Inflation

[unmerged(2036)]

Is there any info on how/if inflation is included in CK?

I found that inflation didn't work to well in EU- due to AI-limitations
and the intire inflation batteling with governors and events.

How was inflation really in the timeperiod?
From what I have heard in some basic economics courses, inflation as we know it today
- with constant raising consumer prices and wages -
didn't happen before the industrial revolution.

I have a vague idea that there was as much deflation as inflation at the times.

Of course at the time they had even less knowlegde as to what caused inflation,
much less how to combat it.

I just think think that if no good way to model inflation can be found and implemented,
it should be omitted entirely, unless somebody can confirm that inflation had major impact
(like spanish new world gold) on the ecomnomics in CK-timespan.

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by mrmister
Is there any info on how/if inflation is included in CK?

I'd like to know that too.

I found that inflation didn't work to well in EU- due to AI-limitations
and the intire inflation batteling with governors and events.

That's because inflation in EU was modelled like a consumer price index rather than like real inflation. 0% inflation means that the price level doesn't change but in EU it means that the price is back to the index value of 100 (that way it actually models a deflation).

How was inflation really in the timeperiod?
From what I have heard in some basic economics courses, inflation as we know it today
- with constant raising consumer prices and wages-
didn't happen before the industrial revolution.

I have a vague idea that there was as much deflation as inflation at the times.

There was inflation before the industrial revolution. Just think about the Spanish silver and gold imports in the 16th century. That pretty much increased prices and wages without making people better off (of course those how got the silver were better off).

I think what your teachers mean is that real wage (and with it standard of living) didn't increase prior to the industrial revolution because there weren't large increases in productivity. Make following mental experiment:

If you assume the economy grew at an average rate of 0,5% a year from year 1 to year 2000, then more than 20'000 people (1.005^2000) of the year 1 should be able to live out of a year 2000 person's share of GDP, which is clearly not possible. Thus econmies grew much less than 0,5% per year on average from years 1 to 2000.

Now keep in mind that economies grew at an average annual rate of 4.4% from 1950 to 1973 and 1.9% from 1973 to 1998 and you can conclude that growth (which means productivity growth) was just slightly above 0 and sometimes even negative regardless of inflation which is a change in (nominal) price level.

Of course at the time they had even less knowlegde as to what caused inflation,
much less how to combat it.

I just think think that if no good way to model inflation can be found and implemented,
it should be omitted entirely, unless somebody can confirm that inflation had major impact
(like spanish new world gold) on the ecomnomics in CK-timespan.

Agree. Since inflation in the CK period was nowhere near what happened in the 16th century they rather drop the subject instead of using a bad model. Plus remember that especially in the early years of CK barter economy was still widespread.

 

[Idiotboy]

Plus the fact that nobody had any idea what inflation was in those days. Should we have any more info than the lords of the day when we play? I´d say that they remove it, other effects such as supply and demand and logistical issues was a much greater impact on prices than inflation ever was in those days. Although I suppose some inflation could perhaps be expected when the amount of silver or gold was lessened in the coins and as some kings had that as a way to finance wars perhaps it should be in somehow. Just not in the role it has in EU2.

 

[Norgesvenn]

Inflation in those days would rather be modelled through impure metals included in coins. That way, the coin became less valuable, since it included less silver or gold, and you had to pay with more coins.

 

[Nikolai II]

Plague was the mother of inflation in thoose days, impure coins ws just bad fiscal policy (or evidence of oriental trade, pick your choice)

Plague killed off workers (all sorts) making the remaining ones more popular and able to demand increased wages.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Well, how to say it... back in those times, plague was much more important thing that inflation. I ask, will plague (not the great one, other ones) be reflected?

The point is, medieval precious metal/barter economy was very different from todays. No inflation as we know it.

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by Nikolai II
Plague was the mother of inflation in thoose days, impure coins ws just bad fiscal policy (or evidence of oriental trade, pick your choice)

Plague killed off workers (all sorts) making the remaining ones more popular and able to demand increased wages.

This was especially true for the crafts-men in the cities, since death tolls where much higher in urban areas. Plus farmers had less customers and the prices for agricultural produce dropped.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Winkelried


This was especially true for the crafts-men in the cities, since death tolls where much higher in urban areas. Plus farmers had less customers and the prices for agricultural produce dropped.

But death of a few farmers can be enough to kill the farm, allowing it to become overgrown etc.

Black death and other plagues would see a decrease of farms and farmland on a scale concurrent with the deathtoll, simply because there were few extra hands in the agricultural systems.

Some losses could be stomached, but once plague had entered a farm it was as lethal there as in a city, and other farms would be touched as well and not be able to spare men to keep the farm in action, so it would be lost, and it's tax base and food production as well.


Is was more likely that villages or farms would survive though, since plague spread with travellers. There are regular tales of one village succumbing in near entirety, while another village some miles distant would be entirely spared of the plague.
No wonder people became superstitious.


Hmm.. what was my point? Oh, yes, that inflation would touch farmers as well during plague, since farmers/serfs/whatever would become very valuable to noblemen desperately seeking to keep their tax-base up in the face of rising costs.

This they would do by strictly enforcing the peons lack of rights to move, but such is only possible so far.. When neighboring lords offer sanctuary for escaped serfs, and lower taxes that is good, and if all noblemen agree to be oppressive and wring more taxes out of you (forcing villages to pay same taxes as befor plague), well then you run for the cities, who are also desperate for new workers..

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Inflation is a difficult concept, and I never really felt that its inclusion in EU brought much to the game. I won't miss it in CK if it is excluded.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
Inflation is a difficult concept, and I never really felt that its inclusion in EU brought much to the game. I won't miss it in CK if it is excluded.

Amen to that

Maybe some sort of temporary price increase after a plague though?

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Nikolai II


But death of a few farmers can be enough to kill the farm, allowing it to become overgrown etc.

Black death and other plagues would see a decrease of farms and farmland on a scale concurrent with the deathtoll, simply because there were few extra hands in the agricultural systems.

Some losses could be stomached, but once plague had entered a farm it was as lethal there as in a city, and other farms would be touched as well and not be able to spare men to keep the farm in action, so it would be lost, and it's tax base and food production as well.


Is was more likely that villages or farms would survive though, since plague spread with travellers. There are regular tales of one village succumbing in near entirety, while another village some miles distant would be entirely spared of the plague.
No wonder people became superstitious.


Hmm.. what was my point? Oh, yes, that inflation would touch farmers as well during plague, since farmers/serfs/whatever would become very valuable to noblemen desperately seeking to keep their tax-base up in the face of rising costs.

This they would do by strictly enforcing the peons lack of rights to move, but such is only possible so far.. When neighboring lords offer sanctuary for escaped serfs, and lower taxes that is good, and if all noblemen agree to be oppressive and wring more taxes out of you (forcing villages to pay same taxes as befor plague), well then you run for the cities, who are also desperate for new workers..

Well, that depend on time and place. When Plague hit Europe, many parts of it (like Italy, or France), were actually overflowing with peasants, and there were too many "loose" people around. Peasant life was rather unpleasant, due to lack of land. Plague cut it back to size, meanwhile making peasant life much easier, also having long-term consequences as sort of economic independence of peasants, due to now relatively smaller monetary obligations (there was some inflation caused by Plague, and land rents stayed the same...).

While in eastern part of Europe, due to late abandonment of barter system and so non-rent agriculture, the effect of plague was opposite. Though it was much less deadly there.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Another way to handle inflation than the way EU(2) does, would be to have the accumulated wealth "decay" over time while prices are fixed. It would probably be easier to simulate, and the experience would be much better for the player. And, of course, small nations wouldn't suffer more than they should (example: big nations have lots of room for inflation-cutting governors, while minors usually only are able to get rid of up to 5%).

 

[Idiotboy]

I´d say that the plague was rarely a great effect. Surplus workers was always at hand. The exception is of course th bubonic plague. But that had far wider consequences than inflation.

 

[unmerged(6277)]

All this talk about inflation and fiscal policy seems anachronistic to me. Did rulers have fiscal policies or did they just try to get as much out of the ruled as possible?

It seems they had social policies or perhaps class policies (they could try to attack or support certain types of people) but I don't know they ever attacked something as fluffy as price/wage inflation. I too thought that the ability to attack inflation in EU was odd.

By the same token, this is not to say that there was no inflation. I'm just concerned to give tools to the garden variety Plantagenet thug to fight and manage it.

There were famines/feasts which sparked inflationary/ deflationary episodes or maybe longer events. In a game which has targets of honour and piety, sound economic management seems out of place.

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Philj


There were famines/feasts which sparked inflationary/ deflationary episodes or maybe longer events. In a game which has targets of honour and piety, sound economic management seems out of place.

Seems to me that we simply are unable to lose our modern view on things.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Philj
All this talk about inflation and fiscal policy seems anachronistic to me. Did rulers have fiscal policies or did they just try to get as much out of the ruled as possible?

I agree. The entire concept of wage and price inflation was unknown, as were the means to fight them. At most, there was some control over coinage as the debasement of that currency (which would be nifty to see included), but that's about it.

 

[unmerged(2036)]

diminishing returns

A bit off- topic (but still related):

I must admit that it has been a while since I read the CK-faq,
so I hope this the following isn't irrelevant, but here goes:

If the montly budget works like in EU, i.e. distibuting your montly income to
research, stability and hard currency,
it should intoduce diminishing returns (IMHO), so for instance if you in one month
want all your income to coin, you real output would be 80% , if half your income
goes to tresury, the real treasury increase would be 48% of montly income, etc.
(or some such percentages).
I believe that this would be somewhat realistic
(the general idea, not the percantages, playtest that ),
since a lot of the economy was based on goods, and as such ,
would make it near impossible to liquidify (or whatever the UK word is) the entire income.

Diminishing returns could (should ) also apply to research
(if CK is including this), but for slightly different reasons.(You figure that out )

Stab allocation might have returns to scale.

Just my 3 cents, feel free to verbally abuse me

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Personally,I'd like to see the idea of "research" scrapped completely. While there was some technological advancement during this time period, it wasn't because the King was financing it.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
Personally,I'd like to see the idea of "research" scrapped completely. While there was some technological advancement during this time period, it wasn't because the King was financing it.

Yep, i second that.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

And I third it.