Shattered Kingdoms

i'm done. you're unreachable, and i have other things i like debating more than how having a big [REDACTED] scorched plot in the middle of your street plunges property values.

You really cannot compare real world macroeconomics to the economics of SK.

I do apologize as my previous example was clearly confusing. This time I'll carefully saw my house down, piece by piece, being careful not to make too much noise which might also decrease the value of their property. I'll haul it way to the local landfill, being careful not to leave large tire treads in the lawn, which might also decrease the value of their property. Then, I'll spend more money buying sod and trees to plant in the spot where my house stood, so that it didn't look like my neighbors lived next to a meth lab so as to also not decrease the value of their property. Instead my neighbors would now live next to what looked like a lovely park. I'm out a house, they're not and have something nice to look at. I destroyed wealth at my own expense. And then I don't go to live in public housing at other peoples expenses. And then I build another house even though I already had a perfectly good one to begin with, thus depleting even more of my own personal resources at no one else's expense.

I know I can't compare the real world economics to SK. But in SK we have an economic system which I believe has been attempted to be modeled on the real world. I'll have been trying to demonstrate (obviously very poorly) is that somebody keeping money in a bank and not using does not adversely affect a real world economy, and if SK is indeed modeling its economy on the real world, then this is something that could be improved.

Like [REDACTED] if I went into a store, bought 20 wife beaters for $10 a pop and then the next guy that comes in has to pay $60 a wife beater.

So realistic.

Do not try to bring in reality into account. Name one bank in the WORLD that says you cannot have an account larger then $50,000.

If a player's bank account is being mysteriously stolen from (its probably some tax bug) then remove the limits of how much you can "horde".
That or someone could fix the bug.

Money deposited into bank accounts doesn't stay there. Money placed into a bank account affects the economy in the real world. Good and bad don't exist in economics.

Think of decoining as idle account maintenance fees.

Besides, banks are not non-profit organizations. Learn to be more generous when making your deposit.

Pretty sure Jardek posted something about a bank that would only allow $6000 worth of money in it for some weird reason. And actually, the bank takes the money you deposit and uses it to do things like give out loans to people so they can buy houses and so they can make money off of that money. None of that [REDACTED] happens in SK. I don't think that's a sort of road that needs to be travelled down in a game though. Credit and loans would certainly be a nightmare in a game. It's already bad enough in real life. No reason to make a recreational activity hell as well.

Also, I wouldn't be caught dead in a wife beater.

I would just prefer that there was a low water mark bank balance that didn't get touched. A dead character who has no money in the bank can get ...marooned? Can't think of the word just now, but yeah - money in the bank is a fallback in some instances, so it'd be nice if we didn't hamstring newbies who need to buy some basic gear just after death.

Love the economic discussion but don't have time right now to add comments that would do it justice. The short version: No, it isn't a bug. Money de-hoarding was added to the item de-hoarding code sometime in the last 6-9 months. I'm pretty sure it was publicly announced in these forums at the time. And in response to Viltrax, there is already a low water mark to fall back on. You'll never lose all your money.

I just had an absolutely epic idea.

Tie newbie trust funds into the country's economy that they start in

But yeah... with the whole very fundamental logic of SK's economy not really translating to the Econ 101 masters of the universe, I think it should be left at this; if even the remote argument could be made and there can be logic placed behind it, then the whole "no possible real world application" is irrelevant. It makes sense in its context.

Let me try another way, zryych.

Someone DID already do something - they actively took a chunk of the money from a country, a finite (even if growing) economy. This money is already taken. That is the act. That money was taken from other people, meaning wealth shifted FROM an entity TO the person in question. Banks have not met the idea of investing for profit, yet, in SK. They are a safehouse. When that money is not further utilized, you have effectively taken a percentage of potential out of the economy - which, in all forms and definitions, is harm. If it wasn't for that act, the economy would have been stronger. So, taking that money and putting it back in to the economy is beneficial to the whole. Read the taking a real world country's money to another country harming the country of origin.

But, anyway... there's 2 ideas this thread has contributed that are winners:

An activity indicator in the score menu
Newbie trust funds being tied to country economy

A thread well spent. Good day, gentlemen!