| Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 03:39 am |
if you attack my country it will cost you over 14T in weapons. my country has over 30T in cash. if you take my country you get nothing but a C3 with 50m population. it will take you several weeks to even employ the population. atleast another month to upgrade them and accually make a profit. tell me how long it would take you to make back the 14T in weapons you just spent to take my country. dont forget to add war damage and extremely high SS costs and other index costs per month.
I make 2T in profit every simcountry year (much of which is reinvested in my military.) I make 6T in income. Not. That. Long. Furthermore, you're pulling these numbers out of your ass. Income generation is much more important than cash assets. You forget also that 50m population can be used to support another large military.
because it is a limited comoditiy, like a resource.
So, loans are resources too? And stock? Goods and services? The price of those is determined by demand and supply too. That doesn't make them resources. The only way a good or service is a resource is if it is used in the production of something else.
Resources are that which is used to produce a good or service. That is all. Money doesn't qualify unless, like I said, you're making papier mache. And destroying money is a federal crime in the United States.
the rest of what you said is easily refered to as GNP (gross national product). you took the long way of explaining what I JUST SAID.
lmao... interest rates are not a component of GDP. Neither are open-market operations. Price-level is related to GDP but only as a measure of inflation. Most economists use real GDP which factors out changes in price-level.
GDP measures the final value of goods and services produced by the nation in the year, and that is it.
yup, that explains how money is a resource. I can't produce or steal anything, but if I simply had money I could eat.
That isn't the only condition you'd need to meet. Money is not used to produce. What it is used for is the exchange of inputs, goods, and services. Other people use resources (land, labor, capital) to make food. What you are doing is buying it. Not the same thing. If the only "resource" we had in this world was money, nothing would ever get produced.
meaning that if you take the country over, the only thing that could possibly represent limited natural resources is the cash assets (in SC). if the cash assets are removed from your country after I conqure it, your country becomes the same as a C3. tell me why I would ever want to attack you? all I would be doing is spending trillions of dollars in weapons on a country that is no differant than a c3 in the end. money that would be better spent attacking a c3, buy some GCs, and buy population for the C3.
LABOR. LABOR. LABOR.
Population is a valuable thing... I don't know why you don't understand that. But if my military is stronger than a C3's, you're right. I'm not as an appealing target. I shouldn't be. If the wealth of a country was determined solely by its natural resources Africa would control the world. But it doesn't. Which is why "natural resources" and their lack of representation in this game doesn't really figure in. (I would prefer it if there was land/natural resource scarcity, but that isn't what we're talking about.) There is a reason to go to war in Simcountry. It just happens that the weak are preyed upon first... just like in history. (Colonialism, anyone?)
So your real gripe is that it wouldn't have been profitable for the United States to engage in war with the Soviet Union... but that it still would have been profitable to take Samoa or the Phillipines.