Actually, what I have said is that the presence of economy for expensive non-magical items implies sufficient cash for the magical ones as well. I'm saying, not just implying, that if nobody has the money for a +1 sword, then nobody has moneyf or full plate, either. I'm saying that the choice to impose the limit on magic item economy in that way has implications throughout the campaign world.
I'm saying that this is a minor problem, and one that is easily solved with the same set of plausible presumptions that can be used to eliminate the magic item economy altogether.
First, the idea of "nobody" having the money for expensive non-magical items is perhaps better expressed as "almost nobody." You will run into some characters who do have greater-than-average wealth, but it's easy to state that this is rare, perhaps fantastically so (e.g. the king in a kingdom of twenty thousand people).
Secondly, the "implications throughout the campaign world" are overstated in how serious you make that sound. Those "implications" are another part of world-building. That's without even getting into the idea that that doesn't have to be true literally everywhere; free trade doesn't have to be the norm if you don't want it to be, for whatever reasons you can come up with.
Finally, this isn't an issue because the there's another factor here, which I have
REPEATEDLY (to use your method of emphasis) stated, that being that you can limit magic items to a much greater extent than expensive non-magic items by pointing out the much tighter restrictions on their prerequisites for creation.
Oh, now hold on there a minute. No cherry picking! You're invoking the limits, but apparently chucking out the explanation of those limits! The paragraph that explains the table specifically states, "Anything having a price under the limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical". If you're trying to use this to say there's no market, then you have to keep your population centers below 2000 people. That's pretty darned small. You sure you want to do that?
Oh, absolutely.
For one thing, I'm shocked that you'd actually say "no cherry-picking." This
entire thread is about cherry-picking, from selectively applying various bits of real economic theory to equally selective bits of game rules. Of course, that's paltry compared to the massive amount of cherry-picking that is the GM creating a custom game world that conforms to his personal vision, and what rationalizations are being selectively applied to prop up that vision, which is sort of
my entire point.
This is without even getting into the fact that "most likely" does not mean "absolutely," since...
And what about the next pages of the DMG, which give you the population of the town that has those limits?
...those population tables don't say anything about what (item creation) feats any resident spellcasters may or may not have.
A large town (2001-5000 people) has a GP limit of 3000 GP. It *also* has one wizard of level 4-7, and one cleric of level 4-10. Note how the craft weapons and armor feat has a required caster level of only 5? Any place larger, you get multiple casters of even higher levels, and the idea that *none* of them have chosen to take a feat that could be so lucrative becomes less and less plausible.
It's not at all implausible, since that presumes that any and all feats are just available to be selected like dishes at a buffet. If the GM decides that they need to be taught, or aren't available for anyone to take, or that they're not lucrative choices because the underlying ideas about how much money people have to spend don't support that as a viable choice, or any of a thousand other decisions, then no one will have them.
Not that the item in question has to be made by the local caster. Nor does it have to sit in Ye Olde Magicke Iteme Shoppe. It merely has to be present in among those couple thousand people. Maybe the innkeeper has a family heirloom that he's willing to sell, or the city watch has one in inventory but hey need payroll more than they need the sword.
Which is irrelevant, as that ignores my previous statement that "market economy" is being used as a shorthand for "some degree of a self-sustaining industry (e.g. engaging in that enterprise can make enough money to make a living off of for the people involved in producing/selling X type of goods/services)."
I've said that before, and if I have to I'll say it [dramatic echo]
REPEATEDLY [/dramatic echo].
Yes, as I have said, REPEATEDLY, and I'll say again, so you won't miss it: you can create a world with no market. But, it constrains the world in other ways, in terms of plausibility. The GM has to be sure the constraints this stipulation imposes are consistent with everything else they desire for their world. As you can see from my answers to the questions, the constraints can start getting pretty specific.
These constraints are part and parcel of every aspect of world building, and in this case the lack of an economic market for magic items doesn't seem to require any particularly greater set of constraints than any other broad decision for how things work in the game, as you can see from my answers.
Yes, but again, because you seem to have missed it previously - the "shop that deals in magic items exclusively" is a straw man. If that's what you're arguing against, I think you've set it up as a target yourself, and are trying to knock it over yourself. Which, while kind of a silly endeavor, you're free to do. But please stop responding to others as if they are trying to defend your arbitrarily set point for you, because we aren't.
It's more correct to say that your focus on literal shops as buildings is a straw man, since I've stated multiple times now that I'm referring to the industry for magic item creation/sales as a whole. Now, the shop unto itself is a good representation of that, but it's simply a handy example of what we're trying to avoid. If you think that's the only thing being referred to, then you should probably go review the thread for a while until you have a better understanding of what's being discussed.
This will sound pedantic, but I want to be clear: when we say, "there will be a market" we don't mean a brick-and mortar building. We mean "market" in the economic sense of there being trade in such items, not in the sense of "I'm going to the super-market to get a pound of butter".
Don't worry, it doesn't sound pedantic; it sounds mistaken. When I'm saying "there won't be a market," I'm saying that there won't be a (even partially) self-sustaining industry, not necessarily a physical store.
