Search the Community

Issued and averred by His Royal Highness Prince PAUL ALEXANDER in the year of our Lord 1966 [!] The Coat of Arms for the House of the Petra-Valfleur, otherwise known as the House of Valfleur; is used also for the Royal Academy. This letter was found anywhere it could be found throughout the broader Realm of Aevos. The time has come for the Chancellor and his administration to begin accepting applications for pupils of the Royal Academy of Saint Lothar at Courteis Hale. For the foreseeable future, tuition will be free to all inhabitants of Aevos who wish to look further into educational opportunities. Academy bylaws prohibit anyone who would bring harm to the Commonwealth of the Petra, its ruling House, the Academy, or otherwise from membership. Generally. scholars must be outstanding members of society; to be an academic is to learn each day and vow never to falter, as well as to yearn for the pursuit of education and knowledge. Academy Administration *Role responsibilities will be outlined in a future missive. Chancellor & President | The Headmaster His Royal Highness, Prince Paul Alexander of the Petra-Valfleur Vice-Chancellor | The Chief Lecturer His Lordship, Ferdinand Eryl von Augusten Principal of Students | The Disciplinarian Her Royal Majesty, Queen-Emeritus Renilde Helena of the Petra Pupil Application (Click) Full Legal Name: Date of Birth | Age: Will you adhere to all of our bylaws if your application is accepted? ((MC Name | Discord)) [PLEASE BE SURE TO FILL OUT BOTH FORMS! One is linked above and listed "Pupil Application" and is an RP letter] [!] A group of lecturers at an academic conference, date unknown Among the subjects to be taught are Chivalry, Law and Government, Petran History, Economics, and Medicine. Boarding at the Valfleur Estate will be offered with limited spots. As Lecturers make themselves known through interviews, more subjects will be available to learn. If interested in teaching at the Academy, reach out by way of the Aviary to the Duke of Valfleur Prince Paul Alexander of the Petra, or any of the other administrators listed above. WITNESS Ourselves at the Royal Palace on the 11th day of Tobias' Bounty in the year of our Lord 1966 | 111 Atstana de Regne Petrére Faithfully Signed, His Royal Highness, Paul Alexander of the Petra-Valfleur, Prince of the Petra, the Duke of Valfleur, Patriarch of the House of the Petra-Valfleur, Chancellor and President of the Royal Academy of Saint Lothar, Steward of the Petra https://discord.gg/XxyMC34rb6

THE FALLEN KESTREL: A CRITIQUE OF SANOIST POLITICAL ECONOMY WRITTEN BY Elibar'indor W. Halcourt PUBLISHED BY The Northern Geographical Society Press SUPERVISOR Dr. Otto Wittenbach 6th of Sun's Smile 36 2E ((Click here to access the better formatted Google Docs version.)) Abstract This essay serves as an in-depth analysis of political economist Bell Sano’s late literary works, when he cultivated a syncretic philosophy combining elements of Canonist morality, democratic ideals, and economic collectivism. While normative views and subjective opinions will be expressed regarding the values of Sanoism, this essay will primarily criticize how coherent, consistent, and logical the rationality of Bell Sano’s essays are. Instead of answering the question “is Sanoism good or bad,” this essay will instead try to answer, “are Bell Sano’s writings rooted in sound economic, political, and theological analysis?” Introduction: The Context of Bell Sano’s Personal Life Bell Sano, full name Bell Cranel Acaele’par Rider Sano, is responsible for the cultivation of a controversial and archaic political philosophy known as “Sanoism,” publishing major literary works in the late 1500’s to the early 1600’s. The impact of Sanoist ideals on Imperial society as a whole, and Axios as a whole, no doubt played a significant importance in the development of philosophical academia. However, the ramifications of the Sanoist movement were likely considered undesirable by Sano, as it served more to polarize the denizens of the Empire and established a paranoia of worker-oriented activism, rather than to revolutionize the proletariat as he had hoped. Sanoism began with an alluring promise; to retain the cultural and religious values of Oren whilst simultaneously empowering the working class, democratizing Imperial society, and creating a more just world for those who were the most marginalized. So how did a decorated military sergeant and respected defense attorney so swiftly become a disgraced academic and near-convicted felon? Bell Sano had a disastrously tragic childhood. Originally born Bell Acaele’par to a drunkard woman in Felsen, his father was a wealthy aristocrat with no interest in the life of his bastard child. Sano’s maternal grandfather, Galen, raised young Bell in the elven dominion of Laureh’lin, to which the origins of Bell’s name can be attributed (it is assumed that Galen thought a human child would better acclimate to elven culture with a more appropriate name.) Upon the death of his grandfather some six years later, the child was placed with the Sano family in the port town of Luceinsport to be raised by an Orenian metal worker and his wife, Vincent and Margaret Sano, along with his adopted sister, Kaitlyn. Sano was raised in an impoverished household with strict Canonist values, and served as an altar boy at the local Cathedral of Saint Adrian until the age of seventeen. At this point, he fled to the College of Skyfall to receive a formal education. During his formal education, Sano made little contribution to the world of academia, mostly writing missives regarding human military history. Bell Sano truly began to cultivate his political ideals when serving as an eventual Senior Sergeant in Felsen and Johannesburg. Sano participated in the De Rolle Rebellion in Felsen, wherein commandant Markese de Rolle led a brief rebellion to establish a democratic free state within the confines of the city of Felsen (which notably had a municipal flag bearing a blue kestrel, the symbol now closely associated to Sanoist thought.) Fast forward to 1580, wherein Sano published what was the cultivation of decades upon decades of financial stress, contempt towards the Imperial hierarchy, and a sincere belief that the homogenization of competing religious traditions was a hindrance on society. The initial publication of the Sanoist Manifesto sparked no reason for alarm amongst the Imperial establishment, until working-class organizations began to hold public rallies and aired a notable anti-capitalist sentiment. Bell Sano’s ideas influenced the minds of men both in worker’s organizations and in high Imperial society. More notable historical figures who adopted Sanoist sympathies included the Mayor of Metz, Victor Clarke, who became a fierce Sanoist revolutionary, in addition to the political giant Alexandre d’Aryn, who later dismissed his Sanoist leanings. However, the most historically notable Sanoist was supposedly High Pontiff Everard IV, who reportedly kept a copy of the Sanoist Manifesto in his desk. It was at this time the Imperial Anti-Orenian Activities Committee banned all of Sano’s texts from Imperial libraries and subpoenaed over two dozen alleged Sanoist conspirators. Faced with charges of incitement, treason, and the intent to distribute felonious literature, Bell Sano entered a plea arrangement with the IAAC in which he sacrificed the names of core Sanoist activists in exchange for legal immunity. After being disgraced by his working-class colleagues, Sano spent the rest of his life between Johannesburg and Alban working as an attorney, making numerous attempts to further inspire workers to no avail. He died an old man in Alban, reportedly to a drunken Halfling, shortly after publishing one last critical piece of literature; the Sanoist Compendium. The legacy of Sanoism today has a minimal impact on the political climate of Almaris. It has since been banished to the archives of history, considered an outdated and stale ideology which has no place in contemporary discourse. Modern Sanoist organizations tend to see little to no success in creating meaningful change in public policy, elections, or legislation. The most successful attempt was by the Sanoist Republican Party in the Duma of Haense, which attempted to establish a worker-led economy in Haense. For three consecutive terms, they composed the majority of the Duma and enacted agricultural land reform, introduced fierce social programs, and reformed elections to offer more democratic representation to the electorate. They were led by Alderman Fabius Braccus, who later became a renown statesman, alongside other notable political minds such as Maer Butch, Konstantin Ruthern, and Henrik Amador. This attempt at a Sanoist political party would prove to be the most successful, but alas, ultimately failed. For what reasons did the general population find Sanoism to be unfavorable? Was it simply the result of propaganda and Imperial intimidation, as suggested by Sano, or was his literature not nearly as attractive as he’d previously thought? Upon further analysis of both the Sanoist Manifesto and the Sanoist Compendium, there appear to be logical inconsistencies and fringe ideas which were framed in such a way that it could appeal only to the worker who was already radicalized prior to its publication. Bell Sano was a fiery, anti-establishment radical who saw success with the Sanoist movement by token of sheer luck, and not on the merits of his flawed, inconsistent, and incoherent ideology. Economic Illiteracy The first value which Bell Sano seems to struggle to ascertain is whether or not his ideology is favorable or unfavorable towards the private ownership of capital. Nominally, Bell Sano is a definitive socialist who vows to dismantle the oppressive nature of capitalist society. In his texts, however, Sano comes off as if he is unsure whether or not total collective ownership of the means of production are a positive aspect for Imperial society. He writes, “When we discuss a socialist hybrid state, we are referring to a hybrid economy between core elements of free exchange and socialism. When it comes to dealing with the element of trade in society, market regulation is a requirement. A major stride must be made, placing an emphasis on workers rights, if we wish to alter society for the better. While small business firms are encouraged to provide services, products, and above all, jobs, it is still the duty of the state to impose regulatory policies onto these private entities, so that the tyranny of greed does not harm the worker.” (The Sanoist Compendium, 1619, pg. 3) Here lies the primary issue; does Sano advocate for what he describes as a ‘socialist’ society, wherein the working class would own capital instead of private businessmen, or does he believe that elements of capitalism and feudalism do not infringe upon the liberation of workers so long as the state regulates them accordingly? The compromise position in Sano’s texts seem to be a “socialist hybrid state,” as he calls it. Under this “hybrid” state, he describes an economic system in which some industries ought to be privatized, and others should be revolutionized to overthrow the capitalist owners and institute worker control. He continues; “The workers, however, have the total right to seize control of the owner’s production if that industry cannot manage a private mode of production. In other words, socialist policies are to be employed when they assist the working class to its fullest. It simply depends on what industries the state decides to collectivize the services or goods being distributed. In the case of healthcare, education, and national security, for example, socialism and collectivism is undoubtedly the answer. In the cases of consumer goods and other services, regulated markets with workers’ rights being considered is superior. The determining factor as to what should be privatized, and what should be left to the state, is weighing the value of competition against potential conflicts of interest.” (pg. 3) I have no doubt that Bell Sano was a competent scholar who is able to correctly define the tenets of both socialism and capitalism correctly (whereas so many politicians and legal minds in Imperial society incorrectly define both). However, he appears to create some sort of compromise between total revolution and regulation of existing capitalist institutions which cannot exist. “Hybrid socialism” is an ignorami’s way of stating, “I am going to call this institution socialism, but in truth, I am merely regulating capitalism to make it more beneficial towards the working class.” There is nothing inherently wrong with this position, but it is not, in fact, socialist; social democracy mayhaps, but more accurately this would be defined as a state capitalist society. Seemingly, Sano has mistaken “the government enacting social programs” with “socialism.” He correctly identifies overthrowing the private owners in some industries as a key component of what socialist society is meant to be, but that does not amount to socialism if the commodity form still exists, and if the subjective theory of value is still codified into public policy. How, then, can Sano call this a socialist institution? Hierarchy Bell Sano is unclear on the extent to which a political hierarchy should exist. In one breath, he decries the existing structure of Imperial society to be a scourge and a plague on common society, but in the next he makes excuses to retain the existence of various capitalist hierarchies which supposedly fuel the oppression of the working class he alludes to. As already mentioned, Sano is not a proponent of total democratization of society despite his own claims, as he views private ownership of capital acceptable. But outside of the realm of industry, he also views the existence of royalty in public institutions as acceptable, despite earlier claims which call for their total demise. In the preface of his Compendium, he writes, “For too long, the hierarchical monstrosity which is political entitlement has plagued our glorious societies. The issue of political and social inequity is one which transcends racial divides, garnering scorn from all nations, all ethnicities, and all workers. The concept of royalty and entitlement has done nothing more than establish an unequal and unfair societal structure. Sanoism is the cure to this plague.” (pg. 2) Evidently, this is a strong statement to make in the era predating the existence of electoral bodies in the Empire. However, he will later douse his fiery rhetoric with excuses for the existence of the monarchy, which can essentially be summed up as, “It doesn’t matter as much as these other things.” “The extent to which the people have direct control over the government, nor how it is implemented, does not matter; all which truly matters is that Sano law is put into place, while the people are represented by their state. . . However, it is not unacceptable in a Sanoist society to permit a monarch, so long as he or she is to voice the will of the people.” (pg. 9) I cannot fathom how a supposed republican, who previously described the noble class and Imperial royalty as a ‘plague,’ could also accept the existence of a monarch so long as they’re ‘one of the nice ones’ who enacts the will of their constituents. Albeit, he does later detail that the existence of a parliamentary society under a monarch with legal checks and balances would be satisfactory, which is more or less the condition of Imperial society today, but that does not close the holes in his radical rhetoric. If I were a worker, I too would be relatively confused by the dramatic shift in tone. The rest of the section on republicanism in the Sanoist Compendium is a long-winded analysis of how exactly an electoral system would be established to most effectively garner the consent of the governed, but nowhere does it address this major flaw in Sanoist philosophy. Xenophobic Multiculturalism A major reason for Bell Sano’s failure to reach major components of his ideology outside of human spheres is that he is only a progressive icon in his rhetoric, but an incredible xenophobe in practice. Sano describes his proposed society as being incredibly welcoming of foreigners who assimilate into Canonist society, including other descendants. He is all-inclusive of individuals who show a great love and patriotism for Oren, regardless of their original nationalities and race. Later, though, he has this to say about immigration; “The creation of an ideal, Sanoist society must be safeguarded by strict borders, patriotism, and a national military -- otherwise, if we create such a glorious nation, what is to stop greedy foreigners from plundering our accomplishments, and shattering the great works of the proletariat?” (pg. 7) How does this unabashed xenophobic rhetoric fall in line with his supposed egalitarian principles? My assumption is that this was merely an attempt to attract the largely human population of the Empire at the time to his leftist ideas, and to dismiss any accusations of attempting to undermine Imperial values by integrating anti-immigrant rhetoric into his writings. It is also noted in secondary accounts with Bell Sano that he believed the Kharajyr to be of an inferior life form, below that of both descendants and animal. For this reason, I am entirely unsure of where his position on immigration is situated; is a multiracial, religiously homogeneous society desirable, or are immigrants a threat to the proletariat? Would those immigrants, given that they are Orenain patriots and Canonists, not also become a part of that proletarian society? Conclusion I do not wonder why it is that Sanoism was unable to gain significant traction amongst its target audience. The language used is convoluted, unclear, and conflicts with itself. If you were to revive Bell Sano and ask him where things went wrong, my assumption is that he would wholeheartedly defend his actions, declare that he did nothing wrong, and call you an Imperial conspirator who had fallen for propaganda aimed to keep the proletariat complacent in their oppression. I do not inherently disagree with all of Sano’s nominal ideals and principles, some are even considered mainstream today. However, it is clear that Bell Sano was incapable of defining his own position on fundamental questions about how Imperial society should operate, and the major flaws in his literature will forever leave Sanoism as an irrelevant footnote in history, subject to study only by scholars in political theory and fringe radicals.

((Click here to access the better formatted Google Docs version.)) THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MODERN ECONOMICS Volume I: Defining Economics WRITTEN BY Elibar'indor W. Halcourt PUBLISHED BY The Northern Geographical Society Press SUPERVISORS Dr. Otto Wittenbach & Dr. Tanith Vursur 12th of Tobias' Bounty 36 2E Abstract This essay details the basic introductory principles to become familiarized with when considering the field of economics. It is my belief that much of the hesitancy for new scholars to begin studying economics is the lack of foundational literature, and that the low number of published works in economics is due to the general public holding a misconception of what economics actually is. Thus, this is the first of a three part series detailing the most fundamental, basic principles of economics, which I am writing in the hopes that more budding academics will embrace the discipline and construct more advanced theories. In this volume, we define the parameters of what economics actually is, as to give the reader a foundation to further study the relatively new field. Subjects covered include resource scarcity, rational choice theory, opportunity cost and markets. Introduction: What is Economics? The current volume of published works in economics is concerningly slim. Conventional wisdom dictates that the small quantity of economic literature is the consequence of economics not being a viable field to study. It would be my contention that economics is now more relevant than ever, and the reason that academics have not given it the recognition as afforded to history or anthropology is due to the lack of foundational texts, and the lack of understanding regarding what economics actually is. Economics is a discipline which has only recently been receiving the attention it deserves from advanced scholars, but it is by no means a new field. Literature in economic history dates back to the era of Aegis, where an institution known as the Aegean Academy -- regarded as the first attempt at a formal educational institution in history -- defined economics as the study of “trade commands and markets.” The intention of this program was to educate students to become savvy merchants, and prevent them from being scammed when making financial transactions. While this definition provides a useful practical application, it is not considered accurate by the parameters of today’s economists. It is difficult to come up with a single, coherent definition of what economics “is,” as we still regard it as an emerging field. However, if we were to create an all-encompassing definition, we could summarize the entirety of economics into the following; “Economics is the study of how rational decision makers interact with the concept of value.” You may note that this is a bit of a broad definition, but it is the only one which encapsulates every possible definition of how other economic scholars would describe the discipline. One scholar may define economics as, “the study of production, consumption, and wealth in a society.” Another may take the viewpoint that economics is, “the science of human choice in which a rational individual maximizes their own utility in a world in which resources are finite.” The next could just as easily defend the notion that economics is, “the study of how free agents respond to incentives.” On their face, there is nothing wrong with any of these definitions, as they are all correct in their own regards; economics is the study of all the above. However, the field of economics is not exclusive to any one of those definitions, and one cannot go unaccompanied by the others. All three supplementary definitions inform the original parameters outlined, in that economics is the study of how rational decision makers interact with the concept of value. It is also worth noting what economics is not. There is a common misconception regarding economics, in that it is similar to the field of business or finances. In my experience, many scholars unfamiliar with the field of economics tend to refer to it as the fancier cousin of business studies. Whereas business teaches you how to operate and maintain various aspects of private industry in the market, economics is a social science which addresses the choices and behaviors of people participating in said markets. This is my contention with individuals who conflate economics with business; Business addresses the production of goods and services which are consumed, and economics addresses the behaviours of free agents in the market, including those consumers. There does exist an overlap between the fields, but it should be remembered that business is a professional practice whereas economics is an academic one. Positive and Normative Statements As with many of the social sciences, economics deals with both positive and normative statements. This serves as the foundation for analysis in the social sciences and economics, distinguishing between an indisputable fact and a subjective opinion. The normative statement addresses the analysis of a subject which is informed by personal opinion, ethics, values and morals. We cannot prove it right or wrong, because there is no definitive, objective truth regarding the statement. For instance, if I order a Carrington pale ale from the local tavern, I might say, “This pale ale is delicious!” This is a normative statement. I find the drink to be delicious, and nobody can dispute that statement, because it cannot be proven to be true or false. If I were to say, “This pale ale is in a glass mug,” that would be a positive statement, because we can deduce if the pale ale is actually in a glass mug or not. Even if a statement is incorrect, it is still positive, because we can prove that it is false. If I were to say, “This pale ale is in a wooden mug,” and the ale was indeed in a glass mug, that would still be a positive statement; I could just be proven wrong by the barkeep. The reason I cite positive and normative statements is to detail how economics is not a “hard science” as some are often led to believe. Economics is, at the end of the day, a social science which often does not reach conclusions in objective truths, but rather uses analytical data to reach subjective, opinionated world views. Just because a discipline uses a wide array of quantitative methods does not mean that all of the data and conclusions we cultivate are cold, dead-set, objective truths. Very often, that quantitative data is merely used as an indicator to inform our beliefs. Opportunity Cost Opportunity cost serves as the foundation of behavioral economics. If there is one lesson I want you to take away from this reading, it’s this; opportunity cost is the next best alternative forgone. It measures the “next best thing,” the option you gave up in an effort to pursue the best option. For instance, on a given day, I could either take a jog for two hours or write for three. If I choose to go for a jog for two hours instead of writing for three, I sacrifice one hour of writing. The figures below demonstrates my options; Jog Write Elibar’s Options 2 3 For the sake of this example, let us assume that there are only two possibilities in this scenario; either I can write for three hours or I can jog for two. There is no middle ground. The red points on the graph are the only two options I have. However, this is hardly how the real world operates. Surely, I can find a comfortable middle ground. To figure out what that middle ground is, however, I need to calculate what the opportunity cost for each individual unit is -- in this case, the unit being hours jogged or writing. If this were a diagram where each of the units had a 1:1 ratio, it would be easy to calculate; i.e. if my options were between three hours of jogging and three hours of writing. I’d be giving up one hour of jogging for one hour of writing, and vice-versa. In this example, we’ll have to exert a bit of basic algebra. To calculate the opportunity cost of pursuing a given option, you must divide the forgone option by the option pursued. For instance, if I decide to jog today, we would divide the forgone option (writing, three hours) by the pursued option (jogging, two hours). Opportunity Cost for one hour of jogging 3 / 2 = 1.5 In this example, for every hour I jog, I give up an hour and a half (1.5) of writing. Conversely; Opportunity Cost for one hour of writing 2 / 3 = 0.66 If I were to pursue writing instead, I would be giving up 0.66 hours of jogging (or two-thirds of an hour, for the fractionally inclined) for each hour I write. So then, let’s say that in our first example, we wanted to pursue only one hour of jogging instead of two. The rest of that time can be used to write. Because our opportunity cost for jogging is 1.5 hours, our graph now looks like the following; As pictured above, in pursuit of one hour of jogging, I have sacrificed an hour and a half of writing. Opportunity cost is mayhaps the single most crucial economic concept for budding scholars to comprehend, as it demonstrates that we live in a world of scarcity and finite resources; and in that world of scarce and finite choices, people have to make decisions which maximize their utility, and optimizes the allocation of the resources available. This is what’s referred to as the rational choice theory. Market Functions` You may know markets as the congregation of shops and stalls in the centre of your town or city, and indeed, that is exactly what a market is in economics, as well. Markets simply refer to the systems and institutions by which parties exchange goods and services, may it be on Main Street or the international exchange of goods. Markets are not a uniform concept, they come in various styles, systems, and sizes. The economy of various halfling villages which reject the usage of mina are just as much of a market as the mixed-use economies of Orcish societies, who often assign value to both mina and snagas, and as is the classical market of Imperial exchange. Markets typically include two major agents involved in the process of exchange; the consumer, who is buying the good or service, and the vendor, who is selling the good or service. There may be other actors involved in market exchanges -- think tax agencies, sales brokers -- but market transactions will always, consistently have a consumer (buyer) and a vendor (seller). Those are the actors in markets, and they manipulate two other major elements which determine the overall status of the marketplace, two elements which are rather intuitive to most; supply and demand. These two fundamental components of economic literature describe how the consumers interact with sellers, and how the price of the good interacts with it’s available quantity. We visualize supply and demand through this figure; A major complaint from new economics students is that they understand the material, but do not understand the graphs used to explain that material. Graphs are tricky business for anybody unfamiliar with visualizing quantitative work, it can be a challenge to rewire your cognition in such a way that graphs make sense, but do keep in mind that these graphs are here to help you comprehend economic concepts. One notion that we ought to clarify immediately is that you should think of supply and demand as separate actors in the marketplace, just as you would distinguish consumers and sellers. Their movements will not have implicit impacts on their counterpart (although there will obviously be consequences of one falling and the other rising, but there is no law which explicitly states, “As demand rises, supply falls.” They are separate actors.) There are four major elements at play here, and it is of utmost importance that any budding economist understands each one. The two to begin with are price and quantity, represented as p and q respectively. Price refers to the compensation one party gives up to the other in exchange for the good being analyzed (this refers to the price the consumer is willing to pay the seller for a good). Quantity refers to the amount of that item which is actively purchased on the marketplace. Demand is the downward sloping curve; as the price of a good increases, the quantity decreases, and vice versa. This is known as the law of demand, and it correlates with the consumer’s desire to purchase goods. Think about the market for our aforementioned Carrington pale ale. At the price of five mina, the demand is relatively high, because many consumers are willing to pay a measly five mina for an ale. However, should the barkeep raise the price to fifteen mina per ale -- a terrifying proposition which I hope never manifests -- then less people will want to buy pale ales at that price; thus, the quantity decreases, and demand has fallen. Then comes supply, the upward sloping curve on our graph. Supply resembles the amount of goods readily available, as provided by the sellers. As it is upwards sloping, the relationship between price and quantity is positive, as opposed to the inverse relationship according to the law of demand. As price increases, so will the quantity, as is the law of supply. Now, take the perspective of our barkeep. Suppose the price of the pale ale he’s selling rises, for whatever the reason (maybe the quantity of malt used to make the ale has decreased, so the malt farmer raises his prices, and the barkeep has to recoup his losses!) As a result, the barkeep has an incentive to produce more pale ale. This will increase the supply. When the supply is greater than the demand for the good, we’re in a situation known as a surplus. When the demand outpaces supply, we’re in a shortage. The intersection on the graph, where both supply and demand meet, refers to the point where both are in perfect market conditions that are appropriate for the given good; they are at equilibrium. This is an important term to remember, as it means the market for that good has perfected itself. However, if demand rises, then the equilibrium price and quantity will rise, resulting in the entirety of the demand curve itself to shift right (as in, the actual line itself will move). When this curve shifts, however, the equilibrium price will still remain at the intersection of the line, but the value of the price and quantity will still have been altered. The inverse also holds true, where a decrease in demand causes the curve to shift left. Likewise, a decrease in supply causes the equilibrium to change to a higher price and lower quantity, as the supply curve will shift left. The opposite also holds true, where the increase in supply causes equilibrium to have a lower price and higher quantity, as the curve shifts right. This concept can be intimidating at first, but forget the fancy terminology for a brief moment. These principles are intuitive, you know that as the price for a good increases then less people are going to be able to afford it. The visualization may be intimidating, but this is not a newfound idea to the well-read commoner. Remember, graphs are your friend, make use of them. Theories of Value Theories of value are competing ideas which contest the foundations of economic thought and principles. Although this veers into the bounds of political economy (the study of how production and trade interact with society’s governance and laws), it is still a series of concepts worth introducing in this first volume. This is to demonstrate that economics is, as clarified in the first section of this book, a social science where subjective morals and opinions are used in qualitative analysis. The theory of value-added is one that has to be comprehended before embarking on an individual economist’s thoughts. The value-added theory stipulates that each stage of production adds additional value to the final value of a produced good. Everything from the malt farmer, to the brewster, to the tavern’s sale of my pale ale adds some sort of value to that ale. With this in mind, the theory which many in the mainstream descendant society adhere to is the subjective theory of value. Subjective-value theory stipulates that we cannot ‘calculate’ the actual value of a good through any inherent property, but rather that the good is valued differently by various consumers, and thus markets allocate the goods to those who need them most based on how much they value them. In other words, “you want this thing more than I do, but I want that thing more than you do.” This is the theory utilized primarily by Imperial, dwarven, and to a smaller degree, Orcish societies. Prominent contemporary economist Soren Q. Z. Haas-Lotherington is one of the most notable advocates of subjective-value theory. The theory most critical of subjective-value theory is the labor theory of value, which takes the opposite stance, in that there are objective indicators which we can use to calculate the value of a certain good; primarily, how much socially necessary labor time was invested into the production of the final good. This theory differentiates the value of the good, which is calculated through how much labor was invested into said good, from the wages paid to workers, who’re paid on the merit of how much their employer and the owner of capital is willing to compensate them. Labor theory of value is practiced staunchly in halfling society, where they’ve forfeited the use of mina, and more recently it has made strides in Mali’aheral circles with modern economists like Tilruir Niënor Nullivari. Classical political economists who adopt the labor theory of value include halfling scholar Bernard Oakstool and the Imperial academic Bell Sano, prominent in the 1600’s. The labor theory of value has lost traction amongst critical scholars, but it has seemingly been making a quiet reappearance in non-human circles today. Conclusion Economics is a complex discipline. It is one that many scholars might find themselves unfamiliar with, even others in the social sciences, as it can make objective truth and subjective thought indiscernible from one another to the unread eye. But to scholars, economics is important because it can have a revolutionary impact, not only on the academic community but society at large. This is more than the study of how things are produced, or how stuff is traded. It is the study of incentives, scarcity, allocation, and how society assigns value to different elements of our various civilizations.