The Pilots' Almanac section on Bonding Fee says that only goods "intended for immediate re-export" are subject to "at least one month's bonding fee." I have a several questions regarding this:

What about goods NOT intended for re-export, but still put in bond—say, for a tenday, because an immediate buyer was not found? Would the bonding fee be in proportion to the monthly percentage? In my example, then, one-third of the monthly bonding fee? Or would you apply the 1 month minimum, even though these goods are NOT intended for re-export?

Is there ever an example where a bonding fee is NOT paid? Perhaps when, upon arrival, the shipper immediately transports and sells the goods to the buyer? What would be considered "immediate"? Within the same day the goods are unloaded at the dock?

The short answer is, no, there is never a time where one of the two taxes (hawking or bonding) isn't paid. The bonding tax is paid up front - that is, the cargo is taken to the bonding hall and can't be removed until the tax is paid. After 30 days it gets levied again. There is no pro-rating or refunds for a short stay.

(And leaving cargo on the ship is not an option. Else, what is the point of the bonding tax?)

If you place items in bond and then later sell them you still have to pay the full hawking tax as well. Thus there is a advantage to contracting for the sale of your merchandise up front, so it can be unloaded directly to the customer and avoid the bonding tax.

In sum:

- All merchandise must be unloaded.
- If it has a customer up front, it is delivered to the customer and hawking tax is paid.
- If it doesn't, it is taken to the bonding house and bonding tax must be paid (consider it rent on the storage space, payable in advance.)
- If anything from the bonding house is later sold, the hawking tax must be paid.

I disagree, merchandise can be left on a ship. A tramp trader will do just that, drop of some goods and pick up more.

The point about bonding goods is you keep them in port until you can sell them. For some goods you may only get one inbound cargo a year, but you may sell it over the course of the year.

The reason why you unload cargo from a ship (rather than leaving it on the ship) is two-fold: avoiding wharfage fees and working the asset. A boat or ship, and it's crew, are just too valuable to be left sitting in a dock on the off chance of being able to sell some cargo. It more economic to pay the bondage and release the boat to transport the next cargo.

If someone did try to leave a ship in port then the authorities will be sure to work out a way of taxing it double. They'll probably argue that a static ship is a binding house and hence must pay bonding tax (and hawking tax, and wharfage, and mercantylers' business tax etc).

Local custom and practice (common law) will be as vigorously enforced as anything decreed by the local lord of Mangai. Afterall, if someone can exploit an loophole than it will be to the disadvantage of the biggest power blocks - the merchants and taxmen.

At the end of the day the authorities can cost the cargo owner far more than any profit they might make. Forthforture of a ship or your cargo is a heavy fine to contemplate.

_________________
··<SableFox>··
AKA Jonathan M Davidson

We've had this argument before, Sablefox, but the Pilot's Almanac implies pretty strongly that it all gets unloaded. How else to interpret the phrase "cargo intended for re-export"? Cargo to be sold to any other merchant is covered by the Hawking Tax, so what does that leave?

I know I'm never going to convince you that the majority of real world trade followed this pattern. And I'll never convince you that every local power - taxman, merchant, and longshoreman - prefers this pattern, no matter what the cost is to the foreign boat. But apparently NRC was already convinced, because that's what he wrote in the Almanac.

Yeah, we're probably not going to change each other's mind on this issue. But that dosn't mean that either of us should not pit their view forward.

Since you ask, "cargo intended for re-export" is stuff that comes in from far away, in bulk, on a big ship; it (part or whole) gets unloaded in to a bonding house before being put in to local coastal traders or river boats to be transferred to other ports before being sold on again.

The fact that something is published with NRC name on it dosn't mean he wrote it. Given this involves boats and trade, I would be surprised if Tom wasn't the author (not that I know either way).

BTW, out of interest, which specific bit of the real world are you referring to?

_________________
··<SableFox>··
AKA Jonathan M Davidson

My opinion is that all goods not sold 'immediately' have to pay at least one months bonding fee. Also; in my opinion, almost all goods are not sold 'immediately'. In fact; I would say the local authorities would make it damn hard for this too happen...stalling permission to attend market etc etc etc.

If goods can be sold immediately..it would probably lead to ships hanging around for all the right..umm...things to be in place before they came into Port. Perhaps a nice little against the clock mission for the PC's but it does not sound too realistic to me. But what would I know.

I am of the opinion that it is highly usual for ships to unload their cargo at port. Therefore highly unusual if they do not I would like to add that banning from the market is another weapon the port has if it thinks a trader is taking the michael re taxes.

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

I think the majority of ships will unload all their cargo. I don't think they have to by law (or tax regeme) though. I think there will be boats, which I call Coastal tramp traders, who pick up a cargo in a main port and sell it in job lots as they sail along the coast away from the original port. I do not think at the first port of call they will unload 100% of the cargo, put it in to a warehouse, and the next day put 85% of it back on the ship again.

_________________
··<SableFox>··
AKA Jonathan M Davidson

To my minds eye this sounds (hold on...I have an eye that listens.. ) ahem..seems logical. Especially for a ship with a large value small volume long distance cargo (spices for example) wanting to add to profit along the way. I mean you have to dip in to other ports for re-supply/sanity but may not wish to sell your spices to soon....so why not do a little low risk low profit trade? however this might be a later than medieval phenomenum...what would I know.

I am trying to work out which is more romantic..a long sea voyage with the same crew and ship; or the same voyage made with stopping at each port and having to find a ship to the next one....I know which I prefer from a GM perspective

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

Which is fine, since the places that "tramp" is stopping aren't likely to have a bonding house.

As has been noted before, almost all traders fit one of two categories. Either they "tramp" around like you describe, trading cargoes in the little ports and bringing them to the big market city (and vice-versa). Or they are point-to-point "wholesale" traders that go back and forth between two large ports (or sometimes, three ports in a triangle). For both of these groups, having to unload all the cargo at the bonding house is not a problem. They would do so even if it wasn't the law.

The only captain who doesn't like to unload is the one who doesn't know what he's doing. Any merchant that has anything on the ball already knows what he is going to sell and where before he takes on the cargo in the first place - the most organized already have the specific buyer set up. He also knows what he is going to buy with the proceeds, too - probably because he has done it many times before. While it's a lovely notion, the idea of puttering from port to port as the winds and fortunes take you - smart merchants learn a specific system and they stick to it. They learn a handful of ports, the cargoes they can supply and demand, the merchants to do business with in each, and every other trick to doing business there. Ideally, they contract for everything, so their profits are almost automatic - save for pirates, storms, and other disasters. The best way to accomplish this is to stick to one of the two models - coastal "tramp" trading or two- or three- port "wholesale" trade.

Man; Harnic authorities must hate tramps!!! I I recall correctly; even the small ports have bonding houses.....OMG I hope I have not opened yet another can of wriggly things early birds may or may not like to acquire especially if they are early risers...

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

You are right. I was just looking at Telen earlier this week, and it turns out that it is the only settlement of any size without a bonding house. Now I look at my books and I realize that it is the exception, not the rule.

So we can't use the presence of a bonding house as the rule of thumb to determine whether the port demands "total bondage". Here's my opinion on the ports that do and don't (and why).

Cherafir. Yes. This is the essence of what the "Melderyni Embargo" is all about. If you want to continue to Thay or Tharda, you have to stop in Cherafir and unload. Most merchants I expect simply sell their cargoes right there and leave the last leg to the locals.

Thay. Yes. A classic "collection point". Goods from the Genin Trail, the mines upriver, and brought by the coastal "tramps" all are collected here to be shipped out.

Golotha. Yes. Same as Thay, but more so. Golotha is clearly "the end of the road", since few ocean-goers will want to try the river, and vice-versa.

Shiran. Yes. It's the end of the road.

Coranan. Yes. Just to tweak those Shirani and squeeze a little profit from their trade.

Aleath. No. Aleath is just a minor stop on the way to the much more important Golotha. They can't put up any impediments to trade or they'll just get bypassed.

Everyone Else. No. Aleath is the smallest port that could even entertain the idea. And no other port is even close to Aleath's size and power.

Thanks for the responses (to an issue you've already addressed...).

So, the unloaded cargo with a specific buyer (who receives its delivery immediately) is NOT put in bond. Any unloaded cargo without a specific buyer IS put in bond.

Would you guess that most ports would define "immediate delivery" as by the end of the day? or watch? Or, literally, immediately--i.e. the receiving buyer better have teamsters at the wharf to take the goods as they're unloaded, or they'll be put in bond without delay?

Also, is there any way of guessing the proportion of shipped goods that are delivered, thusly, "immediately" versus those that are put in bond?

I would expect immediately with the buyer taking the goods as they are unloaded. As to the second question I would expect there is no way of knowing sense it would very from cargo to cargo. If goods are to be transhiped ie-loaded on another ship they would likely go to bond. If they are sold at once then no.

_________________
The venerable James
Web Site: http://www.jswatson.info
Seeking Harn Players in Madison, Wisconsin

Pokep, nothing you've said I would take issue with on international trade

I would expect a large proportion of the cargos going in to a major port from 'abroad' to be already owned by a mercantile who is importing the goods to distribute them and resell them locally. As such I expect these goods will be off loaded as soon as possible (the pace being set by the longshoremen) with the majority going in to a bonding house until it can be shipped elsewhere.

I don't know if a definition of 'immediately' is required, as long as things are happening with all due haste... If one is required I'd say 'within the day' but that is a personal choice.

_________________
··<SableFox>··
AKA Jonathan M Davidson

"Immediately" doesn't mean what we think it means. In a pre-modern society there are generally two words for time: "Now" and "Not now". "Tomorrow" just means "Not today". When a boat arrives, the longshoremen promise they'll get right to unloading it . . . "tomorrow".

So figure that the any boat coming into port will sit for a day or two or seven (depending on how busy the port is) just waiting for the longshoremen. So you can only interpret "immediately" to mean "directly", not "right now".

Immediately being after the ship gets dock space to unload and longshoremen actually start to unload it.

By the way pokep a boat is a vessel that can be loaded on the deck of a ship.

_________________
The venerable James
Web Site: http://www.jswatson.info
Seeking Harn Players in Madison, Wisconsin

Sorry. My extended family runs tugboats for a living. And they have no patience for pedants. If you call their boats "towboats" - which is technically correct - they'll know you came from the Coast Guard and they'll hide the beer from you.

The Coast Guard has lots of practice finding hidden beer

_________________
The venerable James
Web Site: http://www.jswatson.info
Seeking Harn Players in Madison, Wisconsin

They even have the word 'dreckly' down in the southwest for such infuriating slowness

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

Then I'm clearly not explaining it properly.