10ebbor10
DON'T PANIC
- Location
- Present
Seems like a good time for a world war.
Paths of Civilization
- Thread starter Academia Nut
- Start date
- Original
Seems like a good time for a world war.
We are russia. We just tempt them into attacking north and let mother russia and father winter send them to their afterlife.
- Location
- BaWü
I think we need to wait for the industrial revolution for one, otherwise we can't really war around the world.
I am not sure why you think it's a good time for a world war.
We're trying to establish a three empire anti-western economic alliance with the Khemetri and the Black Sheep, and none of us want to fight when we benefit so much from trading with each other.
China is too far away to fight anybody. The only reason why they might fight is to protect their Korean vassals from the Japanese.
What might be troublesome is if the Europeans decide to unite and gain up on us, leading to a costly and unnecessary war.
Global wars did happen, such as the Seven Years war between the French and the British, but given that the Europeans are opposed pretty much everywhere they go, it pretty much can't happen because of regional great powers.
Last edited:
Lightning Round XIV
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Ymaryn Crown Bank (1x)
The idea of developing a company specifically to help develop the Khemetri infrastructure in a profitably manner for everyone's benefit was strongly considered, but looking at the Syffrynite companies and making a few pointed questions, it rapidly became obvious that setting up a trade company might require subsidizing it for an uncomfortably long time or uncomfortably large amounts. Far better, it was decided, to rework the banking infrastructure so that the wealthy among the People would develop such things on their own, without requiring input from the Crown directly. More than that, it was also considered that this could be a good way to address numerous tax issues. Stealing a collection of ideas from the Halvyni and Sketch and Kielmyr, the architects of the banking plan worked out the right amount of growth to offer to attract in those interested in depositing their money with the bank while not also potentially saddling the bank with unsustainable debts. The secondary effect, other than giving the Crown a large amount of cash to work with, was that boyars and princes who had been hiding their wealth before would now tell the government how much they had, and might even throw a fit if their money was tracked improperly. There was a small tax on money gained from investment, but it was distinctly lower than the interest earned.
It was clever and sophisticated and adroitly avoided the pitfalls that had already tripped up Syffrynite crowns and traders before.
As such, when it went weird everyone was left scratching their heads.
Scandal and bad reputation plagued the Crown Bank within the first few years, rumours of impropriety and predatory lending bouncing about like sparks on the floor of a poorly maintained powder magazine. At the highest levels none of these rumours made sense though, the bank remained in good state and those in charge of organizing the loans and investments were specifically recruited from the most staid, conservative, and unadventurous accountants the Crown could find. They had written accounts of Syffrynites being complete idiots with their banks and had taken every measure to avoid that!
Eventually though the investigations revealed what was going on, and the disconnect between reality for both those within the bank and without. Fundamentally, a large number of nobles had a really screwy idea about what the bank actually did, and quite a few had taken out loans using their properties as collateral, saying that they intended to use them for prudent development of lands or businesses, only to take the money were given and sometimes quite literally gambled it away. They were then surprised when, not only could they not take out another loan using their local reputation or access to troops to extract more coin from the "moneylender", but no, their ancestral lands were being stripped from them and the bank had the King's army backing them if the nobles decided that they wanted to make an issue of it. While the Ymaryn king or Gylruv Patriarch made a few personal nullifications, in general the bank won out, which engendered a huge amount of resentment from the nobility and those who listened to them. The Gylruv lower nobility was hit particularly hard by the Ymaryn Crown Bank in this manner.
The Ymaryn king also discovered to some discomfort that through the Crown Bank he was fast becoming the largest landowner in Gylruv, no doubt soon to eclipse the Patriarch if it kept up. The Ymaryn Crown also owned a considerably amount of land in other kingdoms, based off of the prudent merchants and nobility telling their imprudent counterparts that the Ymaryn were the best bank to go to if you needed large amount of money for an investment. While this land was often sold off as quickly as it could if it started to become a political hot potato, this was causing the concentration of land and wealth into a smaller and smaller pool of people. While in some ways useful, there were many rankled under this, and the anger threatened to boil over and wreck the bank's ability to do anything because no one trusted them. Worse yet, as demonstrated when one of the Lesser Princes of Gylruv had a company go bad, it was found that it was politically and practically impossible to actually collect the loan because he had enough powerful friends to get it nullified by the Patriarch - plus he actually had enough troops loyal to him that pushing the issue might result in a shooting match the bank couldn't win. Kings were always a fertile market for issuing loans, but were rather hard to collect on, and the bank was inadvertently making kings.
Then again, there was some musing that maybe that wasn't such a bad idea. The bank was under no obligation to issue loans to kings other than their own, and having a smaller number of nobles would simplify international relations and weed out the stupid ones that didn't deserve their belongings, long term improving the intelligence of investors and debtors the People would have to deal with. There were however others who suggested that perhaps simply donating some of the land back to the regions they were taken from instead of selling or working it themselves would promote a certain degree of goodwill that would restore faith in the bank. Finally there was a suggestion of reducing the penalties of those who defaulted on their loans, to instead of irreversibly seizing property held as collateral the bank instead of assume stewardship of the finances of their debtors, to ensure the money was repaid as best as possible while still not causing the anger of the forfeiture of ancestral properties.
All of this was of course mixed up in the philosophical and rhetorical battles about the Nature of Man and the Responsibilities of Leadership. Those pushing the philosophical position of absolutism were of course most in favour of continuing current activities, that those who lost their property in the scrupulously fair arrangements of the bank obviously did not deserve in the first place, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the upper nobility made rule more efficient and absolute. Meanwhile the more humanistic philosophers called for the restoration of 'Natural Order' via the redistribution of seized land, to reduce the suffering of those who were stripped of property or displaced by the consolidation of territory making their activities superfluous. Both the absolutists and the humanists were annoyed by the stewardship position, for being impractical and patronizing, respectively.
Either way, politically something had to be decided upon, because either this was a problem to be fixed or a problem to be endured, and not deciding which it was would killing the bank despite its own success.
Choose a philosophy
[] Absolutism
[] Humanism
[] Stewardship
The idea of developing a company specifically to help develop the Khemetri infrastructure in a profitably manner for everyone's benefit was strongly considered, but looking at the Syffrynite companies and making a few pointed questions, it rapidly became obvious that setting up a trade company might require subsidizing it for an uncomfortably long time or uncomfortably large amounts. Far better, it was decided, to rework the banking infrastructure so that the wealthy among the People would develop such things on their own, without requiring input from the Crown directly. More than that, it was also considered that this could be a good way to address numerous tax issues. Stealing a collection of ideas from the Halvyni and Sketch and Kielmyr, the architects of the banking plan worked out the right amount of growth to offer to attract in those interested in depositing their money with the bank while not also potentially saddling the bank with unsustainable debts. The secondary effect, other than giving the Crown a large amount of cash to work with, was that boyars and princes who had been hiding their wealth before would now tell the government how much they had, and might even throw a fit if their money was tracked improperly. There was a small tax on money gained from investment, but it was distinctly lower than the interest earned.
It was clever and sophisticated and adroitly avoided the pitfalls that had already tripped up Syffrynite crowns and traders before.
As such, when it went weird everyone was left scratching their heads.
Scandal and bad reputation plagued the Crown Bank within the first few years, rumours of impropriety and predatory lending bouncing about like sparks on the floor of a poorly maintained powder magazine. At the highest levels none of these rumours made sense though, the bank remained in good state and those in charge of organizing the loans and investments were specifically recruited from the most staid, conservative, and unadventurous accountants the Crown could find. They had written accounts of Syffrynites being complete idiots with their banks and had taken every measure to avoid that!
Eventually though the investigations revealed what was going on, and the disconnect between reality for both those within the bank and without. Fundamentally, a large number of nobles had a really screwy idea about what the bank actually did, and quite a few had taken out loans using their properties as collateral, saying that they intended to use them for prudent development of lands or businesses, only to take the money were given and sometimes quite literally gambled it away. They were then surprised when, not only could they not take out another loan using their local reputation or access to troops to extract more coin from the "moneylender", but no, their ancestral lands were being stripped from them and the bank had the King's army backing them if the nobles decided that they wanted to make an issue of it. While the Ymaryn king or Gylruv Patriarch made a few personal nullifications, in general the bank won out, which engendered a huge amount of resentment from the nobility and those who listened to them. The Gylruv lower nobility was hit particularly hard by the Ymaryn Crown Bank in this manner.
The Ymaryn king also discovered to some discomfort that through the Crown Bank he was fast becoming the largest landowner in Gylruv, no doubt soon to eclipse the Patriarch if it kept up. The Ymaryn Crown also owned a considerably amount of land in other kingdoms, based off of the prudent merchants and nobility telling their imprudent counterparts that the Ymaryn were the best bank to go to if you needed large amount of money for an investment. While this land was often sold off as quickly as it could if it started to become a political hot potato, this was causing the concentration of land and wealth into a smaller and smaller pool of people. While in some ways useful, there were many rankled under this, and the anger threatened to boil over and wreck the bank's ability to do anything because no one trusted them. Worse yet, as demonstrated when one of the Lesser Princes of Gylruv had a company go bad, it was found that it was politically and practically impossible to actually collect the loan because he had enough powerful friends to get it nullified by the Patriarch - plus he actually had enough troops loyal to him that pushing the issue might result in a shooting match the bank couldn't win. Kings were always a fertile market for issuing loans, but were rather hard to collect on, and the bank was inadvertently making kings.
Then again, there was some musing that maybe that wasn't such a bad idea. The bank was under no obligation to issue loans to kings other than their own, and having a smaller number of nobles would simplify international relations and weed out the stupid ones that didn't deserve their belongings, long term improving the intelligence of investors and debtors the People would have to deal with. There were however others who suggested that perhaps simply donating some of the land back to the regions they were taken from instead of selling or working it themselves would promote a certain degree of goodwill that would restore faith in the bank. Finally there was a suggestion of reducing the penalties of those who defaulted on their loans, to instead of irreversibly seizing property held as collateral the bank instead of assume stewardship of the finances of their debtors, to ensure the money was repaid as best as possible while still not causing the anger of the forfeiture of ancestral properties.
All of this was of course mixed up in the philosophical and rhetorical battles about the Nature of Man and the Responsibilities of Leadership. Those pushing the philosophical position of absolutism were of course most in favour of continuing current activities, that those who lost their property in the scrupulously fair arrangements of the bank obviously did not deserve in the first place, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the upper nobility made rule more efficient and absolute. Meanwhile the more humanistic philosophers called for the restoration of 'Natural Order' via the redistribution of seized land, to reduce the suffering of those who were stripped of property or displaced by the consolidation of territory making their activities superfluous. Both the absolutists and the humanists were annoyed by the stewardship position, for being impractical and patronizing, respectively.
Either way, politically something had to be decided upon, because either this was a problem to be fixed or a problem to be endured, and not deciding which it was would killing the bank despite its own success.
Choose a philosophy
[] Absolutism
[] Humanism
[] Stewardship
That is absolutly hilarious. 10/10, would found a national bank again.
As for the vote, damn if I know. Part of me wants to go absolutism to say "The word of the bank is absolute and incorruptible." And I like the idea of the sort of power projection we have as mass land owners in other states.
Humanist seems like a way to make an unprpfitable bank. Stewardship seems ok.
I don't know though. I am going to have to see more reasoning before I vote.
As for the vote, damn if I know. Part of me wants to go absolutism to say "The word of the bank is absolute and incorruptible." And I like the idea of the sort of power projection we have as mass land owners in other states.
Humanist seems like a way to make an unprpfitable bank. Stewardship seems ok.
I don't know though. I am going to have to see more reasoning before I vote.
Last edited:
Doomed Wombat
Let's go Darling!
- Location
- Dancing on wires!
[X] Humanism
The Sandman
So Zetta Slowpoke
- Location
- Wherever I am, which isn't where I'm not
[X] Stewardship
Annoying everyone by taking the apparently impractical option has been the Ymaryn way for thousands of years, and now is no time to buck tradition.
Annoying everyone by taking the apparently impractical option has been the Ymaryn way for thousands of years, and now is no time to buck tradition.
- Location
- United States
So, going to try and make sense of these options
[] Absolutism
A reduction of the lower nobility, with Kings and higher Nobility owning almost all the power. Makes things more efficient, but also greatly increases social stratification and can cause the same issues we faced before of a few of the nobility overriding the will of the rest of the People (aka welcome back super high weighted votes)
[] Humanism
Creation of a form of natural rights? At least for the nobility, creates more goodwill with the bank, but also gives less profit as some loans must be defaulted. Allows for the bank to continue on with less complaints, but makes it less effective at generating wealth.
[] Stewardship
The bank keeps the land until the person they seized it from (or their family) is able to buy it back? Seems like it would be either a waste of resources (if the bank does nothing with the land) or defacto the bank having land of its own (which would lead to a megacorp/King's Land?) Not entirely sure about this one.
Does this seem about right @Academia Nut ?
[] Absolutism
A reduction of the lower nobility, with Kings and higher Nobility owning almost all the power. Makes things more efficient, but also greatly increases social stratification and can cause the same issues we faced before of a few of the nobility overriding the will of the rest of the People (aka welcome back super high weighted votes)
[] Humanism
Creation of a form of natural rights? At least for the nobility, creates more goodwill with the bank, but also gives less profit as some loans must be defaulted. Allows for the bank to continue on with less complaints, but makes it less effective at generating wealth.
[] Stewardship
The bank keeps the land until the person they seized it from (or their family) is able to buy it back? Seems like it would be either a waste of resources (if the bank does nothing with the land) or defacto the bank having land of its own (which would lead to a megacorp/King's Land?) Not entirely sure about this one.
Does this seem about right @Academia Nut ?
[X] Stewardship
Part of me wants to suggest a fourth option. Some sort of cross between stewerd and humanitarian. Give the property to someone who will make use of it better and isn't of means. Create a steady crop of new lower nobility and merchants from those without means but show promise. Cull the stupid and corrupt and replace them with new idealistic hopefuls.
I can't think of what to call it.
I can't think of what to call it.
- Location
- United States
[X] Absolutism
[X] Stewardship
Humanism is a plain bad choice since it'll make the bank unprofitable, potentially ruining the Ymaryn. Stewardship is not a bad choice but is rather impractical. And frankly I do not care if a few nobles get ruined.
[X] Stewardship
Humanism is a plain bad choice since it'll make the bank unprofitable, potentially ruining the Ymaryn. Stewardship is not a bad choice but is rather impractical. And frankly I do not care if a few nobles get ruined.
Last edited:
- Location
- Hell
Yeah, I really hope we see some more talking before the votes keep coming because, I am still uncertain what everything means, and I doubt I am the only one.
Either way, gut feeling is that one of these leads back to communal property AKA everything is owned by the King.
Either way, gut feeling is that one of these leads back to communal property AKA everything is owned by the King.
Wiadi
Uncompromising Radical Leftist
- Location
- Something Clever
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[X] Humanism
Okay, leaving aside moral considerations, Absolutism is just not a good idea. Do you want popular revolutions? 'cause this is how you get popular revolutions.
So the real question is between Humanism & Stewardship. On the one hand, Stewardship seems reasonable - if people fuck something up, show them how to fix it (on their dime) rather than just letting them get off with no consequences. On the other hand, "the Ymaryn know best, outsiders will be shown the Correct Ways under our firm guiding hand, for their own good of course" is a dangerous road to walk, and we've seen how that sort of thinking can backfire firsthand. So, while I'm amenable to arguments to the contrary, my initial inclination is for Humanism.
Okay, leaving aside moral considerations, Absolutism is just not a good idea. Do you want popular revolutions? 'cause this is how you get popular revolutions.
So the real question is between Humanism & Stewardship. On the one hand, Stewardship seems reasonable - if people fuck something up, show them how to fix it (on their dime) rather than just letting them get off with no consequences. On the other hand, "the Ymaryn know best, outsiders will be shown the Correct Ways under our firm guiding hand, for their own good of course" is a dangerous road to walk, and we've seen how that sort of thinking can backfire firsthand. So, while I'm amenable to arguments to the contrary, my initial inclination is for Humanism.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The other two are pretty much right, but the idea behind this one is that the bank can basically take control of your finances to garner your wages until you pay them back, avoiding the complete stripping of property at the cost of major social inconvenience. It allows for the development of natural rights (to some degree stronger than the humanist position) but is somewhat more profitable that just allowing defaults or handing it off to unrelated third parties, while also being paternalistic as fuck.
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
[X] Absolutism
