Re: [eia] a question about trade

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

After your second email, Mike, I'm not sure which side of the argument you
agree with.  Spain did have condition B.6. imposed on it by France.  But my
assertion is that B.6. is not the reason for the lack of trade with America
in this case, and so 12.9 does not kick in.

I see a country's submission to B.6., that is, the turning away of American
shipping, as an act of government, just like the act of imposing tariffs and
duties to collect income from trade.  When a country's capital is occupied,
it loses the ability to make those kinds of actions.  The government's
policy, whether of collecting money from trade or of turning trade away in
accordance with B.6., cannot be enforced while the capital is occupied.

So in other words, I don't picture the trading ports as being empty when the
capital is occupied.  On the contrary, the merchantmen are whooping it up
and trading like mad, because there are no officials coming around to
collect the government's share.

-JJY
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [eia] a question about trade


> At 11:14 PM 3/20/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> >         I'd have to agree with JJ on this one.  Britain does not have
the
> > chance to deny American trade because Spain is not eligible to carry out
> > American trade.  The nationality of the force occupying a national
> > capital is not relevant to it making the nation ineligible to trade.
>
> A better way to say this is probably that Spain does carry out American
> trade, it just collects no income from it.  So, Britain could choose to
> block trade, gain nothing and risk war with America, but it has no reason
> to.  However, if the peace condition block to trade were in place it is
> possible war could start even though the major power could not benefit
from
> the trade.
>
> I think this wording better follows the language used in the various parts
> of the economic phase text.  It does make for an interesting situation
> where Britain could end up at war even though the country being denied
> trade can't generate income from it, but if the American vessels are being
> snatched on the high seas I guess those cooky Yankees just don't care if
> the money was destined for a merchant's pocket or a custom official's.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia