less my idea, but I was thinking simpler. You can create a cartel, you can do whatever you want to try to entice people to join it (maybe you offer them a cash bonus, promises of riches, w/e) and then you set whatever prices you want for each resource, and all nations in the cartel are stuck between the floor and ceiling you set until they leave the cartel. Pretty straightforward, might get a lot of use, it might not, but it does provide a means to at least attempt some control of the market (which of course would be something to politick and fight over between players). 

 

That's the funny social phenomena with these games - it's like herding cats and you can't force anyone to do anything.

 

In RL it's easy for the rich and powerful to exercise control.

 

Even if we were to build an adequate cartel, we can't force anyone to buy at our market prices. Best we can do is try to control supply and demand.

 

Another possibility is the ability to kick nations off continents. That way groups could control supply.

 

If you kicked a nation off a continent, where would it go? Into the ocean?

[Marco Polo]

Have you ever thought about adding stock markets as well having it be affected by Trade Unions as well the prices of commodities... That would be pretty interesting to mimic real life events and activities.

[Seryozha Nikanor]

Or we could just have an Economic Cooperation treaties that we can involve multiple nations in.

[Alex]

Have you ever thought about adding stock markets as well having it be affected by Trade Unions as well the prices of commodities... That would be pretty interesting to mimic real life events and activities.

 

What would we buy stocks in? 

[Seryozha Nikanor]

What would we buy stocks in? 

Maybe we could have our own State Run Corporations or we could create our own corporations? We can choose to produce in someone country and also invest in other companies.

[SoS]

No Sheepy, they would be kicked to a new random continent. Of course, a lot of people would be doing that to move their nation. Anyway, the idea was to control production. Because, you can't control trade if anyone can make the goods.

[Marco Polo]

What would we buy stocks in? 

 

On the individual nation or maybe on the industry, businesses that we build base on the quaterly profits we make base on them....

[Alex]

No Sheepy, they would be kicked to a new random continent. Of course, a lot of people would be doing that to move their nation. Anyway, the idea was to control production. Because, you can't control trade if anyone can make the goods.

 

Well I'm not imagining anyone ever having 100% control over the market, but if you had a big group set a price you could buy anything posted cheaper than it and resell it, etc. And do your best to control it.

[Jarl Matt]

Honestly I don't think having a mechanic to control trade prices will do anything differently to control the market, simply because if one trade union sets their prices at one price the next one will just undercut that and then the first union will have to undercut that so they can actually sell their goods again... so how do you stop the leapfrogging of the prices between trade unions? You cant put a limit on how often they are allowed to change their prices because all that will do is lengthen how long it will take for the prices to plummet.

 

Personally I think it's best to leave it up to the players, alliances can do things like this on their own. In fact I wrote two very long posts on my alliance forum pertaining to trade monopolies and working out an efficient method to gain a monopoly with excel spreadsheets and everything. The only reason I've not started it going yet is because we don't have enough money as an initial investment yet.

 

Give it time and things like this will happen. Or if you're adament on having something like it, just make it so individual alliances can set their prices individually, you'll have a slew of the same problems with that as well but at least then alliance members wont be competing with each other to sell their goods, just alliance vs alliance.

 

I don't know. I just think things like this should come about naturally in the economy and not be "forced" onto the players as a mechanic.

[Alex]

Honestly I don't think having a mechanic to control trade prices will do anything differently to control the market, simply because if one trade union sets their prices at one price the next one will just undercut that and then the first union will have to undercut that so they can actually sell their goods again... so how do you stop the leapfrogging of the prices between trade unions? You cant put a limit on how often they are allowed to change their prices because all that will do is lengthen how long it will take for the prices to plummet.

 

Personally I think it's best to leave it up to the players, alliances can do things like this on their own. In fact I wrote two very long posts on my alliance forum pertaining to trade monopolies and working out an efficient method to gain a monopoly with excel spreadsheets and everything. The only reason I've not started it going yet is because we don't have enough money as an initial investment yet.

 

Give it time and things like this will happen. Or if you're adament on having something like it, just make it so individual alliances can set their prices individually, you'll have a slew of the same problems with that as well but at least then alliance members wont be competing with each other to sell their goods, just alliance vs alliance.

 

I don't know. I just think things like this should come about naturally in the economy and not be "forced" onto the players as a mechanic.

 

It would be natural, and far from forced. You'd have to choose to join any sort of cartel. The idea behind them though, is that they can be broader than one alliance. Any single alliance isn't going to have complete control over a resource. It's going to take a huge coalition of nations to have any sort of control, and to do that you're going to need an in-game mechanic that's bigger than alliances. That's my thoughts, anyway.

 

I think I'll add in this feature, and if it doesn't get used then so be it. It can't hurt the game any.

[Jarl Matt]

Why would people join a cartel and have their prices fixed if they could just not join the cartel and sell their resources at a price they know people will buy?