Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Message originally posted by Fizz on 01-20-2007 at 02:15 AM:

    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    Don't you even read your own sources?
    Don't you read my posts?

    Do you realize you're arguing something that i've never disagreed with? Not once have i ever said that mercantilism equals capitalism. In fact i've previously agreed with you that they are different. All i ever said was that mercantilism was an early form of capitalism. That does not mean mercantilism = capitalism.

    The medieval game called Rounders was/is an early form of Baseball. But that doesn't mean Rounders = Baseball.

    Yes, they are different. One evolved from the other. Related, but not the same.

    Your source is fine. It goes towards showing my point, actually. The marxist perspective can't even see the difference between the two, ergo, they are the same thing. But i'm not a marxist (and afaik, no one in Cerilia is). So we look at the liberal viewpoint, which can see the differences. It never states that capitalism and mercantilism are unrelated- it simply disseminates the two in ways that the marxist perspective can't.

    But wait! if capitalism and mercantilism are the same thing,
    As before- i never said they were the same thing.

    I asked if you had sources that state that mercantilism and capitalism are not related. This source, while interesting reading, does not do that. Nor does it refute that one evolved from the other.


    Now consider this:

    From the BRCS:
    "The Brecht believe in free enterprise, and Brecht society revolves around wealth. The nobility is weak in Brechtür, and several states have declared themselves republics. The Brecht have a fierce love of independence and a tradition of selfreliance; they don't wait for their lordlings or rulers to solve problems for them. Commerce and trade are expressions of this belief, and Brecht commoners owe their first loyalty to guilds and companies."

    Now compare to your source, Osterfeld:
    "... between what is commonly referred to as capitalism, or a system of free trade, and mercantilism, or a system in which the operation of the market is impeded by extensive government restrictions for the benefit of the ruling group ...

    and your original wiki source:
    "Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy"

    The Brechts are not impeded by the ruling group. They owe loyalty to their companies, not their sovereign. Highly independent, and out to make a buck for themselves, not their nation.

    So after re-reading the BRCS, it's clear that the Brechts are capitalists, not mercantilists. Your own sources support this.


    -Fizz

  2. #12
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Message originally posted by kgauck on 01-20-2007 at 06:16 PM:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    So after re-reading the BRCS, it's clear that the Brechts are capitalists, not mercantilists. Your own sources support this.
    I agree that the sources describe the Brechts as Capitalists. That's part of the cartoonish descriptions of the social orders that should be purged (and condemned) in 2e as part of the 3e update. It was this reason that I originally objected to the word being used.

    Of those things that are transfered between peoples, ideas, tools, and techniques, ideas move the fastest. The Brechts could not have a modern economics while right next to them people are still in the middle ages or earlier. No part of the game gives us a plausible explanation for why this would be so.

    Not once have i ever said that mercantilism equals capitalism. In fact i've previously agreed with you that they are different. All i ever said was that mercantilism was an early form of capitalism.
    I know this. I object strenuously to claims that mercantilism is an early form of capitalism. Capitalism is an entirely different cluster of ideas that shares almost nothing with mercantilism. Both are doctrines that involve trade, but that's about all they share in common. The sources that falsely identify mercantilism as an early form of capitalism are operating under the delusion of Marxist analysis. Mercantilism involves protectionist state action, support for monopolies, elites who control trade to benefit themselves, and other aspects of central planning. Mercantilism has more in common with the economic systems of fascist societies (if one wants a modern decendent of mercantilism) where property is privatly owned, but the state and leading elites control trade and economic activity for directed goals.

    Mercantilism is not an early form of capitalism, they are polar opposites.

    Second, since capitalism is about individual economic autonomy, and the quotes about Brecht society also include democratic descriptions, hence individual political autonomy, what exactly are the elites doing? Guilders, province holders, law holdings, high priests? These people have no power where people have real economic and political autonomy. That have more resources to buy and sell goods and services, but they lack the natural power found in organic societies. Where a Viking chief might have the loyalty of his people who believe he is their natural leader, selected by fate, the gods, or the order of the world, a fully autonomous person selects their own leaders. People get power by being desired as leaders, not because they have bloodlines, heritage, upbringing, or traditional influence.

    The game's very mechanics suggest that the radical individualism of modern, liberal societies is entirely out of place in BR, where, I will remind you, there is a Birth Right to rule, based on bloodlines. The mechanisms of regency are a measurable indication of the the continuing and storable nature of control. Autonomous individuals are fickle, and the public mind shifts swiftly. Those on top today won't be on top tomorrow, and the number of people who might claim to be on top will be numerous, more akin to People magazine than the Bayeux Tapestry.

  3. #13
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Message originally posted by Fizz on 01-20-2007 at 09:49 PM:

    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    Of those things that are transfered between peoples, ideas, tools, and techniques, ideas move the fastest. The Brechts could not have a modern economics while right next to them people are still in the middle ages or earlier. No part of the game gives us a plausible explanation for why this would be so.
    Well, then you shouldn't be favoring mercantilism either. Historically, the economic rationale for mercantilism resulted from nation-states trying to outdo each other, and the spread of colonization. But there is not this same kind of conflict amongst the Brechts, nor is there any significant (if any) colonization.

    Also, i think there are plenty of plausible explanations. Brechtur is very isolated from the rest of Cerilia due to the mountains that surround the Krakennauricht, so the only steady contact is through trading ships. There is no regular contamination of cultures. Plus, the Rjurik are concentrated on the western edge of Cerilia, hundreds of miles away from the Brechts. Meanwhile, the Vos, even if they did have steady contact with the Brechts, would consider trade an ignoble pursuit.

    Besides, there are plenty of examples in the recent real world (last 100 years) of bordering nations with vastly different economic systems. West and East Germany, Japan and China, North and South Korea.

    Mercantilism involves protectionist state action, support for monopolies, elites who control trade to benefit themselves, and other aspects of central planning.
    I agree, they look very difference from the perspective of who has control of the economy. And that is clearly your viewpoint. But what you previously dismissed as merely `trading by animals', is better described as a system of goods and services belonging to non-state entities on an international or global scale. The trade goods themselves still belong to the individuals in either system. Merchants in either system want a positive balance of trade in their favor.

    In a loose sense, mercantilism is capitalism with massive governmental interference. Many (most?) capitalist nations nowadays have mercantilist policies (aka protectionism) in place under the premise of safeguarding their people or economy. That you can put such policies into place indicates that they're not polar opposites in so far as their implementation goes.

    The game's very mechanics suggest that the radical individualism of modern, liberal societies is entirely out of place in BR, where, I will remind you, there is a Birth Right to rule, based on bloodlines. The mechanisms of regency are a measurable indication of the the continuing and storable nature of control. Autonomous individuals are fickle, and the public mind shifts swiftly. Those on top today won't be on top tomorrow, and the number of people who might claim to be on top will be numerous, more akin to People magazine than the Bayeux Tapestry.
    But there is a fundamental difference between political leaders and economic leaders. Many realms in Cerilia are chaotic, even outside of Brechtur. For example, Mhoried. The Mhor has only a few laws that amount to `don't do anything that hurts someone else'. This is a very free nation. The Mhor is still the leader by his Birth Right, but he chooses to let his people to live in freedom with little interference from him. A free society does not necessarily require a democratic government.

    So why can this not also be so in Brechtur? The nobles there rule as others do in the rest of Cerilia. What they don't do (generally speaking anyways), is interfere with the free market. In game terms they wouldn't often use domain actions that impact guild holdings. Meanwhile, the guilds go about their business, making money. Perhaps the Brecht regents simply realize that the best money is made in taxes by letting the guilds do what they do best- make money.

    Now, it is true that some Brecht guilds pick their leaders. But this is not unique to Brechtur. Investiture used to change a legitimate ruler all over Cerilia for a variety of reasons. Any blooded character could become a regent of nations. The Brechts just place a higher importance on the guilds when choosing.

    The Brechts just put more importance in Guild holdings, which is really no different than the Anuireans valuing Law more than other holdings, or the Khinasi valuing Sources. So I don't think the spirit of Birthright interferes with this vision of Brechtur.


    -Fizz

  4. #14
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Message originally posted by kgauck on 01-20-2007 at 10:30 PM:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    Well, then you shouldn't be favoring mercantilism either. Historically, the economic rationale for mercantilism resulted from nation-states trying to outdo each other, and the spread of colonization.
    Well, this isn't history. The Brecht guilders, in order to maximize their power and incomes might very likely use law holdings to make it more difficult for other guild holdings to get a foothold in their markets. They might well the state as something to be used for their purposes.

    Brechtur is very isolated from the rest of Cerilia due to the mountains that surround the Krakennauricht, so the only steady contact is through trading ships.
    Trading ships are the largest source of diffusion between non-adjacent cultures. Trade by definition is the transfer of objects, you can be sure ideas are moving as well.

    There is no regular contamination of cultures. Plus, the Rjurik are concentrated on the western edge of Cerilia, hundreds of miles away from the Brechts.
    The Rjurik materials make many references to Brecht trade.

    Manwhile, the Vos, even if they did have steady contact with the Brechts, would consider trade an ignoble pursuit.
    If the gap between their presumed development was more than one level (say high medieval and renaissance) a Pytor the Great would appear to lead a Vos modernization program.

    Besides, there are plenty of examples in the recent real world (last 100 years) of bordering nations with vastly different economic systems. West and East Germany, Japan and China, North and South Korea.
    In each of these cases one of the countries involved as been totalitarian and used state apparatus to prevent the movement of ideas, objects, and techniques across borders. No realms prior to the twentieth century had the means to close borders to diffusion this way.

    [quote]what you previously dismissed as merely `trading by animals', is better described as a system of goods and services belonging to non-state entities on an international or global scale.[\quote]
    Animals trade. If trade implies capitalism, the animals are capitalists. But trade does not imply capitalism, one can trade under very different circumstances. Animals are not applying any economic doctrine.

    [quote]In a loose sense, mercantilism is capitalism with massive governmental interference.[\quote]
    In a loose sense, totalitarianism is democracy with massive governmental interference. And the totalitarians often claim to be very democratic. But if we are able to reverse the meanings of terms this way then I am an aircraft carrier.

    [quote]Many (most?) capitalist nations nowadays have mercantilist policies (aka protectionism) in place under the premise of safeguarding their people or economy.[\quote]
    False. Nations described as capitalits exist in large free-trade zones and participate in world organizations that eliminiate trade barriers, like GATT. The United States determined that one of the causes of WWII was the barrier to trade that forced countries to seek territories to obtain vital natural resources, and imposed a free market regime on the non-communist post war world that effectively ended the British Empire, and created a globalizing free trade economy. There are contries that are less free in their trade policies than others, but one must compare trade policies of the 1930's to get a sense of what real protectionism looks like.

    That you can put such policies into place indicates that they're not polar opposites in so far as their implementation goes.
    This is not the view of economists or political scientiests. They describe how and why various systems opt for a mixture of freedom and command solutions.

    Many realms in Cerilia are chaotic, even outside of Brechtur.
    Chaotic socities are an absurdity. Socities in chaos are either subject to political infighting and lack stability thereby (such as Stjordvik) or are otherwise ungoverned. No chaotic society can organize its people to resist the Grogon. Mhor is a chaotic realm in a land where order doesn't require order.

    Now, it is true that some Brecht guilds pick their leaders. But this is not unique to Brechtur. Investiture used to change a legitimate ruler all over Cerilia for a variety of reasons. Any blooded character could become a regent of nations. The Brechts just place a higher importance on the guilds when choosing.
    I'm not sure what your theory of democracy is, your not one to offer definitions much, but in democracy the will of the entity is controlled by the people, the elected officials are servants. Will flows up, not down. Regents would spend all of their time dealing with the issues the people want addressed, and little if any time doing their own business. Adventuring would be right out.

    The Brechts just put more importance in Guild holdings, which is really no different than the Anuireans valuing Law more than other holdings, or the Khinasi valuing Sources. So I don't think the spirit of Birthright interferes with this vision of Brechtur.
    This has nothing to do with my point, (which explains why I had to articulate a theory of democracy in the last section).

  5. #15
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Message originally posted by Fizz on 01-21-2007 at 03:58 AM:

    Well, this isn't history. The Brecht guilders, in order to maximize their power and incomes might very likely use law holdings to make it more difficult for other guild holdings to get a foothold in their markets. They might well the state as something to be used for their purposes.
    Considering how often you've used real-world history to justify your positions, i find it very odd that you now choose to ignore it. Your Osterfeld source says this:
    "While Mises sees peace as the necessary precondition for free trade, mercantilism, he says tersely, is "the philosophy of war." Similarly, Murray Rothbard (1970, pp. 194-96) draws a sharp contrast between the market principle, personified by individual freedom, mutual harmony and peace, and the state, or "the hegemonic principle," characterized by "coercion," the '%benefit of one group at the expense of another," "caste conflict," and "war." "

    Unless you make the Brechts a bunch of warring nations, mercantilism does not make sense here. That said, i'm sure some Brechts do use some Law from time to time, just like nowadays there are still trade barriers and tariffs between capitalist nations.

    Trading ships are the largest source of diffusion between non-adjacent cultures. Trade by definition is the transfer of objects, you can be sure ideas are moving as well.
    But just because ideas can be exchanged does not mean they're going to be accepted. The Brechts and Vos and Rjurik all have very different outlooks on life, including (or perhaps because of) their favored deities. I don't doubt the Brechts trade with the Rjurik and Vos. But neither the Rjurik nor Vos cultures place much emphasis on the coin. Both the Rjurik and Vos priests have massive influence in their respective societies. And this is a setting where the god's influence is visibly real, which will make it even more difficult to change the culture of a society.

    Also, unlike the real-world and Europe, the nations of Cerilia all have origins in different places. They had fully established cultures when they arrived on Cerilia, so there was no natural shared development.

    Combine the religious issues with the different origins, and the isolationist location behind mountains that the Brechts enjoy, and I think it is quite plausible that the Brechts could exist with a modern trading economy in their current locale with their current neighbors.

    Remember- this is a fantasy world. The usual rules that you can apply in the real-world don't apply here because you have forces the real-world doesn't have.

    Animals trade. If trade implies capitalism, the animals are capitalists. But trade does not imply capitalism, one can trade under very different circumstances
    I agree. Trade does not equate to capitalism. That's the point- you've been tossing aside the circumstances and philosophy of trading as insignificant in this argument. I am saying that it is those very features of capitalism that are shared with mercantilism. You keep focusing on their differences. I am focusing on their commonalities to show that they are not polar opposites.

    In Mercantilism, the industries are separate from the state. In statism, they are the same. Thus capitalism share the common feature of private property and the use of markets as the basic organization of economic activity.

    The polar opposite to capitalism would be an economic system where the government not only interferes in the economy, but also owns and administers those companies. The Soviet Union and Communist China of the bulk of the 20th century are obviously the best examples of this. There was no private property. There was no stock market. The economy was the government.

    Perhaps you prefer the phrase: "Mercantilism is capitalism for the state, not the individual."

    If the gap between their presumed development was more than one level (say high medieval and renaissance) a Pytor the Great would appear to lead a Vos modernization program.
    Well, Brechts are Renaissance, and the Vos are Dark Ages, according to the core rulebook. The real-world Renaissance was between the 15th and 16th centuries. Peter didn't gain full power until 1696. Perhaps the Vos are due for another tsarevic. Though their own political infighting makes this unlikely. But that would make for an epic campaign in Vosgaard.

    False.
    Not false.
    http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/Mercantilism.html
    http://www.politicalinformation.net/...Capitalism.htm

    "Modern mercantilist practices arise from the same source as the mercantilist policies in the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. Groups with political power use that power to secure government intervention to protect their interests, while claiming to seek benefits for the nation as a whole."

    "Mercantilism defends a mostly free market within the nation, but proposes state intervention to protect domestic commerce and industries against foreign competition. See also protectionism,"

    Chaotic socities are an absurdity. Socities in chaos are either subject to political infighting and lack stability thereby (such as Stjordvik) or are otherwise ungoverned. No chaotic society can organize its people to resist the Grogon. Mhor is a chaotic realm in a land where order doesn't require order.
    I use chaotic in the sense of the domain's alignment, not in that there is no government or order. In D&D terms, the alignment of the United States would be chaotic.

    I'm not sure what your theory of democracy is, your not one to offer definitions much, but in democracy the will of the entity is controlled by the people, the elected officials are servants. Will flows up, not down. Regents would spend all of their time dealing with the issues the people want addressed, and little if any time doing their own business. Adventuring would be right out.
    All i said about democracy was that it wasn't necessary for economic freedom. I don't have Havens handy at this exact moment, but i don't think any of the Brecht nations are democratic (not in the get-the-vote-out sense anyways).

    A ruler does not need to rule absolutely. If our province ruler is a typical Brecht, his deity would be Sera. And Sera would teach him to act in ways that promote trade and commerce. This is not contradictory to the spirit of the original books, and allows you to have capitalism as well as sovereigns.

    This is a fantasy setting, repleat with unreal forces that would never have come into play historically. When you account for gods, magic, monsters, it all becomes plausible. Capitalistic, free, non-imperialist, shielded by the rest of the world by treacherous mountains, dangerous elves, and awnsheghlien. All told, i don't see anything internally inconsistent with the Brecht nations as described in the core books.


    -Fizz

  6. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    8
    Downloads
    35
    Uploads
    0
    The concept of guild in BR really should be multi-faceted.

    First, guild holding facilitates (political and commercial) spying activities.

    Second, guild holding facilitates trade route. This is a type of merchantilism.

    Third, guild holding represents certain monopoly or service owing to different reasons. For example, hunters in Rjurik highlands get a lot of fur from hunting. A local guild may send their agents to buy those fur from different hunters in remote areas and then sold them to merchant from other regions. As individual hunter will never meet the end-user. This created a natural monpoly for the guild.

    Fourth, blah, blah, blah ...

    However, in my opinion, modern capitalism means operating mass production through securing large amount of raw material, large amount of labour and big markets for sale. This should be absent in the time of Renaissance.

    Do you have an armament factory with 1,000 weaponsmiths working 24 hours a day in shift system plus a mine with 4,000 miners working 24 hours a day in shift system plus 100 weapon outlets with the same brand name in different cities and towns all over Cerilia selling weapons of standardized quaility in your campaign? (kidding)

    In fact, whenever my players suggest something like the above-mentioned, I will smile and say no to him.

    M.A.

  7. #17
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    While I hesitate to intrude on a conversation between two people who know better than I the subject of which they speak, I note the following:

    Fizz>"While Mises sees peace as the necessary precondition for free trade, mercantilism, he says tersely, is "the philosophy of war." Similarly, Murray Rothbard (1970, pp. 194-96) draws a sharp contrast between the market principle, personified by individual freedom, mutual harmony and peace, and the state, or "the hegemonic principle," characterized by "coercion," the '%benefit of one group at the expense of another," "caste conflict," and "war." "

    Unless you make the Brechts a bunch of warring nations, mercantilism does not make sense here. That said, i'm sure some Brechts do use some Law from time to time, just like nowadays there are still trade barriers and tariffs between capitalist nations.

    Andrew> The Brecht did try a classic 'conquer the barbarians' strategy - the moment the Anuirean empire took its boot off their throats. The Brecht League was a military disaster that left half the Brecht Realms involved in Vos hands - a lesson that would have been very hard to forget. Mercantilism as 'a philosophy of war' is fine in a non-expansionist realm if the participants got a major creaming in a recent conflict - see how the American war of independence still frames much of America's global dealings over a similar period.

    That said trade barriers are still a major problem in the world - although the EU, for example, is supposedly a free trade zone, several of the participants refuse to accept migrants from the newer entrants, refuse to accept the qualifications of lawyers, plumbers, etc to prevent free flow of services and so on. Protectionism is opposed to capitalism, but the richer that capitalism makes a nation, the easier it is for that nation to play the protectionist card. (The politician will be gone by the time the depression comes anyway).

    Fizz> But neither the Rjurik nor Vos cultures place much emphasis on the coin.

    Andrew>
    1. The Vos certainly value gold - see the Melyy domain gold-rush

    2. Likewise they value what gold can buy, a barbaric people in a mineral rich land will always be happy to trade with a metallurgically advanced people who need their minerals - and any Vos dim enough to butcher a Brecht merchant for a free cargo of weapons would swiftly learn the error of their ways when the next merchant went to the next tribe with a 'kill that psycho and get 50% off' pricing strategy.

    3. The perception of wealth will vary between cultures, as will the equation of material wealth and spiritual wealth, but both the settled Rjurik and Nona Vos are likely to value warm clothing, fine cloths, good tools, high-quality weapons, etc and be willing to trade furs, lumber, ores and so on for them. A Rjurik clansman might only value the gold they are paid for the goods that it buys them / their tribe, but they value it nonetheless.

    That said the stated perceptions of Storm Holtsen of Stjordvik shows fairly clearly that the acquisition of wealth for its own sake is not valued highly amongst the Rjurik.

    Fizz>
    Also, unlike the real-world and Europe, the nations of Cerilia all have origins in different places. They had fully established cultures when they arrived on Cerilia, so there was no natural shared development.

    Andrew>
    The Anuirean empire dominated the entire continent - barring a few lightly populated realms (with the notable exception of Danigau) for a millennia -
    Anuiriean law will probably be the foundation for much law in all areas - albeit heavily modified - look at the viking influences in British law today.

    It is possible that if a Khinasi speaks with a Brecht, they both speak Anuirean - it was the international tongue of the upper class (i.e. the wealthy) in a similar manner to English today, although I expect that this would have reduced over the centuries much as latin did in Europe after the fall of Rome. That said Anuirean words will probably sprinkle the speech of all other languages, particularly in relation to trade, law and politics without the native speakers even realising that the word is Anuirean.

    Fizz> Combine the religious issues with the different origins, and the isolationist location behind mountains that the Brechts enjoy, and I think it is quite plausible that the Brechts could exist with a modern trading economy in their current locale with their current neighbors.

    Andrew>
    The Brecht are, oddly for a race of sailor-traders, in the most godawful trading position in Cerillia for sea-based trading, any real capitalist would have built roads south and formed an Anuire:Brecht:Khinasi trading triangle. It takes a mercantilist 'I know ships and they made me rich - so anyone suggesting roads is trying to make me poor' philosophy to keep sailing when the great bay is closed by ice half the year, and the two nearest sea-trade partners are poor and prone to violence.


    One point I would make is that the Brecht 'guilds first' comments are simply not borne out by the realms in Havens - most domains have province owners holding the law, dominating politics, etc.

    I generally see the 'we put rational economics first' philosophy of the Brecht as a vacuous national self-image - they like to think of themselves in that manner to prove their superiority over the Anuireans and Khinasi (who are ruled by obsessions over whose great great grandfather married whose great great grandmother) similarly the Khinasi and Anuireans like to comment on the guild-first attitude for similar reasons (a Brecht would sell his mother for a profit) National self-image rarely needs to have any foundation in fact to be strongly held both internally and externally.


    That said I do think that possibly it might be more constructive to explain how the Brecht philosophy differs from modern economic approaches rather than argue over definitions - say capitalism to an american / frenchman / russian / north korean and you will get 4 very different views of the same word. Almost any wide-spread philosophies have similarities if looked at superficially, so they are particularly difficult to define in a single term.

    My personal view is that rather than simply saying capitalist / noble / tribal / etc to describe the various cultures it would be more helpful to write a page or two to say how the various castes / classes / roles within the society interact, how strong the government is, how different realms and different cultures interact, etc - the label applied is then irrelevant avoiding the problem.

  8. #18
    Well, I think the comparison between mercantilism and capitalism really depends on what you think these philosophies really mean . . . .

    Anuire and Brechtur are both set in a Rennaissance fantasy period. And, many of the early forms of modern capitalist institutions started emerging around that time period.

    I just did a lot of research for a character that I played in another game. And, a condensed version of what I essentially discovered was that that there was the traditional version of mercantilism practiced by Spain at the start of the Rennaissance. They were rich and powerful (practically unchallengeable) because they controlled the New World and they were the most powerful military power on the globe.

    England and the Netherlands emerged to challenge them with innovative capitalist institutions like the "joint stock company" -- the forerunner of the modern corporation.

    Basically, kings of smaller countries couldn't compete with Spain on the same level. They didn't have the capital. So, they chartered companies to take over various trade functions and granted them various rights and privileges.

    Thus, Brechtur's political / economic climate is probably very similar to that of England and the Netherlands around the time that the East India Companies started springing up.

    Technological innovations like factories and the steam engine probably haven't been introduced yet on a widespread basis yet. But, primitive versions may exist in some places.

    Venice introduced the first factory (a navy shipyard) in the 12th century. However, the factories we are most familiar with in England didn't emerge until the 17th century.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.