I've read through the last 4 pages of comments and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.
"3) If the star system is an artificial and incomplete measure of the value of a trade is it not, therefore, also harmful to some players who use it?"
No. Artificial and incomplete do not equal harmful. They may be less beneficial to some players in some circumstances perhaps but your proposal of an open trader is just as likely to be "harmful" (read: less beneficial) to some players in some circumstances as well.
4) If something is harmful to some of the players should we not get rid of it if we can?
No. Even if you could prove harm you'd also have to prove that the harm was unavoidable, unreasonable, presented a significant impediment to successful trading AND that you could guarantee that open trading wouldn't also cause harm.
As others have pointed out, for open trading to work as intended we would need to have an open trading environment and we don't. I know you, AJ, have said that market forces would still come in to play and whilst I think they probably would I don't think the extent would be anything like real world examples. We're talking about an incredibly simple trading system where the goods we trade are comparable to consumables. Once we use them for quests, tourneys and in payment for upgrades they disappear into Inno's belly.
For real world economic influences and principles to be considered useful here we would need to be able to choose what boosted goods we want to produce for trade and also be able to move about the map to secure a lucrative trading market. If I'm the poor schmuck who got lumped with scrolls as my boosted T2 and I happen to be in a neighbourhood where the majority also produce scrolls then regardless of open/closed trading I'm disadvantaged. Now I could shop around and try and find a fellowship that needs a scrolls boosted player and maybe I'd get lucky but the trading system won't fix the imbalance because it didn't cause it. My scrolls will always be lower in value because there's simply more of them available and until you can either increase demand or decrease supply (both of which are ultimately controlled by Inno and not the players) the problem will persist.
We have no way of knowing how Inno manages supply and demand when it comes to the goods we produce. They are the only ones with access to the data required to know if there's an imbalance between supply and demand nor do we know whether they tweak the algorithm to ask for more scrolls (or whatever goods are over supplied), during tourneys, quests and events to mop up excess. Without such knowledge we have absolutely no way of accurately predicting the influence or outcome of real life market forces nor can we expect the trading environment to respond as though it was an open market.
Trading is only one aspect of this game and although it's essential to progress it was never meant to be central to the games storyline itself. We don't get to choose an individual character, means of providing for ourselves or any of the other things that might warrant an open trading system.
On point 3. You are correct that "artificial and incomplete" do not automatically mean harmful. However, in any system if the system used is less than optimal then energy is lost and efficiency lowered. The more energy lost the less efficient. Profit rises as efficiency increases so if a system produces less efficiency the "harm" is that the player has less resources than they might have under another system.
On point 4
You suggest a number of things that would have to happen for Open Trade to work in place of the current system. Even if both systems produced some harm that was "unavoidable, unreasonable and presented a significant impediment to successful trading" you are right that to point out that it may be that an Open Trade system would produce more of these things...but maybe not. Whichever system produces the least harm, is the preferred one.
The choice of boosted goods is irrelevant. As pointed out, (Bolivia), wherever you are you are limited to the resources you have. Bolivia may have shifted from tin to other resources, but the country is still land-locked and one of the poorest countries in South American and the world. Certainly if there was a way they could move to a better locations they would. But they can't and have to play the hand they were dealt. So too, here in Elvenar. I am boosted in steel, scrolls, and dust, arguably the worst possible combination. I do well in spite of that. Could I have done better with other resources? No doubt. So while it's nice to think everyone in the world market can just change what they produce in response to changes in the market, they can't and that's just like in Elvenar.
I don't think Inno does much to manage supply/demand or the current imbalances would not have occurred. But even if they do, they can't control what players are producing individually, who joins and who drops out (it's been suggested more silk producers have dropped out than other T2 goods) and so on. Just as in the real world some companies go bankrupt, hurricanes happen, and so on, market forces are effected by unforeseen events. The addition of moonstone library sets produced or contributed to the abundance of scrolls. Did Inno see that was going to happen? We don't know. Just as we don't know when a hurricane might strike Puerto Rico and cause the drug levothyroxine to become a lot more expensive because the largest production facility in the world is there. Ditto for all kinds of natural disasters, crop failures, pest infestations, etc., etc, etc. Fluctuations in supply/demand are not always planned and cannot be totally planned so long as you have multiple people involved in deciding the supply and demand. In this game the players decide to supply and demand and while Inno can introduce "natural sources of supply" it's the players who determine the value of those supplies. The current system takes that idea and says, "no Inno has said that 1 scroll is equal to 1 silk because it's 2-stars." The rules only reinforce this and thus make the market more artificial. Without the rules and a bit of training players could just as easily ignore (or take as an approximation if they like) Inno's declaration of value and the market here would function a lot more like the real world to most players benefit.
Choosing our character is irrelevant since it's not our imaginary character that is making the decisions, it's us. We are humans and we function in any economic system -- however limited it might be -- in pretty much the same manner. So, just as in the real world, restricted trading tends to slow the rate of growth (because the rules tax -- meaning adding weight to something so it takes more energy to make it function).
I've never argued that trading is the focus of the game, but it is something we do in the game and something I think we could do better. Here's the thing: If I want to use the current system and think it's better for me, under an Open Trading system I'm free to do that, no questions asked. If I want to use an Open Trading model, under the Open Trading system I'm free to do that. However, under the current system, my use of an Open Trading model is scritinized with some players putting social pressure on me to conform by writing rules, calling my trades "gouging", and even refusing to take trades clearly beneficial to them just because they aren't "fair" by the artificial and incomplete system of measurement the ahve used to set the rules.
Is an Open Trading system less harmful than the current restricted system? Certainly for some players because it will allow them to make the trades they desire to make. For others it may mean some mistakes are made, but the mistakes will be their own, not because they are following an artificial and incomplete measure of their trades. In some ways that's the ultimate nature of the game -- to make choices and do the best you can without being forced by social pressure to make choices that might not be in your best interest.
Finally, thanks for a truly thoughtful and respectful response. I do appreciate it even if we do disagree on some things.
AJ