| Friday, August 8, 2008 - 06:02 am |
Very Valid points on both ends of the spectrum, however, I believe the answer to this is a free market. Let players set their own terms for loans, both receiving and giving. By allowing the market to dictate the interest rate their will be equal opportunity for even a new banker to grow rapidly if he is providing a lower interest rate then his competitors. Also, the effect of this is countries growing more rapidly and contributing to a greater simcountry economy in which countries will have large stores of cash. I think will more resources on a larger scale will make it more difficult for market manipulation between a select few powerful countries.
With free markets, if there is a shortage of money on the market the interest rates will go up naturally. The "world bank" will not be needed anymore because as money becomes scarce interest rates will go up resulting in greater profit, with a flood of money on the market the interest rate will go down resulting in large growth. They result is a more realistic game that allows you to formulate strategies based on more than a grocery list of directions as opposed formulating a strategy based on the current economic environment of the world your playing in.
| Friday, August 8, 2008 - 10:41 pm |
Allowing players to dictate their own loan interest rates could lead to collusion and cheating. And the reason I say this is for the fact that W3C assumes all loan risk. If a country or ceo goes under (usually due to debt or quitting) W3C guarantees the loans from their own pockets.
The reason why I bring up collusion is for this reason. It is a known fact that their are many players with multiple accounts (multis). Player with Account #1 goes into huge debt (possibly by design) and takes out loans from account #2 at an astronomical interest rate then lets account #1 go. Under the current system, W3C would be responsible for guaranteeing those loans making it very costly to them.
I know your next question. "What if W3C didn't guarantee the loans?" Well then that would definitely lead to cheating by players who "Multi" and just don't feel like paying the loans off (including the principle) It also leads to possibly picking a specific player and targeting them for stealing their cash through loans they have no intention on repaying.
Questions have been raised in the past about a risk management system but in essence there are too many variables and ways to cheat W3C or an individual player out of their cash or use a system like has been suggested here to give an opportunity to create enormous wealth by stealing it.
| Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 11:01 am |
Imposing loan limits will take away an option of what you can do with excess game cash. There are very few already, if you want to take away an option you should suggest some other options of what players could do with excess game cash. Personally I'd like to see a more deregulated loan market, rather then a more regulated loan market. That way some players may choose to offer safer, longer term lower interest rate loans, to specific players that are having financial problems. Or if a player screws their economy and don't have any wealthy or sympathetic friends then they will be at the mercy of loan sharks.
But it would be nice to have more infrastructure and funding options. More implementations like development and culture indexes. Whats the deal with real estate section in financial index? It states that more functions will be added later. How long has it said that?
| Friday, September 5, 2008 - 05:48 pm |
The real world has the same problem. It is handled through the FDIC, federal deposit insurance corporation and the SEC securities and exchange commission. The FDIC insures all deposits up to a point. You would be safe from attack by multis if you loan out a reasonable/small quantity. The SEC throws people in jail when he/she messes with the financial markets. W3C is quite capable of seizing the assets of any account. That enterprise vault might be vulnerable to nuclear bombs, bank robbers or communist guerrillas.
I think it is in W3C's interest to allow people to spend real dollars and pump cash into the virtual economy. If you owned a coffee shop would you put a limit on how many cups people were allowed to pay for?
| Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 04:31 am |
"If you owned a coffee shop would you put a limit on how many cups people were allowed to pay for?"
Depends what they are doing with the coffee. Too much caffeine can and will kill you. If someone dies from a coffee shop willingly serving this person coffee to an excess they would be charged with manslaughter.