• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #9 - National Markets

DD9 (1).png


Hello again! Today we will dig into Victoria 3’s National Market system. Markets are what drives the game’s dynamic economy by determining a rational price based on supply and demand for all trade goods in every state throughout the world. Expanding your national market to encompass more territory means more raw resources for your furnaces and more customers for your manufacturing industries. As your industrial base grows, so does your demand for infrastructure to bring goods to market.

The French market is swimming in cheap Luxury Furniture, Porcelain, Fruit, and Meat. Luxury Clothes and Wine are well-balanced. But as far as luxuries go, Sugar in particular has a sizable deficit and securing a reliable source of that would likely result in improved supply of domestic distilled Liquor as well.
image1.png


By default every country is in control of its own market which is typically (but not always) centered on their capital state. Every state connected to this market capital - overland or by sea through ports - is also part of the market. These states all have a variable degree of Market Access representing how well-connected they are to every other state in the market. Market Access is based on Infrastructure, which we will talk more about in next week’s development diary!

All local consumption and production in states contribute to the market’s Buy Orders and Sell Orders. Think of these as orders on a commodity market: higher consumption of Grain will cause traders to submit more Grain Buy Orders while higher production of Silk will result in more Sell Orders for Silk.

Furniture is a popular commodity with the growing urban lower middle-class, and it’s not likely its price in the French Market will drop anytime soon. Assuming the appropriate raw materials remain in good supply, upsizing this market’s Furniture industry is a safe bet.
image2.png

As we discussed in the Goods development diary, all goods have a base price. This is the price it would fetch given ideal market conditions: all demand is fulfilled perfectly with available supply, with zero goods produced in excess of demand. If buildings produce more than is being demanded each unit produced will be sold at a depressed price. This benefits consumers at the detriment of producers. Conversely, if demand is higher than supply, the economy of buildings producing those goods will be booming while Pops and buildings that rely on that goods to continue operating will be overpaying.

When determining prices for goods across a market’s many states we start by determining a market price. This is based on the balance between a market’s Buy and Sell Orders, with the base price as a baseline. The more Buy Orders than Sell Orders the higher the price will be and vice versa. Buy and Sell Orders submitted to the market are scaled by the amount of Market Access the state has. This means a state with underdeveloped infrastructure will trade less with the market and rely more on locally available goods.

States with full Market Access will use the market price for all its goods. Otherwise only part of the market price can be used, with the remainder of the local price made up by the local consumption and production of the goods. All actual transactions are done in local prices, with market prices acting to moderate local imbalances proportional to Market Access.

Glass is overproduced in Orsha. Coupled with a suffering Market Access in Orsha this means the Glassworks there can’t sell at the somewhat high market norm for their goods. This works out fine for local Pops and Urban Centers who consume it as they get to pay less than market price. But continuing to expand the Glassworks in Orsha will only lead to worsening Market Access for all local industries, and won’t lead to a better price of Glass anywhere else since fewer and fewer of Orsha’s Glass Sell Order ends up reaching the market. We can see this development on the market price chart: the market price used to be high due to low supply, we started expanding the Glassworks in Orsha which lowered the market price, until the point Orsha’s expanding industry became a bottleneck and prices started to rise again. The last few expansions have done nothing to lower the market price even as the local price has been steadily dropping.
image3.png


If an oversupply becomes large enough, the selling price will be so low producers will be unable to keep wages and thereby production volume up unless they’re receiving government subsidies. But oversupply is not remotely as bad as when goods are grossly undersupplied, which causes a shortage. Goods being in shortage leads to terrible effects for those in your market who rely on it; for example, drastically decreased production efficiency of buildings that rely on it as an input. Shortages demand immediate action, whether that be fast-tracking expanding your own domestic production, importing it from other markets, or expanding your market to include prominent producers of the goods.

Lacking access to a sufficient quantity of Dyes, this poor Textile Mill can only manufacture 42 units of Clothes this week instead of 126, which is entirely insufficient to make ends meet. Unless something changes, its wages will be cut to compensate and eventually Cash Reserves will run dry, rendering the building inoperable as its workers abandon it.
image4.png

If importing Dyes, growing them on Plantations, or manufacturing them in high-tech Chemical Plants to fix the shortage is not an option, returning the Textile Mills to pre-industrial, low-yield handicraft will remove the need for Dyes and restore the Textile Mills to marginal profitability.
image5.png

Astute observers familiar with previous Victorias will note there are no goods stockpiles involved in this system. In the predecessor game a single unit of a goods would be produced, sold, traded, perhaps refined, stored, and ultimately consumed, with global price development determined by how many units are inserted into or removed from the world’s total supply. In Victoria 3, a single unit of goods is produced and immediately sold at a price determined by how many consumers are willing to buy it at the moment of production. When this happens prices shift right away along with actual supply and demand, and trade between markets is modelled using Buy and Sell Orders. This more open economic model is both more responsive to sudden economic shifts and less prone to mysterious systemic failures where all the world’s cement might end up locked inside a warehouse in Missouri. Any stockpiling in the system is represented as cash (for example through a building’s Cash Reserves or a country’s Treasury) or as Pop Wealth, which forms the basis for Standard of Living and determines their level of consumption.

As the econ nerds (you know who you are) will by now have intuited, this lack of goods stockpiling in turn implies that in Victoria 3 we have moved away from the fixed global money supply introduced in Victoria 2. The main reason for this is simply due to how many limitations such a system places on what we can do with the economy in the game. With Victoria 2’s extremely restrictive and technically challenging closed market and world market buying order, it simply wouldn’t have been possible to do things such as Goods Substitution, Trade Routes, dynamic National Markets, transportation costs for Goods and so on in the ways we have, either due to incompatibilities in the design, or simply because it couldn’t possibly be made performant. We believe that the complexity, responsive simulation, and interesting gameplay added by this approach more than make up for what we lose.

Finally, a small teaser of something we will be talking more about once we get around to presenting the diplomatic gameplay. As you may have gleaned from the top screenshot, it is possible for several countries to participate in a single market. Sometimes this is the result of a Customs Union Pact led by the more powerful nation but more often it’s because of a subject relationship with a puppet or semi-independent colonies. In certain cases countries can even own a small plot of land inside someone else’s market, such as a Treaty Port. The route to expanding your country’s economic power is not only through increasing domestic production and consumption, but also through diplomatic and/or military means.

The Zollverein, or German Customs Union, is a broad unified market of German states controlled by Prussia. Without such a union many smaller German countries would find their economies too inefficient and trade opportunities severely hampered by geography and lack of access to naval trade.
image6.png

That’s the fundamentals of Victoria 3’s pricing and domestic-trade system! As mentioned, next week we’ll take a look at an aspect of the game that’s closely related to markets and pricing: Infrastructure.
 
  • 249Like
  • 114Love
  • 24
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
Yes, to a point. It's important to understand that this is intertwined with the decision to not model goods stockpiling - if more goods are bought than sold (at a comparatively high price) on week 42, some of those goods changing hands might have been produced on week 41, or 27, or 6. In the real world, farms only have a few harvests per year and rely on granaries to ration the excess, doling their supply out over time in order to maximize their profits. The same also goes for other industries to different extents, depending on factors like shelf life, quality, technological obsolescence, etcetera. In Victoria 3, this stockpiling behavior is abstracted such that for as long as demand and supply remain balanced within some kind of reason, we assume that goods are available but expensive (until they're not - see shortages), and that all goods produced sell for a price even if there's not an end consumer that particular week. The end result is arguably more realistic, since goods actually being completely unavailable to buy at any price is - and was - a rare and very disruptive thing.
Did you consider introducing a similar modifier for excessive supply, to avoid buildings consistently overproducing?
 
Did you consider introducing a similar modifier for excessive supply, to avoid buildings consistently overproducing?
There's really no need for it, since overproducing buildings will be operating on such low margins they can't afford to pay their workers, who as a result will seek better employment elsewhere which decreases production naturally.
 
  • 19
  • 14Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The funny thing was, they weren't.

Nobody's were.

Entire national stockpiles of artillery shells vanished in days.

It's not a system without some casualties though, particularly among the small and already weak. Like lets say you are playing one of the Boer states, and suddenly UK decides that nope. But you can't stock Mauser ammo for the eventuality.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, to a point. It's important to understand that this is intertwined with the decision to not model goods stockpiling - if more goods are bought than sold (at a comparatively high price) on week 42, some of those goods changing hands might have been produced on week 41, or 27, or 6. In the real world, farms only have a few harvests per year and rely on granaries to ration the excess, doling their supply out over time in order to maximize their profits. The same also goes for other industries to different extents, depending on factors like shelf life, quality, technological obsolescence, etcetera. In Victoria 3, this stockpiling behavior is abstracted such that for as long as demand and supply remain balanced within some kind of reason, we assume that goods are available but expensive (until they're not - see shortages), and that all goods produced sell for a price (albeit perhaps a low price) even if there's not an end consumer that particular week. The end result is arguably more realistic, since goods actually being completely unavailable to buy at any price is - and was - a rare and very disruptive thing.
So, just to clarify, V2 model, in which it was only possible to buy goods that were actually produced, and unsold goods were just thrown out for no money, is gone? Pretty much, everyone's need is always supplied, unless demand/supply ratio passes a treshold, and then, there is a shortage hit?

So, potentially, it is possible to just operate world economy at pre-shortage deficit level indefinitely?
There's really no need for it, since overproducing buildings will be operating on such low margins they can't afford to pay their workers, who as a result will seek better employment elsewhere which decreases production naturally.
Can't world, in particular in multiplayer, be locked into endless subsidy war?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
With Victoria 2’s extremely restrictive and technically challenging closed market and world market buying order, it simply wouldn’t have been possible to do things such as Goods Substitution, Trade Routes, dynamic National Markets, transportation costs for Goods and so on in the ways we have, either due to incompatibilities in the design, or simply because it couldn’t possibly be made performant.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand why such things couldn't be modeled in the old system. Could you give some examples?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So you're not going to model the dirt cheap transportation costs that the Mississippi River System gave the United States?
Water transportation is by far the cheapest way to transport goods in the world.


When the Americans manifested their destiny in the Louisiana Territory.
A man could put his family on a wagon and travel west to put seeds in the ground.
The grain was then harvested, put on a barge, and it could be floated all the way through the country, arriving at New Orleans, where it would be put on a ship and sailed to the most profitable market.


Today a lot of the river system has been dammed up, but back in 1836, you could float all the way from Montana to New Orleans without much effort.

And sending a barge from Souix City to St. Louis, and from here all the way down to New Orleans is super-easy.

-----

Of course building rail from New York, going through the Ohio Valley, and connecting New York to the Great Lakes, and in so binding this entire region together.
Was obviously revolutionary.

But it was not as revolutionary as when the Steam Boat was invented and put on the Mississippi River.

-----

The United States has more interconnected navigable waterways than the rest of the world combined.
Yes, they do not have most navigable waterways.
But what sets the United States apart from the rest, is the fact the fact that this entire system is interconnected.


This, together with the fact that the United States also has the largest agricultural zone in the world.

And the fact that the world's largest agricultural zone is right on top of the Mississippi River System.


And also for the fact that this system also has access to tons of iron and coal.


This is what boomed the United States through the Victorian Era.
This is why the United States held half of the world's manufacturing in 1920.


This is what created Capitalism. (As in Capital became the chief form of economic interaction between all peoples.)
As, for the first time in human history, capital generation was no longer limited to the wealthy landowners.
But it was now readily available to all.



------

The Mississippi River System is the most extreme version of this.

But the Rhine and the Yangtze are incredibly important for the context of trade and transportation.

Cities of the world sit where they are for a reason.

We did hear at some point that rivers count as infrastructure. We'll hopefully hear more next week.

Leys hope the Missisippi-Ohio river system will be as important to infrastructure as it should be, both in peace and war (you could say the grography of US river system set the Union for easy victory in Western theatre of Civil War).
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
So, just to clarify, V2 model, in which it was only possible to buy goods that were actually produced, and unsold goods were just thrown out for no money, is gone? Pretty much, everyone's need is always supplied, unless demand/supply ratio passes a treshold, and then, there is a shortage hit?

So, potentially, it is possible to just operate world economy at pre-shortage deficit level indefinitely?

Can't world, in particular in multiplayer, be locked into endless subsidy war?
Yes and no.

Yes: the V2 model of an omnipresent national supermarket that everyone shops at is gone.

No: everyone's needs are not always perfectly supplied, since their ability to pay for their needs is dependent on their purchasing power. All purchasing economic agents do have stockpiles in the form of cash reserves or Wealth, and depleting those will result in adverse effects on actual people.

For example, if the price of Grain is very high, this will adversely affect the workers and owners of Food Industries and those Pops who survive on baking their own bread in the short term, while the owners of Farms will enrich themselves. In the longer term, if Food Industries can't pay high enough wages to retain their employees, both output of Groceries and demand for Grain will decrease. Eventually this will balance out the Food Industries but at the expense of Farm revenues and the Wealth of Pops who rely on Groceries.

No: you cannot operate the world economy at pre-shortage deficit level indefinitely as this will deplete Pop Wealth which will reduce demand and devastate the profitability of buildings. And when this happens in a single country, the people will eventually rise up and/or emigrate.

Yes: you can try to fix underproduction issues with subsidies, but this means paying tax revenue to keep production up. This cannot possibly be sustained long-term in anything but specific segments of an economy, typically strategic ones that other industries rely on.
 
  • 23
  • 16Like
  • 6Love
  • 1
Reactions:
So, potentially, it is possible to just operate world economy at pre-shortage deficit level indefinitely?
Theoretically, but not potentially.

If there's an undersupply like that, and you're selling goods to POPs, the POPs will get poor and substitute other goods for whatever you're selling, driving demand down. If you're selling to industries, either they'll substitute, or they'll go broke and cut back production, driving demand down. Either way, the pendulum will swing back.

EDIT: I have been ninja'd by the developer.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
In earlier versions of the internal build we actually had countries split into multiple markets, trying out a variety of design solutions for this, but none of them resulted in satisfying gameplay as keeping track of all your markets and managing goods flow between them felt more like a chore than anything else and made it very difficult to understand the overall economic situation in your country. Moving to a single national market basically just made for a better game as it allows the player to focus their efforts and have a far better understanding of the consequences of the actions they're taking in that market. That said, we haven't completely ruled out having special cases like separate colonial markets if we can get that working in a way that doesn't create the problems I mentioned above.
Could just simplify the additional markets.

Having "subservient" markets that basically just exist to feed the "Metropolitan" National Market at the expense of the Colonies wouldn't be too bad and certainly make historical sense (e.g. the Nigerians should have a harder time buying up the rubber that they themselves are producing than the British colonists). As long as the info was presented somewhere, it'd actually make a few things more clear in a more condensed area- where your goods are coming from in broad terms ("X amount of Tea is coming from the British Raj", so if you need tea, you know what to do...), what colonies are profitable or not, what impact blockades are having (seeing what's in your/enemy sub-markets that can no longer reach your main one), etc.

Also gives that nice intrigue possibility of trying to go after a piece of a larger market- in other words, the U.S. can expand into the Canadian market without necessarily trying to take the entire bull of the British Market by the horns, and get a better idea of how that's going than Canada as a small part of the British Market would give them. That'd be a good way to weaken the British in this scenario- making the Canadians less dependent on the homeland would give increased weight behind causes like autonomy and independence, and give your merchants great inroads if they get it- and that creates potential interesting conflict with the UK trying to prevent this from happening.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
We did hear at some point that rivers count as infrastructure. We'll hopefully hear more next week.

Let's hope the Missisippi-Ohio river system will be as important to infrastructure as it should be, both in peace and war (you could say the geography of US river system set the Union for easy victory in Western theatre of Civil War).
I must have missed the mention of rivers counting as infrastructure. But let's see next week!
 
Yes and no.

Yes: the V2 model of an omnipresent national supermarket that everyone shops at is gone.

No: everyone's needs are not always perfectly supplied, since their ability to pay for their needs is dependent on their purchasing power. All purchasing economic agents do have stockpiles in the form of cash reserves or Wealth, and depleting those will result in adverse effects on actual people.

For example, if the price of Grain is very high, this will adversely affect the workers and owners of Food Industries and those Pops who survive on baking their own bread in the short term, while the owners of Farms will enrich themselves. In the longer term, if Food Industries can't pay high enough wages to retain their employees, both output of Groceries and demand for Grain will decrease. Eventually this will balance out the Food Industries but at the expense of Farm revenues and the Wealth of Pops who rely on Groceries.

No: you cannot operate the world economy at pre-shortage deficit level indefinitely as this will deplete Pop Wealth which will reduce demand and devastate the profitability of buildings. And when this happens in a single country, the people will eventually rise up and/or emigrate.

Yes: you can try to fix underproduction issues with subsidies, but this means paying tax revenue to keep production up. This cannot possibly be sustained long-term in anything but specific segments of an economy, typically strategic ones that other industries rely on.
To clarify: situation where "machine tools"(tm) good produced at let's say 10 units, demand is 20 (assuming it is below shortage treshold), the world can operate as if 20 units are actually produced, for as long as buyers can afford high price?I'm especially interested in the case of state, since state can have a very deep pockets. But, are 10 or 20 units actually available, and if 20, whom pockets the difference, for those 10 units that were not produced, but we're bought from somewhere?

In V2, there was a curious dynamic, where you had to create machine tools factories, or your chance of rapid industrialization was zero. Market simply would have supply to actually build those factories.

In V3, that wouldn't be the issue. As long as I'm willing to she'll out extra cash, I can industrialize Russia in 1936, and for a few years the world will just create machine tools out of thin air, for me, right?

Then, question, where will that money go? Or does not closed system also means that money can be payed out into thin air for goods provided from it?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
There's really no need for it, since overproducing buildings will be operating on such low margins they can't afford to pay their workers, who as a result will seek better employment elsewhere which decreases production naturally.
That’d be true if base price is close to equilibrium price, but it can’t be so for all markets and all technology levels. If the base price is enough to keep pre-Bessemer steel mill barely profitable, it should generate huge margin for an EAF mill, so EAF will be able to cope with constantly insufficient demand and low prices and still pay decent wages. Or am I understanding the system wrong?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
That’d be true if base price is close to equilibrium price, but it can’t be so for all markets and all technology levels. If the base price is enough to keep pre-Bessemer steel mill barely profitable, it should generate huge margin for an EAF mill, so EAF will be able to cope with constantly insufficient demand and low prices and still pay decent wages. Or am I understanding the system wrong?
No, you got it right! And yes, pre-Bessemer Steel Mills are barely profitable (prime candidate for subsidizing if you want to be an early Steel-producing power) while late-game Steel Mills can be very profitable indeed. However, those late-game Steel Mills also require expensive input goods as well as more qualified and higher paid employees, and by that point any decent economy would have seen average wages inflate quite a bit compared to 1836. Since buildings compete with each other for workers what is considered a "decent wage" changes over time, and the high potential productivity of late-game Steel Mills can only be realized with access to cheap advanced input goods.
 
  • 16
  • 13Like
Reactions:
To clarify: situation where "machine tools"(tm) good produced at let's say 10 units, demand is 20 (assuming it is below shortage treshold), the world can operate as if 20 units are actually produced, for as long as buyers can afford high price?I'm especially interested in the case of state, since state can have a very deep pockets. But, are 10 or 20 units actually available, and if 20, whom pockets the difference, for those 10 units that were not produced, but we're bought from somewhere?

In V2, there was a curious dynamic, where you had to create machine tools factories, or your chance of rapid industrialization was zero. Market simply would have supply to actually build those factories.

In V3, that wouldn't be the issue. As long as I'm willing to she'll out extra cash, I can industrialize Russia in 1936, and for a few years the world will just create machine tools out of thin air, for me, right?

Then, question, where will that money go? Or does not closed system also means that money can be payed out into thin air for goods provided from it?
If you have zero access to Tools, the shortage mechanic will ensure you cannot industrialize.

If you have some access to Tools but your demand for it is somewhat higher than that, you will be paying a lot more to industrialize than your more capable competitors. The premium you're paying for Tools will go to your Tool-producing industries and the Pops who own them. If your Tool supply come from imports, it means greater profits for Tool-producers in the exporting countries.
 
  • 19
  • 10Like
  • 4Love
  • 1
Reactions:
No, you got it right! And yes, pre-Bessemer Steel Mills are barely profitable (prime candidate for subsidizing if you want to be an early Steel-producing power) while late-game Steel Mills can be very profitable indeed. However, those late-game Steel Mills also require expensive input goods as well as more qualified and higher paid employees, and by that point any decent economy would have seen average wages inflate quite a bit compared to 1836. Since buildings compete with each other for workers what is considered a "decent wage" changes over time, and the high potential productivity of late-game Steel Mills can only be realized with access to cheap advanced input goods.
Thank you very much for your replies! Can’t wait to experiment with the system. How much will the price mechanism be missable? Will it be possible to trigger a change in base prices due to some conditions, or to change price elasticity metrics and such?
 
@lachek what happens when someone creates Poland as independent state in let's say - historical borders of Second Polish Republic - Greater Poland, Pomerania and Silesia from Prussia, Lesser Poland from Austria-Hungary and Masovia, Podolie, Podlasie, Wohlyn from Russian Empire. Markets will still be divided between bigger players or there will be new Polish Market?
 
If you have zero access to Tools, the shortage mechanic will ensure you cannot industrialize.

If you have some access to Tools but your demand for it is somewhat higher than that, you will be paying a lot more to industrialize than your more capable competitors. The premium you're paying for Tools will go to your Tool-producing industries and the Pops who own them. If your Tool supply come from imports, it means greater profits for Tool-producers in the exporting countries.
So, basically yes, I can run at a deficit, as long as I can afford it?

Another question, is shortage local, global or market based?
If, I, as Russia, research rail roads early, and there isn't a huge lot of production, but I order rails to be build across entire Russia, the spike in demand for demand locomotives could be several times global production.

How would shortage mechanic work then? Let's say in Britain, locomotive production and consumption is balanced before I order rails construction.

Will only Russia suffer shortage, or Britain as well, because Russians are trying to buy every locomotive available in the world. Will Russian demand spill into wold marked, making locomotives more expensive for Brits to by, despite their local market perfectly balanced? How will mechanism of Russia is trying to import locomotives -increse in local market price depreses British locomotive consumption -> British locomotives are available for purchase for Russia on Global market work?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I love the new direction of the game, but i think buying goods from a country should be easier than selling goods to it. Even if a country's market is closed to you, you could always find a way to buy from it unless there is a very strict embargo. It would be good to toggle some goods to be sold/bought freely by other countries even if they don't have a market access. Like a could toggle the weapons or grain good to be sold to any country that needs it especially if i have oversupply.
 
I'm afraid I don't quite understand why such things couldn't be modeled in the old system. Could you give some examples?
One fundamental example is that when supply is insufficient, you have to distribute it between prospective purchasers by some rational mechanism. So when you have a Steel Mill and 100 Pops who all want to buy Coal, who gets to purchase what fraction of the available supply?

Option 1: Determine some priority sequence, e.g. buildings always buy first, then Pops buy in order of descending Wealth. This means the Steel Mills might buy up all available Coal, leaving Pops with excess money but no heating. Pops start dying, and the player has to decide to wait until the price of Coal increases due to low supply such that their Steel Mills have failed so Pops get access to the supply, or close/destroy their Steel Mills temporarily until they can secure their Coal supply. Or, if Pops buy first, the Steel Mills get no Coal and close down, thereby causing Pops to lose their jobs so they can't afford to buy Coal, leading to a cycle of different agents in the system failing and/or downward spirals. Furthermore, with sequential purchasing that depends on the outcome of the previous purchase, we cannot multithread the logic. Hard priority buy sequences like this feel artificial and cause frustrations where players ideally want to control the distribution top-down with sliders, which of course is both fiddly and nonsensical from an immersion perspective.

Option 2: Have an overall "trade manager" split supply proportionally between purchasers based on desired purchasing amount. This is the rational decision since it can both be multithreaded and doesn't lead to systemic cyclical breakdowns. However, when combined with a Goods Substitution feature, such a trade manager would have to balance two parameters (availability and price) across a number of different permutations to make a single rational purchase decision that maximizes the yield for potentially tens of thousands of agents. There may be some cool math that can be applied here but none that we can instrumentalize such that it can reliably execute several times per second.

This is already a computationally difficult problem. Now insert local price conditions based on Infrastructure and Market Access. How much of the market's allotment of Coal compared to Oil should a Farmer in Michigan get to buy when Michigan only has 75% Market Access but Coal is produced locally?

With an open economy where stockpiles are abstracted into the price conditions, we can have all purchases resolve on their own thread and tally up into a total combined price. If the price is too high for some of those purchasers to sustain it in the long run, their own economic conditions will deteriorate and demand will decrease. This means we can approach an equilibrium over time by each economic agent doing their thing, rather than trying to compute an optimal distribution between all agents given a multitude of variables that all influence each other.
 
  • 47
  • 31Like
  • 10Love
Reactions: