Internal Sale Issue

General Discussions about new beta versions of Capitalism Lab
Message
Author
User avatar
eleaza
Level 8 user
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:40 pm

Re: Internal Sale Issue

#11 Post by eleaza » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:20 pm

kazenorin wrote:
I guess I'm not clear on what you mean by "subsidiary." Do you mean a competitor corporation that you've acquired a majority of the share capital of? In that case, doesn't it become a fully integrated entity (i.e. merger) with your corporation, meaning you have complete control over it. You decide if it goes out of business or not. In that case, your sub's retail firm's purchase of your own factory's product is really just your right hand paying your left hand. Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes a subsidiary in this game.
You understood correctly.

The sub however may still periodically lose all cash and require you to inject capital.

You don't actually lose anything, it's just annoying having the "out-of-cash" thing to pop out every now and then.
It also creates an inflated operating profit number for the parent company. This may or may not affect you though.
This is why it's a good idea to put internal sales on by default always. And only open 3rd party purchasing via warehouses, and set your internal sales unit with group purchasing option ON. This way your subsidiary will and can buy from your internal sales of the default internal price, and the 3rd party price can always be controlled via warehouses.
E is for Endear, all cute and cuddly
L is for Luxury, longing for splendid
E is for Elate, making others happy
A is for Amenable, a serene nature
Z is for Zeal, zest for wonderful life
A is for Admirers, all of you love me
Image

kazenorin
Level 3 user
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:05 am

Re: Internal Sale Issue

#12 Post by kazenorin » Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:34 am

eleaza wrote:
kazenorin wrote:
I guess I'm not clear on what you mean by "subsidiary." Do you mean a competitor corporation that you've acquired a majority of the share capital of? In that case, doesn't it become a fully integrated entity (i.e. merger) with your corporation, meaning you have complete control over it. You decide if it goes out of business or not. In that case, your sub's retail firm's purchase of your own factory's product is really just your right hand paying your left hand. Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes a subsidiary in this game.
You understood correctly.

The sub however may still periodically lose all cash and require you to inject capital.

You don't actually lose anything, it's just annoying having the "out-of-cash" thing to pop out every now and then.
It also creates an inflated operating profit number for the parent company. This may or may not affect you though.
This is why it's a good idea to put internal sales on by default always. And only open 3rd party purchasing via warehouses, and set your internal sales unit with group purchasing option ON. This way your subsidiary will and can buy from your internal sales of the default internal price, and the 3rd party price can always be controlled via warehouses.
That's a great idea!

That way I don't have to wait until the produced product to appear all the time to set it to internal sales before anyone purchases them.

It would be nice if there's a button somewhere to toggle "Internal Sales for new products".

User avatar
David
Site Admin
Posts: 4781
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 1:42 pm

Re: Internal Sale Issue

#13 Post by David » Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:03 am

FYI: Set the default "Internal Sale" status
http://www.capitalismlab.com/set-the-de ... tatus.html

kazenorin
Level 3 user
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:05 am

Re: Internal Sale Issue

#14 Post by kazenorin » Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:36 pm

David wrote:FYI: Set the default "Internal Sale" status
http://www.capitalismlab.com/set-the-de ... tatus.html

Great!

Wasn't aware of that, thanks!

aarondmsu
Level 2 user
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:04 am

Re: Internal Sale Issue

#15 Post by aarondmsu » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:33 pm

David wrote:FYI: Set the default "Internal Sale" status
http://www.capitalismlab.com/set-the-de ... tatus.html
That's fine if you are sure you want to be the only retailer of your products from the start. But let's say you start as a wholesaler, then decide to change strategy and go into retailing your own product and want to be the only distributor of your product. The purchasers who were already purchasing from you are seemingly grandfathered in. You can't get rid of them (other than by the pricing them out trick).

User avatar
eleaza
Level 8 user
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:40 pm

Re: Internal Sale Issue

#16 Post by eleaza » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:11 am

aarondmsu wrote:
David wrote:FYI: Set the default "Internal Sale" status
http://www.capitalismlab.com/set-the-de ... tatus.html
That's fine if you are sure you want to be the only retailer of your products from the start. But let's say you start as a wholesaler, then decide to change strategy and go into retailing your own product and want to be the only distributor of your product. The purchasers who were already purchasing from you are seemingly grandfathered in. You can't get rid of them (other than by the pricing them out trick).
I vaguely remember a long time ago I read someone proposing contract mechanism, so players can break the link at will or something. Not quite remember what's the exacting suggestion.

However it sounds like a viable solution for a quasi-contract mechanism, where if human player wish to cut off a link, is considered as a form of breaching contract thus players can pay the AI/downstream firm for a total fee and be done with it. And it can be universal to human player's own downstream firm as well, since you pay yourself the end result is still the same. (although it sounds quite weird to "break contract with yourself", but if a new term in individual firm accounting income statement need to include such "expenses in fee", then we need to treat human owned firm the same as AI firm regardless, and I wonder whether as human firm linking to AI source will require the mechanism of having "tender offer" to ask players to leave AI's strained supply alone with a paying fee offer?)
E is for Endear, all cute and cuddly
L is for Luxury, longing for splendid
E is for Elate, making others happy
A is for Amenable, a serene nature
Z is for Zeal, zest for wonderful life
A is for Admirers, all of you love me
Image

aarondmsu
Level 2 user
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:04 am

Re: Internal Sale Issue

#17 Post by aarondmsu » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:01 am

eleaza wrote:
aarondmsu wrote:
David wrote:FYI: Set the default "Internal Sale" status
http://www.capitalismlab.com/set-the-de ... tatus.html
That's fine if you are sure you want to be the only retailer of your products from the start. But let's say you start as a wholesaler, then decide to change strategy and go into retailing your own product and want to be the only distributor of your product. The purchasers who were already purchasing from you are seemingly grandfathered in. You can't get rid of them (other than by the pricing them out trick).
I vaguely remember a long time ago I read someone proposing contract mechanism, so players can break the link at will or something. Not quite remember what's the exacting suggestion.

However it sounds like a viable solution for a quasi-contract mechanism, where if human player wish to cut off a link, is considered as a form of breaching contract thus players can pay the AI/downstream firm for a total fee and be done with it. And it can be universal to human player's own downstream firm as well, since you pay yourself the end result is still the same. (although it sounds quite weird to "break contract with yourself", but if a new term in individual firm accounting income statement need to include such "expenses in fee", then we need to treat human owned firm the same as AI firm regardless, and I wonder whether as human firm linking to AI source will require the mechanism of having "tender offer" to ask players to leave AI's strained supply alone with a paying fee offer?)
I don't see why we would need a quasi-contract mechanism or termination fees. There are no other forms of transactional costs built into this game. You don't need an ongoing contract between supplier/purchaser. They enter into one-off contracts on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Purchaser orders goods; supplier fills the order. That's the end of that particular contract. Neither party should be obliged to keep doing business with the other after that unless they want to.

Post Reply