Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Citino said:
Yeah, it should have.

They likely assumed the King was doing this partly to fund some ventures, but also as a political bribe to the lower nobility to support some of his future policies. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the lower nobility were strongly in favor of the bank at first because they thought it was a handout to them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There was a distinct issue with this being the first banking/moneylending institution where the interest on the loans was regularly under 10% per annum and thus some nobles sort of lost their mind. The deals were so good and it was all backed by the king, who everyone knew was always good for it. It's just that when making inter-noble loans before they were based on lots of personal relationships and a lot of people could skate by on "Come on man, give me a bit more time, you know I'm good for it, and what would your sister say if she knew you wanted to shake me down?" And often they would eventually be good for it, one way or another (showing up with military aid in a pinch was a great way for low stewardship nobles to clear their debts to their more fiscally prudent but less militarily capable friends and neighbours), but the Crown Bank was structured to scrupulously follow the contracts to the letter, including repayment schedules and collateral seizure clauses. None of the nobles had ever dealt with someone who could seize their property if they failed to pay on time and could back the threat up.

These were basically CK2 players who pulled the Jewish moneylender + expel Jews trick only for one day pressing the 'Expel Jews' button result in you declaring a revolt against your king.
 
Paternalistic Stewardship is an integral part of the Ymaryn culture.

Plus the Gylruv commoners are badly educated, with little to no economic means to better themselves. Nor do they have the drive or the necessary collateral to take out loans from the Crown Bank, meaning they're gonna be targeted by loan sharks every time the harvest isn't good. Humanism is a terrible idea here.
 
Stewardship seems like a bad idea to me. Too open to corruption. Absolutism is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
[X] Humanism

I can see the shadows of death over Absolutism and Stewardship, albeit for different reasons. The hit to our profitability sucks but IMO it's still worth it to prevent power from accumulating in too few hands.

I don't want anymore x10 weighted votes, and both of them feel like they could lead to more, after a few turns.
 
Reminder to everyone that this choice is going to more broadly influence our governing philosophy going forward. If we're just making the choice for how to run the bank, Stewardship looks pretty appealing, but...do we really want to hop right back on the "silly barbaroi, Ymaryn knows best" train again at the first opportunity? 'cause that really fucked us over last time. People going on about how it's "traditional Ymaryn culture" are missing the fact that it is the specific element of said culture that caused our collapse in the first place.
 
Wiadi said:
Reminder to everyone that this choice is going to more broadly influence our governing philosophy going forward. If we're just making the choice for how to run the bank, Stewardship looks pretty appealing, but...do we really want to hop right back on the "silly barbaroi, Ymaryn knows best" train again at the first opportunity? 'cause that really fucked us over last time. People going on about how it's "traditional Ymaryn culture" are missing the fact that it is the specific element of said culture that caused our collapse in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And humanism will probably lead to even worse corruption, because who and how will decide whose debts are going to be forgiven and whose not?

Humanism is not an objective "good" option here.
 
tenchifew said:
And humanism will probably lead to even worse corruption, because who and how will decide whose debts are going to be forgiven and whose not?

Humanism is not an objective "good" option here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not saying it is. My argument is based on practical grounds, not moral ones. Ordinary corruption we can handle - and, indeed, we're already having to do so; adding more to the pile isn't ideal but it also isn't unmanageable. A sense of smug, paternalistic superiority is much harder to combat. It works out well in the short term, because our methods are often better, but before you know it the Chinese are inventing a funny little toy for colorful celebrations and then Genghis Khan is using it to blow up your cities.
 
[X] Humanism

Okay, there are two reasons to do it this way:

1. Political. As per WoAN, if I parsed it right, accumulation of land under such control of Ymaryn king would be a kind of hit to relations with Gylruv that would prevent the merger. We want to keep them happy while we devour them.
2. Natural rights are a cool idea; and imagine other countries reacting to this idea - our education is top-tier, so when we start blathering about "natural rights", intelligentsia and nobility of other countries will pay attention. And other countries are less prepared to face bunches of people talking about humanism and human rights wrt banking then we are.
 
Wiadi said:
I'm not saying it is. My argument is based on practical grounds, not moral ones. Ordinary corruption we can handle - and, indeed, we're already having to do so; adding more to the pile isn't ideal but it also isn't unmanageable. A sense of smug, paternalistic superiority is much harder to combat. It works out well in the short term, because our methods are often better, but before you know it the Chinese are inventing a funny little toy for colorful celebrations and then Genghis Khan is using it to blow up your cities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And us outright going bankrupt or sinking in corruption would make it irrelevant.
Besides, we are talking about one particular problem here, not something that was able to develop over a millennium.
 
tenchifew said:
And us outright going bankrupt or sinking in corruption would make it irrelevant.
Besides, we are talking about one particular problem here, not something that was able to develop over a millennium.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Again, a problem:
Academia Nut said:
The Ymaryn king was always financially better off, but the accumulation land under direct control was often how "true wealth" was measured, and the Gylruv Patriarch had larger Crown Lands, even if they were often not as rich. The rapid accumulation of new Crown Lands in territory the Patriarch might consider under his control and not his "subordinates" is the sort of prestige hit that might disrupt the slow but inevitable merger of the kingdoms under Ymaryn terms.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is more of an argument against Absolutism - Absolutism risks blowing up our diploannexation of Gylruv!
But I would assume that the lesser version of this issue, the dissatisfaction of nobility decreasing our relations with Gylruv, would be a thing with Stewardship too.
 
tenchifew said:
And us outright going bankrupt or sinking in corruption would make it irrelevant.
Besides, we are talking about one particular problem here, not something that was able to develop over a millennium.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Again: if this vote was just about the bank, I'd see Stewardship as more appealing. That's not the case, though. There's a reason AN couched the decision in terms of the relevant philosophies. AN has also repeatedly noted a paternalistic attitude as a meaningful drawback of the Stewardship option; it won't necessarily get us all the way to Ye Olde Maximum Isolationism all at once, but it is a meaningful step along that path, one which I would prefer not to take.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top