Pear – Reaction to the Pollution Credit System

When the system was initially revealed to us, our first thought was to account for all product production in the next cycle. We had quite a number of machines, so we thought that we could just produce at maximum capacity and deal with the credits on the next round. We took a closer look at how we could solve the problem with the limited amount of credits, and the following describes how we reacted with each solution.

1)     Goosies: We thought that these would be hard to attain as they don’t expire and are auctioned, creating a demand throughout all firms. So, we decided to ignore it, until we realized that it actually costed quite a bit to hire trained research assistants. So, we bid for the goosies, and ended up paying about 800 and 600 for each. Although this was the market price, it could’ve been quite a bit lower if the Economics Party didn’t start off the first bid at 1000.

2)     Research Assistants: With this option being the most unlimited in terms of scalability, we decided to use this. However, we didn’t have the research points to actually train the assistants. Upon trying and failing to purchase the assistants from other groups, we decided to invest and trade off time for a cheaper price. This remains our top solution for negative pollution emissions.

3)     Scrub-Ease: Useless. Almost all of our machines have a type of upgrade, and this solution does not match what our firm produces.

Lastly, due to most of our luxury stock not selling out (probably due to a high price), we decided to produce less, lessening future costs on negating pollution emissions and cutting production costs. We will charge a lower price and hopefully sell out this cycle.

banner ad

Leave a Reply