Idea is nice, but there is always a question.

How many complicated mechanics should the game have?

I for once don't want a shallow game, but at the same time I'm someone who enjoys challenges and great game design through relatively "simple" mechanics.

In few words I rather have simpler mechanics that co-exist well with each other in order to create a deeper picture and the challenge comes from the whole picture, rather than having very exciting mechanics but that might feel like a chore to understand optimally and that may take away the focus from the other parts of the game.

I hope I managed to express myself well, it's hard to find the right balance between functionality, simplicity and intricacy.

I do agree though that something can be done to make trade feel less "obvious" and automated, give it somehow a bigger immersion, but I don't also want to manage every single aspect of it, I want it to matter and to have some depth but not to the point of taking ten games to understand all it's variables.

Have a great weekend mate!

I fully agree that complexity does not equate deepness and that turning a game into a collection of mini-games, each built on a different mechanic, is not the best way to make a game feel whole. 

A simple market, with a cumulative resource system, is something everybody in capacity to buy the game understands. In comparison, the wondrous effect is harder to grasp, makes probably less sense, as the always-more-of-everything does too: you won't drive faster if you possess more cars but the game pushes in that direction. 

When the game starts, my budget is limited and I carefully select the partner I trade with and the resource I buy (well sometimes I miss the less expensive one of a type, the game should probably prioritize it). After sone turn, however, I buy everything I can and do not care about what it is. There's a moment, during which I can't really keep up with it, when I meet 5 or 6 new players but soon I've got everything bought and I can „forget“ about the trade. It feels like an no-fun box to tick.

The same buy-everything meta makes the game a bit stale too, there's so much stability at stake that declaring war might end up delicate. With a cumulative system, you can make reserves and if needed stockpile one resource to prepare for war against the nation that sold it to you. With the current system breaking trade has immediate and too drastic consequences.

Thank you for your kind words.

Have you tried posting this in modding forum? I don't know that it'd be possible with the way the game handles some stuff. 

Nope.
I lack the knowledge and time to invest myself into modding and would not like to rely on others, especially as mods can break at each new patch.

I still hope to see some of my ideas being brought into the game through this (inefficient) way.

I fully support this improvement request, I think too that the game is lacking a kind of market dynamics.

I enjoyed very much the game, but sure, this feature will generate much more interest and fun while playing.

Votes makes sense where it would be a good direction 

The idea of cumulative resources and market is interesting and would give more dynamism and relevance for the money in Humankind, which is currently only useful to accelerate the industry. I imagine something similar to Endless Space 2's resource structure, but I think the "international" market should exist only after the formation of the world congress. Until then, it would have to be negotiated privately with each nation, for luxuries and strategics.And to adapt the mechanics of trade routes, in addition to the sale of resources, which would form a temporary route that could be fully looted, Supply routes could be diplomatically negotiated, which would be permanent and transfer an adjustable share of the total resources produced in the country's warehouses.