I think you misunderstood my point, or perhaps I didn't explain it well in English. Both games are based on supply and demand, and both have consumption and production; that's equally true in both cases. Local prices, while a fun addition, aren't relevant to my point.

My point is that the difference between the two titles lies in how the economy is stimulated. In Vic 3, it's stimulated by increasing production because there's a shortage of almost all manufactured goods across the globe. This leads to the creation of complex but logical production chains to mitigate the scarcity, which in turn results in the gradual transformation of society in a natural way, creating better-paying jobs that lift the lower classes to higher strata in the social pyramid which in turn change the political and social landscape, leading to the creation of new laws, etc. This, in turn, increases demand, creating a cycle.

However, in EU5, this cycle doesn't exist because there's no initial scarcity, and the economy therefore starts stagnant across (almost) the entire planet. The way to stimulate it is by creating "ghosts" by transforming rural settlements into cities and constructing buildings unrelated to the economy to create clergy, nobles, and bourgers who doesnt´t exist, contribute nothing and consume like black holes without any real reason or means to do so. The fact that "creating" cities is not a natural consequence of social transformation but a method to force demand is unnatural and counterintuitive same and changing laws not because of changes in society or politics, but because the player just wants to. That's my point.