EVE General Discussion

Look up what it means when the costs incurred in production increase. Because that's what we're talking about.

(Hint: It aint inflation).

...will get you to nearby Lowsec.

When I lived in Detorid, Fuel costs were about 100m/round trip. I don't even want to think about costs to Dronelands.

From the Wiki article that you linked:
"Measuring inflation in an economy requires objective means of differentiating changes in nominal prices on a common set of goods and services, and distinguishing them from those price shifts resulting from changes in value such as volume, quality, or performance."

A change in the fundamental cost of doing business is one of those price shifts.

That's 3 times in one thread that you have made my point for me.

Wrong.

You missed the words "such as" which indicate that what follows are examples, not an exhaustive listing.

Changes in manufacturing practices (and thus costs) represent a change in the product.

You have to have some basic understanding of Economic principles (also English). Technology (i.e. fundamental production cost) changes are not inflation.

Arguing otherwise is claiming that IBM causes deflation when they improve their manufacturing process and reduce the price on their CPUs.




Read the whole article. Cost-Push inflation is when Labor or Raw material costs go up. Not when technology (i.e. fundamental production cost) changes (otherwise, again, IBM causes deflation whenever it improves its manufacturing process).

I disagree. One of the core mechanics of EVE economy is trade - trade between various parts of the game. By separating manufacturers, you reduce an important drive to keep trade lanes open and (relatively) safe. Imo, PI and exploration got it about right - you can do it in high sec, it can be profitable, but in order to really benefit from it, you need to risk the lower security.

The same should be done about industry, missions, mining (or, more precisely, refining) - they should all be more profitable in lower security areas, possibly with certain parts having different gains - for instance, low sec would be better for pirate industry and chance based mechanics.

That said, I also highly disagree with near perfect security in null sec, deep within sov territory. In order for risk vs. reward system to work, there must, above all else, first be risk. In my opinion, null needs more mechanics that drive conflict. One such imo cool mechanic would be randomized resources - they pop up in one area, then as you drain them, the materials would move elsewhere. For instance, you could get Technetium in Dekklein one month, then in Providence the next, then in Cobalt Edge and so on. In addition to this, steps would be undertaken to allow smaller groups to sneak by the guards and ninjamine in hostile territory. Simply ways to spark up conflicts, make things unpredictable, to turn it from a relatively stable, stale entity that it is today into a massive mess of shifting alliances and constant struggle for economic benefits.

Milton Friedman: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."
Inflation is Supply of Money Going up. That is all.

Increased production costs are not inflationary. Just like arguing that IBM lowering its prices is deflationary is ridiculous.

Let's, however, assume your defintion of inflation is correct, for now.
CCP clearly doesn't think that kind of inflation is a problem.
Mining Barges, Frigates, Cruisers, Battlecruisers. Soon Battleships. All have had their fundamental costs increased dramatically. The economy hasn't come tumbling down.

So even if we grant your definition, it's clearly not the problem you make it out to be.

Not "my" definition, its THE definition. I provided the proof, you just choose to ignore it or ignore the words in the statement you want to use to prove your faulty definition. You refuse to look at the whole picture. Also just because inflation at a certain level is ok, doesn't mean its ok at ALL levels. Its expected, but there's a limit. Frigate prices doubling I think surpasses that limit quite a bit. Potentially even worse than that... T2s do fall at a high, but perhaps acceptable level, but that's with numbers that likely predict the low low end of things. I could see those going to POS only if nothing else regardless, but overall, at the current costs, I just got see it as viable to balance all prices around bringing stuff from null sec into high sec. In fact it looks downright absurd to do that.

You're also taking Milton's statement out of context. The basis of the statement was that price inflation could be controlled with monetary deflation and price deflation controlled with monetary inflation. Not a concept I believe is entirely accurate, and neither do several modern day economists, but eh, I digress. He still doesn't control the definition of the word and inflation's definition is focused on prices. If you want to prove me wrong, cite sources, quit trying to twist things to fit YOUR definition. This is a silly thing to argue about, the definition of a word, when its pretty clearly laid out, black and white. If you want to prove me wrong on it, cite sources that actually prove it wrong rather than ignore context.

New to the game so I wont pretend to have a bit of an understanding of the culture war between null high and low sec, but reading through the first few pages of arguments makes me chuckle a bit. I do realize this is a video game, but games mimic life and life lessons since that is what designers pull from when creating them. Where in the world is efficient industry run on the front lines of any conflict? Highsec is the equivalent of an industrialized nation / arms dealer pumping cheap weapons into a war zone and laughing all the way to the bank with the blood money.

I'm not saying that I can't see the other side of the argument, there does need to be an incentive of sorts to producing in nullsec, but claiming its unfair that those in a relatively safe environment can produce goods with little to no risks is exactly right. It is unfair, its what every country in the world does on a daily basis. While maybe its not always based in war, countries do everything they can to increase their revenues by encouraging businesses to setup factories and use their local workforce and they wrap it all up in a nice little package of minimal risk for return on investment. Whether they do it through reduced taxes, lower paid work forces, etc etc. It's all risks that effect the bottom line and who in their right industrial oriented mind wouldn't want high profits at minimal risk to themselves?

Asking for concessions to make it fair to produce similar quality materials, in a decidedly more hostile environment is ridiculous.

If it was a waste of space, people wouldn't be there and threads like this wouldn't exist. I could see imposing a tariff or another form of increased cost for goods being imported from Highsec into Null and low as a viable concession that fits into the universe and makes sense compared to I want to punish those with better business acumen than myself.

Guess what: people aren't there, which is why threads like this exist.

Instead, they're in highsec, where they produce for free and with ease.

Yes, let's make the problem even worse. That'll solve things.

It has nothing to do with business acumen — it has to do with game mechanics that render parts of the game obsolete, and about fixing those mechanics so that the game actually offers the full range of activities it is designed to provide.