Join the new world

lol

Panda gets it ... your talking about fram stealing the 3k gold

Where is Fram with that 3.6k gold anyways?

Ask frankypicoto where Fram is and what he did with the 2600 gold he misappropriated from the V2 fund, he's her eHusband

why do you all have different numbers for the amount stolen?

Don't know what your talking about, bossman. We just want back the 36k gold he stole.




😉

@bossman it's 2600 gold. Panda rounded up to an even 3, then only atoms remembered the x600 part and combined the two figures. Regardless, the amount lost by the people of eCanada came out to 2600 gold.

Thanks Fram.

That is exactly the reason and it would be stupid to do otherise. Rent out the high stone regions all you want. But giving away high titanium? You must be trippin!

You would be making more money from rent than you would ever be from owning the region Canada. Unless you get a massive Canadian baby boom the likes of Poland's than your population will never be able to properly exploit the amount of resources you have.

Oh, you mean it's only 2600 gold and not 3600? Gee, here I have been upset all this time for nothing.

OH GOD it is park lane and mayfair damn canadians 😛

this.

is.

JACOBIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAA [sparta]

Sure isn't Brolliance around here.

monopoly is fun.

By Fram, u mean this guy: http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/1264445">http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/prof[..]64445 ?
If yes, why would anyone give the Bank's key to someone who already stole 700 gold from the Romanian National Bank?

It's strange that I didn't hear about this, i thought he quit after he was caught stealing in Romania

Canada is full of noobs.

Hey Jacobi, as long as you're fine with PHX producing triple the titanium of EDEN/Bros, then fair enough. But it's a poor ally and a poor friend who won't take one for the team when necessary.

Migrated Harvesters, United States: 1456 or 33% of the migrated population

Migrated Harvesters, Canada: 1066 or 46% of the migrated population

Migrated Harvesters, Polan😛 1544 or 15% of the migrated population

There's is a fallacy, I think, that just because the US has double the active population or triple the total population of Canada that it can harvest titanium more effectively than Canada. Canada is geared and focused towards the production of titanium, where the US has a more varied land industry.

In any case, I see 50,000 units of titanium on the US market at a very reasonable price. What would be the logic behind the US wanting a titanium region anyway? All it would do is take away Canadian jobs.

scoop
voted.

The point is Jacobi, its not like having two regions of titanium will produce you more titanium, one titanium region will produce the same amount as two. You don't need two regions... Its just redundant. If the US gets a region, that means an extra 1500 US citizens will be producing titanium along side Canada's 1000, producing at the same time more than double the titanium Canada could produce, and with the rent, making a ton more money than Canada would get from taxes.

I am pretty sure Turd Fergusen, that the extra US citizens producing the titanium alongside Canada will happen -> whether we give the region away or not 😁;

Increasing supply would reduce demand would reduce prices would reduce wages would reduce the taxes from the region we'd have remaining.

Canada would lose the entire US market and compete internationally against American companies. That's not a GOOD thing for Canada, that's a BAD thing.

For those who are suggesting we "take one for the team," wouldn't it make more sense for the larger and more economically powerful country to be the one doing the sacrificing instead of asking the smaller one?

I mean, if we're a team and all...

On the World Map, it has Arkansas as being a high Titanium Region. Is that true, or is it a mix up by the admins?

http://www.erepublik.com/en/map/USA">http://www.erepublik.com/en/map/USA

The admins f'd up.

Don't rent out a region to eUSA! Let Australia do it instead!

If we ever get our country back.... 🙁

voted. Also, check out my newspaper and tell me if you like it- sub/vote/comment welcomed 🙂

Well since we've got it, we had better prepare ourselves to defend it or very quickly we will have had it.

Face it Canada is acting like Cowards!

The difference between 'renting' or 'not renting' won't matter as much to eCanadians who just punch in for their 8-12 hours before training, studying, and relaxing. It's the interests of Govt. sponsored organizations (see CAF) vs. business owners that are in contention.

Granted, that's a simplistic dynamic. Perhaps a monopoly will raise the wages of all eCanaidans (not just Harvesters) or at least allow those specialized in Artillery and Air to have cheaper weapons. However, will profits from titanium give us the ability to fend for ourselves? Probably not.

Monopoly and co-ops don't go hand in hand. Equality=no winners:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XJseql2u5l0/SK7djjETEOI/AAAAAAAACmg/FRqg_X_AA_Y/s400/monopoly-soviets.jpg">http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XJseql2u5l0/SK[..].jpg

>What would be the logic behind the US wanting a titanium region anyway? All it would do is take away Canadian jobs.

What? You don't create more Canadian jobs by having a second High resource region -- in this game, you can create unlimited Canadian jobs with only one High resource region. No Canadian jobs will be lost by renting a titanium region to another country -- you think it really hurt the eUS economy when we rented out North Dakota? Of course not, because the vast majority of our grain industry is in California.

What you would create, by renting us a titanium region, would be American jobs. 🙂

You guys are all missing the point here:

Even if we wanted to rent 10 times over, the game mechanics allow for some asstard to make off with the money/not pay it/poop all over us. Note: not a country, not a government, but a single asstard with the keys.

We have a bad history with that in Canada, having asstards with the keys take off with our goldz.

You fellas are being retarded, eh.

EXACTLY MY POINT!
thanks for posting Jacobi.

>Increasing supply would reduce demand would reduce prices would reduce wages would reduce the taxes from the region we'd have remaining.

Translation: We're more interested in economic interests of questionable import (which would also be largely negated by rent) than the direct strategic ramifications.

This is why Phoenix does well, it puts aside ridiculous concerns and says 'in terms of gain mechanics, what wins us the game?'

This is stupid. You get no benefit for having more then one high resource region. The gold that Canada could get for renting one would help you guys out so much. Yet you want to sit here and say otherwise. Tell in one way how this hurts Canada? Tell the owners to sell there companies in the region that is rented. The country that is renting it people will buy the titanium companies up.

Saltydog: that problem will never go away, but it is rare that is happens. As far as fram goes, i thought that gold was still in the org, just frozen because fram lost the damned password? I could be wrong though.

Regardless, the gold we gain from renting titanium would be fantastic for Canada. We would come out much farther ahead financially.

So people who are against renting are afraid the cash MIGHT be stolen, and yet the gold income could set Canada up to be able to afford whatever it needs??

We are playing a game here that we should be trying to win and yet are playing afraid to lose.

And what happens if Canada gets wiped off of the map? Who is going to supply Eden countries? I will tell you. Some country will come in and help take back one of our titanium regions, won't give it back and certainly won't pay rent to a government that doesn't exist.

Trolololololol

How many times do I have to say this:

The benefit of having two regions is that we don't have competition for our goods on foreign markets, including the US.

@George S Patton Jr, Canada won't be able to compete at all in the US (so all companies making a living on the US market by exporting lose that) and Canadian companies face greater competition internationally. We lose a monopoly in EDEN/Brolliance.

@Astra Kat G, having two regions means other countries have zero, which means our companies have an advantage over everyone else.

I'll say this again: If America has a titanium region, production of titanium increases. If it does, prices go down. If prices go down, Canadian wages go down. If Canadian wages go down, Canadian taxes in our one remaining region go down.

Simple formula and completely unassailable.

Now, I'm going to ask the Americans subscribing to this newspaper.

Do you think the rental fee for a Canadian titanium region will be worth more than the tax value of that region or less?

If more, would America renegotiate the fee like Poland did to you and what if we say no to the lowered amount?

If less, then isn't Canada basically hurting its own economy for America's benefit? Why would a "Bro" ask that of another bro?

Friends should never do business with friends.

>So people who are against renting are afraid the cash MIGHT be stolen, and yet the gold income could set Canada up to be able to afford whatever it needs??

This is just being used as flimsy justification.

The question boils down to this, to paraphrase Jacobi:

Would the rental fee be MORE or LESS than the tax income of that region?

>The benefit of having two regions is that we don't have competition for our goods on foreign markets, including the US.

This is *explicitly* saying that Canada intends to create an artificial supply shortfall. Lowered competition and higher prices translate to higher prices for weapons for all of EDEN/Broliance. The result is that all of EDEN/Broliance will be nessicarilly forced to use lower quality weapons than they could afford to if there were greater supply.

Why? So Canada can collect some extra taxes.

>If less, then isn't Canada basically hurting its own economy for America's benefit? Why would a "Bro" ask that of another bro?

You seem to be convinced of less, so let's just assume less for the sake of argument. Economically, yes America or whoever rented it would benefit and Canada would suffer if we assume this is true.

However, the staggering strategic implications of hoarding I have just explained are the reason for this. We're not asking this because we want to steal your d***ed tax revenue, we're asking this because it means *better guns* for every nation we want to see succeed.

The demand won't go down for titanium. It might hurt now, but not when the war module is started up.

Can anyone offer me one shred of proof that supply will not meet demand?

Or should Canada shoot itself in the foot for conjecture and maybes.

Supply always meets demand, it's just a matter of where.

Your *argument* is that supply will meet demand at a place of lower supply and higher price. That is the *only way* you will reap the rewards of greater tax income. A lower supply with higher demand results in higher prices.

If the supply were unchanged, you would not see an increase in prices.

"For those who are suggesting we "take one for the team," wouldn't it make more sense for the larger and more economically powerful country to be the one doing the sacrificing instead of asking the smaller one?"

But who else can rent out a titanium region? Only Canada can. And when only one can save the day...

...if it were the other way around, you know we'd happily rent one to you.

@Mr. Ryan, then your "strategic implications" argument is null and void and perilously close to reductio ad absurdum. Because Canada would make some money EDEN would be strategically imperiled. Sure.

@Devoid I'd say that the way for you to take one for the team would be to pay us much more gold than the region is worth...if indeed the entire purpose was solely and exclusively to increase supply.

But without contracts any generous gold offer would be without meaning, since we'd run into a Polish situation quite quickly where a renegotiation would have to be held so that the region would become "affordable."

What I'm finding more and more disturbing as this goes on is the opinion of some American citizens that its somehow dishonorable that Canada would make money off its natural advantages.

Totally incorrect. Like I said, supply and demand will always meet, but the question is 'at what production level will they meet?' This is basic econ. Here's a graph: http://i27.tinypic.com/wvae54.jpg">http://i27.tinypic.com/wvae54.jpg

As you can see, as price increases supply increases but as price increases, demand drops (this is why supply always meets demand) where supply and demand meet are the equilibrium price. Your argument is that, with the reduced supply, prices will increase and you are quite right about that, but but that translates to lower production, since the consumers will be able to afford less units if the price per unit increases.

Yes, you'll make money but the supply

with reduced *production* (not supply), prices will increase

My bad. =O