Gabital - Fantasy Capitalism 101 [Ongoing]

Posted on 31 May 2025, 20:03 by: onenightes

Uploader Comment

https://boosty.to/gabiconomics-en

Posted on 10 December 2024, 23:48 by: Thoromuerte

Anti-capitalist message, now on your favourite porn site!

Approved! :D

Posted on 11 December 2024, 01:41 by: SomeGuy91

actually, its very pro capitalist. "if you dont like the way it is, just do it yourself."
what it really doesnt like is CRONY capitalism where established buisness owners get special deals.

Posted on 11 December 2024, 02:50 by: Genoshia

@Thoromuerte This is pretty much exclusively pro-capitalism. Under capitalism, the correct solution to a bad boss is to stop working for them. The systems shown also allow Gabi to start her own business, instead of outright stopping her as would be the case in other economic structures.
Even her old boss takes the capitalist route in competing with her-so far-by trying to leverage his existing wealth as a means to out compete her. Instead of lobbying additional license requirements that ensures only his wheels are 'government approved,' which is how you'd compete in a more socialist system.

This doesn't denounce capitalism; It highlights the traps and pitfalls of it, shows how to get around them, and points out how capitalism is enabling the option to combat corruption by just being a better business.

Posted on 23 December 2024, 12:01 by: thatguy26

buncha gonner dipshits in the comments simping for the system that exploits them lmao

Posted on 23 December 2024, 14:47 by: Pedrobeartimon

thatguy26 acting like needing to take action yourself to fix a problem that you want fixed is wrong and other people should just do it for you

Posted on 23 December 2024, 18:31 by: AbusePuppy

@SomeGuy91

"Crony capitalism" isn't a real thing, it's what people simping for capitalism say to defend it. Same as folks saying "but the Soviet Union/CCCP/etc wasn't REAL communism!" as a way to try and sidestep the discussion. All capitalism is inherently nepotistic, and it's always gonna result in Good Ol' Boys power structures wherein the rich and hyper-rich conspire to protect their own interests at the expense of everyone else and of society in general. That is what the system does, and how it's designed to work.

@Genoshia
>instead of outright stopping her as would be the case in other economic structures.

What... economic structures do you know of that would prohibit the starting of businesses? I feel like that would be a pretty obvious problem for any kind of economic theory that tried to practice it. Even the most authoritarian of command economies usually only dictate specific sectors and/or products, rather than a ban on what sort of businesses are allowed to exist.

Posted on 08 January 2025, 23:25 by: Unwanted Miles

To aliviate the tension of the discussion above...

Am I the only one who gets Primis Richtofen vibes from the boss guy?

Posted on 10 January 2025, 20:58 by: Mason2

Goblin cute. Hope succeed.

Posted on 18 January 2025, 13:08 by: heretic1311

@AbusePuppy Capitalism isn´t "inherently nepotistic", POWER STRUCTURES are, you get nepotism in socialism and monarchism just as much as in capitalism.
If Capitalism is anything "inherently", then it´s MERITOCRATIC, and the socialist types hate that as it´s exclusive, making people unequal.
Monarchism CAN be meritocratic, but few monarchs are wise enough to make it work properly.

Key with the whole concept of Politics as a whole is that all boils down to a really simple idea: who owns what. That´s what politics is by definition.
And there are three big ideas on how it´s don:
1: first and oldest is Monarchism, the idea that everything belongs to ONE, usually the strongest and he decides how things are distributed
2: second, born as the exact opposite to Monarchism, is Socialism (the oldest form i know are the early Christians), it is the idea that EVERYONE owns EVERYTHING
3: the youngest form, mostly a result of the movement we call the "Enlightenment", Capitalism is the idea that you own the fruits of your labor and are free to exchange them at your own free will with others, hence referred to as "Free Market"

Each of these basic forms has a LOT of variations in which is was attempted to implement them.

And i REALLY didn´t expect a political discussion on a PORN SITE O.o

Posted on 19 January 2025, 04:29 by: Ignitation

This is great.. I've actually learning alot about business (Beat going to the business school, But also realize why these schools are so damn popular too). Also I get it now why there are so much bandit, highwaymen or smuggler to begin with in first place. The system totally crushing the "little guys" to the point they can't dare to hope on resurfacing from the system!!

Also I can see many "opportunities" for an easy favors to be taken on business dealing and how these plot point can be very relevant to the story progression as well.

Posted on 19 January 2025, 06:21 by: RabidTanker

Come to think of it, has anyone ever did an thesis entirely through an comic?

Posted on 19 January 2025, 09:41 by: Genoshia

Ah yes, a classic depiction of the Socialist ideal! Starting a socialist system, not by going somewhere free of industry and starting from the ground up, but by operating as a single socialist entity within an existing capitalist structure.
Handily side-steps the inherent negative of a fully socialist structure dealing poorly with bad actors by giving the illusion that the bad actors only exist as employers in other companies. Surely no one with bad intentions would abuse this structure Gabi is creating by, say, getting a bunch of their friends to sign on and then vote Gabi and Falke out of the company so that they essentially steal all the wealth the two invested in the company initially. Especially not just as a means to sell everything the two worked hard to create and produce by themselves to competition to make quick cash.
Obviously, scam-artists only exist at the business-owner level, and no lower!

Posted on 01 February 2025, 21:28 by: JunkAlot

Politics? On my porn site?

Although, the goblin girls are kind of cute. I can fap to this.

Posted on 05 February 2025, 10:07 by: Villhadig

@RabidTanker Don't think anyone has ever done their *own* thesis through a comic (except maybe Fisk who loves to preach libertarianist bullshit through his "THIS IS ACTUAL LIFE" comics) but there is manga and comic versions of works of Marx and Lenin certainly.

Nice little comic, though it right now sidesteps the realities of the impossibility of building a socialist structure within capitalism where capitalism can outmanouver collective businesses through practices like deflation of price etc. I do hope we will see the comic ending with just outright goblin revolution and expropriation of the "chiefs" wealth into the hands of the laborers.

I disagree with people saying it is pro-capitalist. It shows a lot of the inherent issues of capitalism and while Gabi and her team is trying to work around it, they meet constant institutional hurdles that are designed to work against them and for the already established upper class. What remains to be seen is if the comic ends with a social democratic message or actual socialist message.

Last edited on 05 February 2025, 10:29.

Posted on 05 February 2025, 19:15 by: Saladburger

Anti-capitalist message on a site where people advertise their Patreon for first-try AI art which required 2 prompts.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 02:08 by: letarumavza

@Saladburger : porn is great at creating a common ground for political, cultural and social diversity. People are way more inclusive when they are horny. It doesn't mean you don't encounter the occasional more vocal than numerous dumb and hateful asshole tho, but most of the time these toxic fucks can be shamed into oblivion.

In the end, and excepting some pricks, most people just want everyone to be happy and in good health and friction only comes from what it means and how to achieve that goal. Even people who describe themselves as individualist would not let somebody they know suffer when they can do something. Pure hate is noisy but marginal and I do think porn is a great tool to create understanding, because everyone can understand somebody else fapping.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 05:11 by: Pedrobeartimon

@letarumavza the issue is when people are forced to provide for others, rather than allowed to do so of their own accord.

Posted on 16 February 2025, 10:19 by: PoorWhiteTrash

Gabi reaches the Sam Vimes stage of class consciousness: Boots.

Posted on 21 February 2025, 14:48 by: Villhadig

@Pedrobeartimon
Are we talking about socialism or capitalism here? Cause if we were to look at the relation of people with production in capitalism you would be pretty much describing it spot on. A mass of people are forced to provide for the wealth of others (the small minority of owners of production). Many might say "Oh but it is a choice you make to work for them, you can just chose not to work there at all." but this is just plain false, how much freedom of choice do we have really under capitalism? We have a set of very basic needs we need to fullfill: food and shelter. In a capitalist society both of these require money as the absolute vast majority of people do not have the means of self-sufficiency. Land is often privately or state owned which prohibits hunting or foraging from them by the public and is expensive to buy something you could realistically survive off on, so there isn't really much choice not to work for a wage to survive, not to mention even if you own a land there are costs involved to actually building a shelter then on it.

So we need to work to make a wage to eat and live. We don't really have much of a choice in capitalism, it's either sell our labour for cheap to the rich or starve. That's not a choice, that's a gun put to our head by the capitalists, a gun that won't kill us instantly but slowly starve us to death instead if we don't abide by their rules. Is that truly then any different from the nightmare image people have of having to work under socialism?

"Why not open your own business?" is a common question, most of which is pretty much answered in this very comic: it's hard to compete in a market especially where we have such advanced production techniques that massive corporations can produce everything at a vastly cheaper price in massive amounts to fullfill needs. You need to then be fullfilling a very specific marketable niche which, let's be absolutely real here, most of us have not the skill for. So then it's wage labour for most of us.

"Why not work somewhere else for better pay?" That is just switching which exploiter I sell my labour to and the reality is for the vast majority of us, we can't afford to take that risk of saying "No, I don't want this job and I am simply gonna go somewhere else". Many people live on paycheck to paycheck now in this economy. Kicking your job to hope to find another with an uncertain timeframe as to when you will ever get a new one is too risky of a gamble for more and more people.

So, in the end, I dunno exactly what your argument is but if it's that people would be "forced" to provide for others under socialism (which is a scaremonger argument from capitalists): we are forced to make a tiny minority of people rich today, how is that any better?

Posted on 04 March 2025, 23:33 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig The difference is pretty much what you described; Under capitalism, even if the choices are not always ideal, they still exist. Under communism* that choice is removed. You do not get to decide who you work for, regardless of whether or not the compensation for your labor fails to meet your needs, because you don't own the rights to your own labor under that structure.
Capitalism doesn't promise that you'll succeed if you try to start your own business, or if you give up your job to find a better one. It only promises that you will have the option to try. What you seem to be failing to realize is just how highly the majority of people value having that option.
The main reason for this, of course, being that basically any alternative system will not be led by omniscient beacons of moral purity. They will be led by other people, and the instant one of those people proves themselves to be a bad actor, the entirety of the system will suffer for it. At the end of the conversation, most people would rather gamble on their own efforts and actions deciding their fate, than leaving it in the hands of a gaggle of people whom they've never met, and whom also have an active and obvious incentive to abuse their power for self gain.

*What you're calling socialism, despite the fact that the majority of socialist countries in the world today are actively embracing capitalist economic structures, because rebranding communism as socialism is a classic communist tactic

Posted on 13 March 2025, 22:53 by: Genoshia

@Villhadig I'm going to stop you at your second line; Your argument is predicated on sighting Karl Marx as an authority on socialism and communism. He isn't. Communism, as an economic principal, existed well before Marx. I will not argue that he did not have an impact on how people view communism in the modern day, as he Did do that, but his ideas only impacted modern communism. They do not define it, and going forward under the assumption that Marx is the only authority is baseless. It does not mean 'stateless and classless society,' as Marx described it, because you can have both authoritarian and libertarian versions of communist societies. Communism, as defined in its modern usage, just means a society where all things are owned equally by all citizens. If you do not accept that fact, you're not unlike the majority of communist supporters, but you're also not a realist and I don't deal with fanatics.

Socialism, especially, existed long before Marx and calling him an authority on modern socialist ideals is laughably incorrect. Contrary to the tale you're actively trying to spin, socialism can easily exist under both authoritarian and libertarian principals, and modern socialist policies can easily exist within an otherwise largely capitalist society. Socialist parties and people have been aiming towards more socialist societies without the ultimate goal of achieving communism for literal centuries. This conversation is not a black-and-white one, as many people who use the exact rhetoric you're exhibiting try to make it out to be. Much the same way as there is no 'pure' capitalist society in the modern world, no one is attempting to achieve a 'pure' socialist or communist society. Some people, like you, might advocate for one, but no government on the planet is actually moving in that direction.

What you're actively trying to do is re-brand the terms to mean something they don't mean, in practice, because you don't like how the modern world uses them in comparison to the Marxist fantasy world he conjured up to promote his ideals. Marxism will never come to pass, because once you hit the Billions of people mark, there's no way that you'll achieve any form of economic activity without distributing resources according to Some individual or groups authority on deciding who gets what, because there are resources on this planet that are limited and some group that has 'need' of them will always go without.
Not even mentioning all the other pitfalls Marx's fantasy world could never over come for practical reasons, like bad actors within the society.

Moving on:
You're also wrong about capitalism; Capitalism doesn't promise anything, it's an economic system that just means wealth is distributed based on a free market. Proponents of capitalism under a more authoritarian society uphold it, not as an ideal economic system, but as the best available to us as a result of innate human flaws. The main 'upside' of authoritarian capitalism-a free market with restrictions placed on it by a government to ensure the market remains actually free, and not dominated by monopoly-is that it always offers the individual the freedom to choose.
You are not guaranteed a fortune in exchange for hard work; You're also not guaranteed poverty if you never work a day in your life. All you are guaranteed is the option to decide what You do with Your labor, and Your money.
Unfortunately, humans are flawed, and some will devote their labor to endeavors that will not result in great wealth, or even really much wealth at all. Likewise, there are those who will decide to devote their wealth to their children in the form of handing them a business they worked hard to create without any guarantee that said business will flourish under their child's ownership. This creates a host of problems, of course, but that's the price of giving people the freedom to choose. Some people will make poor decisions; However, that will be true regardless of what type of economic system we live in.
Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where I own my own labor, and how I spend my labor and the wealth generated by it is my decision. The fact that people like me exist-and the lack of evidence that we will never cease to exist-is the main reason Marx's fantasy will never come to pass. Even if you somehow created that system, eventually generations will pass and more people will be born who want the rights to their labor back.

Posted on 14 March 2025, 09:26 by: UnknownVariableA

In this comments thread, people are clearly getting worked up over nothing instead of just enjoying the artist's work.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 10:41 by: Villhadig

@Genoshia
Absolute nonsense of an argument. Marx is absolutely the modern authority on the ideas of socialism and communism, his ideas and analysis shaped the movement and all who came after him. Yes, socialism is as you say older than Marx, the ideas had existed before him but we called those people utopians for they only had a vision but no analysis of how getting to that vision. Marx made socialism a science and dedicated his life along with Engels to discern how the working class could reach it.

What libertarian principles could socialism or communism possibly exist under? The definition of it according to you is "just means a society where all things are owned equally by all citizens", libertarianism is the ideology of the liberals but just more insane and more freedom to exploit others. Nothing can be distributed equally either under libertarianism. It is the ideology of people who want to own businesses and be sure that NOBODY interferes in it. It is the private ownership of the means of production that creates the inequality in society which libertarianism just enhances tenfold and with any form of libertarianism, socialism and communism cannot be achieved.

Your argument for capitalism just presents it as a massive lottery, where uncertainty is just the only constant, what is the purpose then of it? Why have such an anarchistic system of economic society dominate us? It is nothing then but a system of complete chaos that utterly ruins billions of people across the world while benefitting the few, that is an even greater argument for it's abolishment.

Also, nice rephrase calling it "human flaws" instead of just saying the usual "human nature", it means the same in this context. You use yourself as evidence as a "fact that people like me exist-and the lack of evidence that we will never cease to exist". That is exactly what anthropology is for, we have studied multiple human cultures and society across the globe and people like you *do not* exist in those were we do not have private ownership. You are but a product of the material conditions of society around you, one of capitalism, greed and culture of individualism. If we change that society people like you would absolutely be phased out of existence.

I am not gonna continue this conversation, you have clearly, absolutely no idea what you are talking about trying to tell others what is and isn't marxism, socialism and communism and continuing to speak with you is utterly meaningless. You have already outed yourself as a libertarian. You wanna talk about fanaticism? Fanaticism is the incessant upholding of a system of exploitation because your belief is that "there is nothing better". You are literally the reactionary of this conversation, cowardly holding onto oppression because it benefits *you* while the majority of the world suffers for it. Absolutely pathetic.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 18:09 by: adamnemo42

@Villhadig
Just a minor correction but libertarian was originally a socialist term. It was co-opted by hypercapitalists in the US so there the association is with the ideology you understand it to mean.

Posted on 15 March 2025, 21:51 by: Villhadig

@adamnemo42
Originally yes, but the discussion was how we see the ideologies today. Hence why I reject their argument of Marx not being an authority of the definitions of socialism and communism for that is how modern socialism and communism today now is defined by. And libertarians, as you say, are now hypercapitalists like Milei and have nothing in common with the left.

Posted on 16 March 2025, 07:22 by: adamnemo42

@Villhadig
I mean there are still people who use the term "libertarian socialism" to describe ideological positions that align with the anarchism side of socialism and libertarian is still fairly commonly used outside the US in its original left-wing meaning. That said it is true that in the modern American understanding of what libertarian means vs socialism then yes they have absolutely nothing to do with one another. And of course Marx is such an influential writer that modern definitions and discussions of socialism and communism have been shaped by his work.

Last edited on 23 March 2025, 05:01.

Posted on 14 April 2025, 15:09 by: PoorWhiteTrash

Fantasy pinkertons inbound?

Posted on 28 April 2025, 03:25 by: redstonemm

I want to see spicy stuff in this, put some horny content in

Posted on 06 May 2025, 17:42 by: Neeckin

This is kind of a depressing read I'll be honest

Posted on 06 May 2025, 18:02 by: againagainagain

I love the internet

Posted on 06 May 2025, 21:09 by: Villhadig

@redstonemm Nah, let the socialist tiddy goblins cook. They have important experiences to tell people.

@Neeckin Capitalism is depressing.

Posted on 13 May 2025, 11:48 by: demonherobrine303

I only have one thought left now.Catch the human capitalist and find a street lamp to hang up.It's time for some socialism, bastards!

Posted on 13 May 2025, 12:50 by: Neeckin

Dude crossed the picket line and gave their wheel design to the enemy? Good way to get your legs busted walking home at night

Posted on 13 May 2025, 17:07 by: dagger69

@Genoshia bro's really trying to define communism as a capitalist realist? Quite a task, like a clown fitting into a tiny car with twenty others.

"not as an ideal economic system, but as the best available to us as a result of innate human flaws" and would you look at that! An expert in philosophy too! At least enough to know the absolute best possible system of economic production and distribution for humanity, out of an endless series of possibilities, the majority of which haven't yet been conceived of, AND that it's the one we're currently living in, isn't that convenient?

I mean, it's all so obvious, after all/S

Posted on 14 May 2025, 00:54 by: dsadsadsadsa

Is he doing the fucking Freddie Mercury pose on page 49?

Posted on 17 May 2025, 21:45 by: Villhadig

@dagger69
What's funnier is that the wank actually first posted that the comic is "pro-capitalism", even as the first pages started showing all the flaws within the system and features a goblin waving a red flag as cover. And for some reason if you're pro-socialist/communist there is a bunch of people who clearly come in to downvote you just for the sake of it, they are not reading this comic at all or actually like what it is telling.

Posted on 19 May 2025, 21:43 by: jlt314

As a minor point, the "Chief" is a too literal translation of "шеф". "Boss" would be more accurate.
Also, Gabi's full name is "Gabital", pun on "Capital" by Marx intended according to the author.
Also note the "education" and "corruption" pages. BTW, the translators skipped the pages dedicated to Labour Day (May 1St) and Victory Day (May 9th).

Posted on 20 May 2025, 00:53 by: Draupnir7

So... where is the consumer choice? I'm noticing a lack of that, as though a lower price is an inviolable natural force of attraction for coin and not one data point of several that informs a purchase.
Am I also to assume that nobody in the city observed the pricing war occur, let alone the fell-out-of-the-Antagonists-R-Us-bargain-bin-lookin'-ass caricature posing obnoxiously? Or that if someone did notice it, they drew no conclusions? Appearance is also a data point, and the owner of a company conducting himself like a twat in public is a strong one, and would turn people off from a purchase. Unless you remove the concept of consumer choice.

Posted on 20 May 2025, 10:24 by: rocketdrive

There are people who still buy kanye west merch and songs after he fully embraced being a nazi. There are also those who got more interested because he embraced being a nazi.

Both invalidate your point on "bad behavior discourages sales" remark @draupnir7

Posted on 21 May 2025, 11:54 by: Villhadig

Not to mention that consumer choice is only a choice for the people with more disposable income, this is only valid in a society where we are paid a fair share for our labour and can afford to be picky. For a lot of people, it's no choice but to find the cheapest options that they can afford no matter who the supposed brand is in order to make ends meet. And speaking of, brands also have a massive influence in our choice where we often pick familiar brands we know and recognise, not to mention that often multiple "competing" brands are often owned by the same conglomerates that it absolutely matters not who you buy it from, the money goes into the same pocket.

Posted on 28 May 2025, 17:32 by: 写生战士

Jesus Christ I'm so fucking want to fuck her with my fucking hard dick

Posted on 31 May 2025, 21:01 by: william1024

Page 38 (image 42): Ah, the good old Vimes Boot Theory.

Posted on 31 May 2025, 23:47 by: Dynamite Ninja

Gabi is gonna encounter the key problem in any collective - size.
If she's successful, she should be expanding her business to capitalise on her success. The fact she gets to any success means she is a logical actor who would make that decision, and if she isn't, other members of the collective would push for this because, net, they are logical.
Size leads to complexity as more functions are performed. After a certain point, managing the whole group is impossible for a single manager, and administrative systems are formed to deal with this.
This is precisely the time when contrary interests begin to emerge - the presence of administration, whatever form it takes (bureaucracy, democracy, collectivism, whathaveyou), means there is a simple mechanism to affect the dynamics of the whole system. A self interested entity who can understand this administration sufficiently - play the politics - can begin to adjust it for their own end, thus the interests of the collective do not align with the interests of the individual.
This can be divided into two cases - either the collective is unopposed, or there exist other entities the collective engages with. In the former, collective performance may reward someone less than them absorbing functions in the hierarchy to enable corruption outside "fair" system set up for them. Thus a de-facto, but not de-jure external entity is formed, necessarily parasitic. Any communist government expresses this, with the famous maddening politics and corruption of "the party". In the latter, betrayal of the collective to an external aggressor may become quite beneficial.
This is resolved well with the company cooperating on a spinout, if possible - to make the external de-jure. In this case, a new entity is formed with its own incentives, but the original collective aligns its interests with the new one. There are numerous ways to achieve this, including rent, shares, client relationships, etc. Here we run into the problem of socialism - it denies this option.
Each mechanism of multi-entity alignment is a capitalistic one, where the work produced by one entity is converted into abstract tokens and traded to another. This abstractification and free dynamics is important because it permits freedom of the entities that can be generated, while minimising administrative overhead to just managing the abstract object, permitting entities to specialise and thus making this system scalable.
Obvious an outcome of this is, yes, the hierarchies of a capitalist system, but these hierarchies are integrated to the wider system, stimulating it. It may be an adversarial relationship, but it is not parasitic, because they use the tools of the system. A socialist system *necessarily* forces such players to operate around the system. In fact, the communist ideal of a "glorious revolution" forgets that such system disruption is not removable from a communist system. Once entrenched, the revolution simply happens in a fractionalised way - this is, by definition, corruption. The alternative proposed was the "eternal revolution", but this is just a fancy term for what the Mongols did, and they called it by its real name, "ransacking Europe and Asia for centuries". Eventually you run out of other countries, and the former problem establishes itself.
It's not really the question of "is capitalism a better system" - it is *the* system. It is *the* mechanism by which interest conflict is reconciled. If you can propose another system that effectively permits two entities to be COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO ONE ANOTHER and still engage in the same mutually beneficial system, I will show you how you either fail to meet these precise conditions or you have defined capitalism.
Ironically, the BIG concern should be the already powerful entities trying to ESTABLISH anything socialist or undermine capitalism, as, given they have resources and dominance, in this system they control the boundaries of a given system. Then, when they own that, they have the ability to truly parasitise the original system, eventually destroying it.
Managing the respective rates of schism and consolidation which mutually check one another to ensure this doesn't happen is the job of a central bank. The problem of course then is that all neutral bodies eventually become corrupt (as explained earlier), so the same dynamics have to occur at the administrative level. We arrive at geopolitical competition. And so on and so on and so on. As long as the eternal revolution is well managed with layers of common negotiation mechanisms, then no problem.
Now we go back to the collective. Participating in this battle for dominance - the key distraction and mitigative factor against the destruction of the common capitalist system (and participating in this battle is baked into the dynamics of a healthy economy and business performance, like it or not - local buyouts of failing business are a step into that direction) - is best achieved by resource maximisation. And sharing and sharing and sharing resources with the growing collective cuts out profits from the individuals most skills at leveraging those assets, which should be invested in protecting the collective. A conflict. This is either resolved by being outcompeted, or stopping the asset dilution and ensuring the decisionmakers keep the assets. Enter: the shareholders, and the nonshareholding employees. Of course, this arises not from this kind of thinking, but self-interest, but this whole system is based on self interested actors. "But what if we weren't self interested", I hear you ask? Well, Little Timmy - then you would die and leave no progeny, while the self interested actor does, and so it would have to become a system of self interested actors.
And that is why Gabi is going to have her idealism (which makes her an excellent small business owner) be slapped in the face with the difficulties of progressing to the mid-sized business owner.
And so concludes your masterclass into dynamic complex multiagent systems applied to economics.

Posted on 01 June 2025, 09:18 by: Genoshia

@Draupnir7 Consumer choice Has occurred, along a variety of factors. We're not aware of all of them, but we can make some assumptions as to what's going on here.
What we've been shown so far is that Chief has a backlog of wheels created for him by Gabi, before they stopped working for him. We can assume this means these wheels are of a quality at least on par with what people have been buying already, for quite a long time. As such, outside of price, the second factor purchasers are considering is quality; At least for now, it's the same quality.
What we've also been shown is that a large number of businesses within this town are owned, in some manner, by a Chief-equivalent; The timber company, the smithy, and even the cupcake stand have all had some equivalent to 'chief' who is in charge. The cup cake cart driver even points out he had to raise his prices because the 'owner' raised them as a result of increased wheel costs.
From this, we can derive two other factors; Much of the purchasing power within this city is held by people like Chief, who likely find his style of dress and mannerisms in keeping with their ideals of 'upper class' society, and likely see getting to do business with "one of their own" as a positive factor in favor of Chief. Second, given how the price of wheels increased other prices almost immediately, it's likely that the owners of this city are operating at paper-thin margins at the lowest levels. Likely as a result of taking as large of a piece for themselves as possible, meaning that a lower price for purchasing means a lower price for their consumer, which is yet another factor driving them towards whichever business can ultimately offer the lower prices.

If anything, long-standing businesses that have seen this happen before-basically exactly what Chief did to the last competing wheel company-likely wait for this kind of thing to happen, then buy his back stock of wheels in bulk to save on money while the competition keeps prices low. Meaning large businesses-the ones who buy the most wheels-have every reason to keep Chief in business, because he'll continue this trend of making money off those who have to buy when his prices are up, while taking advantages of his low prices whenever he tries to force out a new competitor.

Posted on 01 June 2025, 17:12 by: erana

Page 60, last panel, her face: "Forget all this crap about economics! LET'S TALK ABOUT YURI!"

Posted on 02 June 2025, 18:48 by: FeaturedOn

If you want to endear the public to your cause, employ a lisping anthropomorphic reptile woman in a maid's uniform whose expressive eyes and blushing elation overcome her Blemished Beauty.

EZ PZ

Posted:	2025-05-31 20:03
Parent:	3362426
Visible:	No (Replaced)
Language:	English
File Size:	381.7 MiB
Length:	60 pages
Favorited:	541 times

language:	english
female:	freckles gloves goblin midget monster girl
other:	comic western non-h

Rating:		146
Average: 4.77