RE: [FE] ITTT was Re: Texaco Free Trade Zone
From: "Brian Bell" <bkb@b...>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:53:21 -0400
Subject: RE: [FE] ITTT was Re: Texaco Free Trade Zone
In my estimation, it would take about 45 years for the run to become
profitable. This leave 54 years of profit. ITTT takes the LONG term view
of
profits. It is this long term investment that scares off the
compitition. As
you stated not many stockholders would be willing to invest for 45 years
at
a loss or near loss to make profits eventually. ITTT's owner did this
because
a) He had a dream of intestellar trade.
b) He had the money and investors.
c) The time was right to set the precident for a monopoly (first
interstellar colonies and the nations that would be hard pressed to
truely
support them due to wars and such).
d) spin-off technologies and subsideraries were predicted to provide
profits
in the short run.
e) In gaining contracts for the first colonies, they would be the most
heavily invested in by the founding governments and thus become
profitable
before later ones; This made getting the first ones essential for the
scheme
to work.
f) ITTT has the resources to field a large number of Q-Ships and escorts
which cuts down on piracy against its ships.
Granted by the time of the Kra'Vak invasion, this process is MUCH less
expensive. ITTT has a good amount of compitition for new markets. Still,
ITTTs reputation for fair prices (as well as failure and fraud from some
of
its compeditors) keeps it in the running. ITTT holds patents on the
Interstellar Communication Relays, so they remain profitable (but may
face
compitition in the near future as the patents run out). And ITTT is
diversifying to further reduce its risk.
Not every colony signed up with ITTT (mistrusting the 99 year contract).
Many colonies failed due to loss of a cargo run or because a shipping
company or government stopped delivering to thier world (not
profitable).
Others succeded without ITTT (NI for example). Most of the ones who
succeded
had large initial populations on one or more worlds in a given system
(providing more "in house" resources and less requirement for
importation of
goods).
Again, the whole purpose of ITTT was to provide a generic shipping fleet
for
use in FT games. This way all the freighters could be painted the same
paint
scheme without some wise-cracker asking why 2 nation's cargo ships had
the
same paint scheme.
---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
ICQ: 12848051
AIM: Rlyehable
---
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Laserlight
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 20:03
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: [FE] ITTT was Re: Texaco Free Trade Zone
I know I've kidded you about confusion between (my) ITT and
(your) ITTT, but on this point I really am unconvinced. If it
isn't profitable for most companies, why should it magically
become profitable for ITTT? Adding in your comment which I've
snipped that you don't expect it to become profitable in the 1st
50 years, why should the board of directors (and the
stockholders) sign up for 50+ years of losses in the hopes that
the colony will survive and eventually become a good trade
partner? I can see a few isolated cases where there was obvious
profit potential, but if so, why wouldn't ITTT have competition?
I grant you, signing up for unprofitable contracts isn't
unknown. The company I used to work for signed a contract to
sell one item below cost to a major client in hopes of getting
on the vendor list (which they did) and selling them other stuff
to make up the margin (which they didn't). But I can't see
that as a deliberate business plan.