hdrider67 said:
AKAramis said:
The most common reaction is quite an overreaction. Most people "correct" this by making the listed price per parsec. And, while this DOES fix the economics of the A2... it makes the A2 more profitable on freight than the A1.
Shouldn't it be? I pay much higher rates when I express a shipment than when I send it ground. A more efficient ship may pull in fewer tons (certainly it won't be carting bulk foodstuffs) but the per ton rate should go up on raster runs.
Given the median differentials under Bk2, no goods should be shipping more than a few parsecs anyway except luxuries, and, given that the rough expenses justify no more than Cr1700/ton for J2, the price should fall to that point, as it allows a profit, and is the lowest the new ship market can bear; but further, the prices should be below that, since, once paid off, a ship can make a profit at Cr1000/ton once paid off. Exactly where is dependent upon several factors... factors including what percentage of lifespan is spent under repayment. It is implied strongly that average lifespan of a ship is at least double the repayment period. Possibly as much as 400% of the repayment period (which, repayment being 40 years, implies a range of 80 to 160 years for a ship; we have canon designs still in service 70 years later as warships...)
Another factor is the nature of crew motivation. Crews motivated to pay off quickly don't want to carry freight in any case where they can carry speculative cargoes anyway.
Yet another factor in where that break even point is is the percentage of demand-based shipping, that is, how much of shipping is stuff already paid for (or even promised to be paid for) by the end user before shipping. This is the most hotly debated one, and the only model for which this is true is pre-modern. Modern "long distance" shipping (post 1900 transoceanic) is almost exclusively consumer driven, that is, stuff is ordered, paid for, and then shipped. The 1865 transatlantic telegraph (and the similar timeframe, the 1850 cable across the British Channel) introduced real-time communications which eneabled demand dominant oceanic shipping internationally. Purchaasers could send a message, recieve a reply in under 2 days, and then wire the payment... as opposed to the pre-telegraph mode of send an inquiry missive, await a reply, send money, await goods, at about 3 weeks each by post; in that paradigm, most goods moved by speculation on either the shipper or an intermediary merchant's part.
Note that, today, almost all shipping is demand based: you find out if it is available, and order it if it is, and then it ships within hours or a couple days. The promise to pay, and often the actual payment to the seller, is done before shipping.
In the pre-1850's model, much shipping was shipped without a buyer known before loading, on the basis that most cargoes would sell above cost. Note that, with reliable communications, most of the well established triangle routes collapsed or went to pure freight modes; the buyers owned the cargo before it hit the docks, whereas ships, patrons, or lines owned much of the bulk shipping prior. At no point has either model completely stopped, as, for example, fuel oil is often shipped speculatively within Alaska via river tanker (the tanker operator buys the oil, tansports it, with some known demand, and some surplus, and sells for a markup based upon both distance and surplus ratio).
Note that the best detailed treatment of trade for the Traveller universe is completely based in demand-driven models: GTFT. The claim is made that a two week decision model with additional two weeks for delivery will not affect the demand based model; we have no comparable lag time in history with motorized shipping. (Atlantic shipping was 2-3 weeks each way at the time communications dropped to under 3 days round trip...)
We do know from history that the nature of shipping did change with the advent of rapid commo. The more rapid the commo, the more demand shipping.
Note that from the shipper's point of view, it matters not who owns freight; if it isn't the crew nor the owner of the vessel, it's freight. If the ship, its crew, or the owner of the ship own the cargo, its speculation
or it is internal use (which is much the same), and the question is "Is it worth it to us to ship this?"
If most shipping is speculation, then the price for freight will be far closer to that of break even when paid off, since it's make-weight rather than paying the bills. If, however, most is freight, then most will be shipped nearer the costs for a ship under mortgage rather than for a paid-off ship.
Further, another issue is the perception of shippers versus speculators. In a culture that values risk-taking, speculation will be seen as noble, and freight may be seen as the refuge of the incompetent, lazy, or semi-retired. If, instead, the culture is focussed on stable runs and conformity, speculators may be seen as desperate or even crazy...
The cargo model itself is also a key element. Under Bk7, there is seldom incentive to move anything more than J4; you can't often improve your profit above that distance by finding better odds; this is due to the flat rate pricing used: all goods buy for KCr4 and sell for KCr5, both adjusted up for TL, and in both cases randomized around that baseline. In Bk2 (and T20), that core pre-randomization value is a variable, ranging from a low of Cr300 to a high of MCr10 per ton; Anything under KCr5 pretty much ships "space available" or by demand, since the randomization range makes it less likely to be worth more than the value of the space for freight. At KCr5, with a nominal +2 modifier (due to a broker at a C port), the average differential is 20%, or about Cr1000 per ton... which, by the way, is the modal value for speculative cargos. Above KCr5, spculation with an expected +2 begins to exceed freight value.
The implication is that, under a "Bk 7 Universe" goods ship only locally, and that bulk cargoes are pretty faceless, and worth only about as much as freight.
The contrasting implication is that a good worth MCr10/ton is able to be shipped with an expected +2 differential for literally thousands of parsecs (which is, BTW, a rare result), but that many cargoes are worth carrying for up to a dozen parsecs to find a worthwhile point to sell it off.
The nature of the speculation rules implies a lot even if it doesn't provide a valid model of the economy itself (tho the gents behing GTFT disagree with that assessment). Plain and simple: Neither Bk2 nor Bk 7 tell us how much trade goes on in the imperium, but can tell us how far it is likely to go.
GTFT is a whole cloth different beastie; it starts with a world economic model and then derives down to how much is left to be shipped by the little guys, presumes massive fleets carrying huge volumes, and subsector-wide economies with the main worlds providing almost all the manufactured goods for the outliers in exchange for their local novelties and their raw materials. The maths involved reject a small ship universe, based upon their assumptions at start, and use of modern global economics as a valid model. (I don't think it is a valid model, due to jump drive, but if it is, then they are right.)
So the real question becomes: What kind of speculation system is going to appear, and what are its implications?
Until that hits a draft, we can have no real clue as to the viability of J1 nor J2 freighter designs, nor even where the J2 price should be.
