S
Scarlet (Little Upsilon)
19 Jul 2011 02:42
Link
You guys built too many corps in a highly subsidized market. The subsidization is now over and what was a healthy market is now over-saturated. As a result, the market price tanked to rock-bottom.
Congratulations.
Please check monthly production versus monthly demand in the future. Total supply versus total demand is the silliest manner of determining what to build. Not only will you now be losing money, your malinvestment is tying up workers from sectors that are actually under-producing. Notice that there are actual shortages in Medical Materials. You could have been building corporations in that sector, but instead, you chose to invest in a sector that was for all intensive purposes healthy.
On my end, I spent lots of money subsidizing the sulfur market. I would need to spend much, much more to continue to keep prices at perceived "normal" levels. If I were your government, I would just tax you. You would hardly notice that I was blowing your money encouraging investment in overproducing sectors thereby depriving that money from reaching sectors in real need of investment. Eventually, I would need to ask for more money to continue to subsidize a sector receiving more investment than necessary - increasing production past equilibrium yet still promoting further investment, deepening the malinvestment and inflating other sectors on two fronts - the money spent on subsidizing sulfur and the money invested in sulfur would both be potential investment deprived from more profitable sectors. I would either need to end the subsidization and allow the market to collapse, which is what I've done . . . or to tax you even more in order to subsidize the market further to prevent collapse.
If I had the ability to tax you to support my subsidies, I would have picked a larger market to subsidize.
Congratulations.
Please check monthly production versus monthly demand in the future. Total supply versus total demand is the silliest manner of determining what to build. Not only will you now be losing money, your malinvestment is tying up workers from sectors that are actually under-producing. Notice that there are actual shortages in Medical Materials. You could have been building corporations in that sector, but instead, you chose to invest in a sector that was for all intensive purposes healthy.
On my end, I spent lots of money subsidizing the sulfur market. I would need to spend much, much more to continue to keep prices at perceived "normal" levels. If I were your government, I would just tax you. You would hardly notice that I was blowing your money encouraging investment in overproducing sectors thereby depriving that money from reaching sectors in real need of investment. Eventually, I would need to ask for more money to continue to subsidize a sector receiving more investment than necessary - increasing production past equilibrium yet still promoting further investment, deepening the malinvestment and inflating other sectors on two fronts - the money spent on subsidizing sulfur and the money invested in sulfur would both be potential investment deprived from more profitable sectors. I would either need to end the subsidization and allow the market to collapse, which is what I've done . . . or to tax you even more in order to subsidize the market further to prevent collapse.
If I had the ability to tax you to support my subsidies, I would have picked a larger market to subsidize.