Learning About Real-World Economies Through Game Economies

Reuters has a report about research being done on the in-game economies of MMOs like EverQuest II and World of Warcraft to better understand much larger economic situations in the real world. The games are used as case studies where researchers can do controlled experiments that they couldn't necessarily attempt if real money or goods were involved. "After studying 314 million transactions within the fantasy world of Norrath in EverQuest II, including trading in-game goods like armor, shields, leather, herbs and food, the researchers were able to calculate the GDP of one of the game servers (the back-end computer that hosts thousands of players in one world). As more people opened accounts and flocked to Norrath, spending money on new items, researchers saw inflation spike more than 50 percent in five months. 'We have seen that kind of volatility during times of war and in developing nations in the real world,' said [Dmitri Williams, assistant professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication]. 'Our own economy has turned out to be less stable than we'd all assumed.'"

Comments

No, it can't work

[line-bundle]

The problem with that idea is that the game economy is built with assumptions in mind. These assumptions will generally be based on theoretical economic models. So generally all you achieve with such experiments is confirm your built in beliefs. Chicken, egg anyone?

A similar claim was made about SimCity when it was big, that it would teach about urban planning, but it had so many assumptions built in to be worse than useless.

Re:I for one...

[Sapphon]

[T]he way fractional reserve banking in general and the Federal Reserve in particular is set up, there is always more debt built into the system than there are dollars in circulation. That's because debt is attached to money the moment it is created; i.e. for every X dollars in circulation there is always X+Y debt. This system is just not sustainable. How could it ever do anything but ultimately fail?

Dear Parent, I presume you understand the fractional reserve system so you can skip down to paragraph 4 whilst I provide an Economics 101 refresher for the gallery (and this really is first-semester stuff; I taught it earlier this year):

You and all your friends deposit money at the bank. The bank holds a fraction of the money in reserve (hence the name), at minimum the amount the law specifies, usually plus some amount X. We'll come back to this. The rest of the money it lends to people who want to borrow it; they pay interest, you get interest, the bank takes a cut, hooray.

These borrowers spend the money, and the people who get it stick some of it back into the bank, where the cycle starts afresh. It depends on how much money the bank holds in reserve and how much the populace deposits but, yes, usually there is more debt around than originally produced currency.

Now, you claim that this is a Bad Thing (TM). You don't state why. Presumably you are relying on the intuitive logic that having more debt than official assets can't be good. That intuition relies on the following crucial point: having more debts than assets is only a problem when people try and collect on their debts. Amazingly, this very rarely happens.

You have the absolute right to go to the bank and demand your money, in bar. All of it. Buy who does that? Practically no-one. You ask for a portion of it; some here, some there, more at Christmastime and during the holidays. So long as the banks have enough money to give everyone what they want – and this is the amount X from above – holding the rest of it would just be inefficient, since none of the depositors want it and there are plenty of borrowers who can do productive things with it. Fact: if the banks decided to hold more money in reserve, the government/central bank would simply create more 'original' dollars until the effective level of money is back where it was.

The fractional reserve system does have its problems. But the problems lie in deciding how high the reserves should be – too low, and when people do decide they want their money everything comes crashing down (e.g. AIG). Too high, and businesses can't borrow money and productive potential lies wasted (e.g. the current situation in much of Europe and the US). But the system is not inherently flawed. If the right level of reserves are held – and this is usually the case – the system provides a much more flexible and efficient supply of money than a representative currency.

The original research

[Sapphon]

"As real as real? Macroeconomic behavior in a large-scale virtual world" (links to the abstract with option to download)

Re:I for one...

[Curunir_wolf]

He notes, for example, that changes in M2 are preceeding changes in M0 (which by itself invalidates Austrian theory, by the way).

No, it doesn't. It just shows how the Fed manipulates the economy. Just because banks know that they can go to the Fed or the Treasury to get more debt or a bailout when they are in trouble doesn't mean that it's caused by rational decision-making, it just means that the banks understand the kind of system they are working under, which allowed private profits to be made, and that risk is mitigated by allowing huge debts to be socialized by the tax system.

But not always the debt is unsustainable - if you have real growth, then growth in debt can be sustainable. That's the basic advantage of FRB with respect to gold standard - unlike gold standard, FRB can adapt money supply to finance real growth.

And how do you determine what is "real growth"? We had lots of growth during the dot-com boom, financed by cheap debt. Yet, it couldn't be sustained. I wonder why? Keen (and Minsky) don't seem to be able to explain this. They continue to proposed the same policies that failed then, and are failing now.

With gold standard, it pays off to hold on money during real growth, because money increase value, and it means nobody wants to invest.

Actually, the opposite is true. You don't get "growth" by holding onto money, even if it's gold. Even on a gold standard some inflation occurs. The only way to increase your saving (or keep it from losing value to inflation over the long term) is to invest that money in some value-creating enterprise.

But they are both inherently unstable, because the debts can grow even if there is no corresponding real growth.

Exactly. Especially when, for instance, the Fed keeps interest rates artificially low, creates a housing bubble, and people borrow money against and artificially inflated home value. If the interest rates were allowed to go up in response to the reduced savings, the bubble would not grow so large and the adjustment would be short and easy to deal with, instead of creating a global crises like this one did.