Official: Free Market Economics (Repost)

[Drogue]

I think we should make all SE change polls a clear 'Yes, No, Abstain' poll. I don't think interpreting votes is right, as some who voted for ASAP or eventually may have voted yes, or may have voted abstain.

Failing that, I would say we should have to have a majority 'Yes' vote to change any SE setting, therefore if eventually won, for instance, we should have another poll when the conditions are met in case people have changed their minds either way.

[Pandemoniak]

I concur that. This is too late for this poll, though, but you can still make it an amendment.

[DeathByTheSword]

i concur too

[Drogue]

Does DE have to start an amendment poll. Whoever is allowed to, could they? (and if I'm allowed to, please tell me ) 'All Social Engineering changes have to be a strict Yay, Nay or Abstain poll', just like elections.

[GeneralTacticus]

Can I have some evidence for this? The USSR by all accounts I'm aware of emited less pollutants than the USA per capita over 20th Century (or any period within the 20th Century IIRC)

Can you provide US examples of the Aral Sea (probably the greatest ecological catostrophe in human history, and one induced entirely by Soviety mismanagement), Chernobyl, or the Kola peninsula (which is so heavily polluted that Russian scientists refer to it as a 'technogenic desert')?

To have a system whereby the Earths resources are used up at an unsustainable rate (eg. fossil fuels),

Taken care of by the fission, solar, and (in future) fusion and synthetic fossil fuel plants that we use.

to allow greed to push need out the window,

Can you produce an example of this which did not come about as result of the emergence of oligarchies?

to have half the worlds wealth in tha hands of less than 5% of the population,

Which came about as a result of western imperialism looting most of the world of it's wealth, and later the Western oligarchies looting their own population.

to produce enough food to feed the world, yet let many in the 3rd world starve,

A failing of the situation created as explained above.

or die of diseases that we have cheap medication for,

See above.

to allow companies, or even governments, to sell weapons to known violent regimes (as went on well into the 21st Century)

I mentioned this already.

and to create havok with the fragile eco-system.

I mentioned this already as well.

You don´t want to say the USSR has been the ideal Communism, right?

Of course not. But they still used a Planned economy; there's no way you can wiggle out of that one.

In fact, the Soviets tried to build up industry at any cost, just to stay head on head with the USA.

Your point being? They failed, btw, and they still left behind an environment far more ****ed up than anything in the US.

In real life, FM stands for "building up industry at any cost", just to gain more and more money. (As you can see now on Spain´s coast)

Oh come on. The disaster off Spain's coast came about the because the EU didn't outlaw single-hulled tankers fast enough. Nothing to do with capitalism.

In-game, I fear that we will need all the money surplus to rushbuy military reinforcements for these units that we´ve lost when fighting against mindworms and isles (-30 % "bonus" !!!! ).

You really love to exagerrate, don't you? All we'll need to fight and win against the worms will be cheap 1e-1-2 units, which we'll be able to pop out in aturn or two at our central bases anyway. Not only will we not lose many troops, but we won't need to rush new ones either.

Any RP reason is better than in-game one, IMHO. But don't expect me to invent arguments for you.

No need. I just did. And claiming to be RPing doesn't mean you can just ignore any argument presented in non-RP terms.

If it was an SP game, I would have chosen FM myself much earlier, since it's very good SE setting. But in ACDG, with difficulty only at Thinker, we can allow ourselves to roleplay, thereby there is no saying things which consider game mechanics.

Oh? And why not? Because you say so?

ASAP, contingent upon Env Econ (to make the +2 energy worthwhile),

It's worth it now, Environmental Economics will just make it even more beneficial.

and if I'm allowed to, please tell me

Yes, you're allowed. The Constitution states that any citizen may start an amendment poll.

[Pandemoniak]

Does DE have to start an amendment poll. Whoever is allowed to, could they? (and if I'm allowed to, please tell me ) 'All Social Engineering changes have to be a strict Yay, Nay or Abstain poll', just like elections.

Amendments:
Amendments to the Constitution can be submitted by any member of our faction. First in a form of a thread where exact lines can be discussed and after that in a poll. An amendment is passed and made official by a 2/3 or greater vote on the amendment's inclusion.

---------

Oh come on. The disaster off Spain's coast came about the because the EU didn't outlaw single-hulled tankers fast enough. Nothing to do with capitalism.

You sure are well infromed... Tell me, was that ship European ? Under which laws would it be then ?

[GeneralTacticus]

You sure are well infromed... Tell me, was that ship European ? Under which laws would it be then ?

I don't know who the Prestige belonged to, nor do I care. The disaster was a result of the fact that EU legislation banning single-hulled tankers from European waters didn't come into force soon enough. They were unsafe, as the disaster has alreayd demonstrated.

[Micha]

You sure are well infromed... Tell me, was that ship European ? Under which laws would it be then ?

good point!
It has been a single-hulled tanker because they´re much cheaper and can carry about the same than the multiple-hulled ones. Real planned economy will not only plan for money, but also for social and environmental purposes...

[GeneralTacticus]

good point!
It has been a single-hulled tanker because they´re much cheaper and can carry about the same than the multiple-hulled ones. Real planned economy will not only plan for money, but also for social and environmental purposes...

And that's exactly what laws such as those passed by the EU are for.

[Archaic]

You don't need a planned economy to have a government which can make laws for social and/or environmental purposes. Indeed, as demonstrated by the socialist governments of 20th century earth, such governments are *less* likely to pass laws for social and environmental purposes.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Kirov
Any RP reason is better than in-game one, IMHO. But don't expect me to invent arguments for you.

You want an RP reason? Here's a good one. A Planned economy takes power away from the people and instead places it in the hands of a few government officials. In a Free Market, the power is given to the people (Not the corperations, as many here seem to think). Which would you prefer in control of your economy? Potentially corrupt government officials, or society as a whole?

[Nubclear]

How the **** can people vote "Never"?! To do such a thing is to lock oneself in a closet.......

I voted for now because it does have immediate effects.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
How the **** can people vote "Never"?! To do such a thing is to lock oneself in a closet.......

Indeed. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Drogue]

In response to GT:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Can you produce an example of this which did not come about as result of the emergence of oligarchies?

Oligarchies are a product of FM. Without FM, we don't have oligarchies, my point still stands.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Which came about as a result of western imperialism looting most of the world of it's wealth, and later the Western oligarchies looting their own population.

Western imperialism and oligarchies is exactly what will happen under FM. FM rewards greed, and this creates the old West. As such, under Planned or Green they don't happen, under FM they do. All you have said are reasons why under FM we will repeat these mistakes, and under Planned or Green (or combi of both) we will. I'm aware *your* version of FM, with Government and controls etc will result in less of these, but that is you version, not the pure, unadulterated FM that we have if we make the switch in SMAC.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Of course not. But they still used a Planned economy; there's no way you can wiggle out of that one.

Just like the USA is a Free Market. You tried to highlight the difference between FM and US corporationism, which is the natural result of FM. Do not confuse Communism and the corrupt regime of Stalin. A liberal left system is more *pure* communism than an Authoritarian/totalitarian one like Stalin's.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Oh come on. The disaster off Spain's coast came about the because the EU didn't outlaw single-hulled tankers fast enough. Nothing to do with capitalism.

Which is exactly what FM is, a lack of laws on business, letting them get on with making money. Under a more FM system they still wouldn't be outlawed, especially a liberal one, because of a Laissez Faire approach to business. Milton Friedman, eminent economist and a liberal FM advocate (like the DLP) said "the only responsibility of a corporation is to provide a profit for its shareholders", as being a truly FM economy. That would create many more disastors like the Prestige.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
No need. I just did. And claiming to be RPing doesn't mean you can just ignore any argument presented in non-RP terms.

Actually it does. If someone is only RPing, and so does not care about in game effects, just the society and moral consequences, then they can ignore non-RP reason. We will win whatever, so why not be ignore in game reasons?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Oh? And why not? Because you say so?

If your so keen to say this to everyone who expresses an interest, perhaps you'd like to back up more of yours. Such as the ignoring non-RP reasons above (you never said why we couldn't ignore them), or your statement below that it is worth it even before Environmental Economics. His was an opinion, that non-RP reasons do not matter. If he feels the need to justify it, it is up to him, otherwise, he is just publicising his opinion, something he is perfectly entitled to do.

Indeed why should be justify it, "Because you say so"?

[Drogue]

In response to Archaic:

You don't need a planned economy to have a government which can make laws for social and/or environmental purposes. Indeed, as demonstrated by the socialist governments of 20th century earth, such governments are *less* likely to pass laws for social and environmental purposes.

You don't need a Planned governement, but you do need a non absolute FM government. In a *pure* FM society, as we would choose by voting for it in this poll, there would not be laws for social and environmental purposes. Your society, with environmental and social laws, with free education and some form of welfare state (my interpretation of what you have advocated in DLP thread) would be a mixed economy, with *some* governmental influence.

Even corrupt old Earth Socialist governments were more likely to pass social and environmental laws than the corporate USA. And the USA resembles FM more than the USSR resembles Planned, although they both twist there ideals a lot.

A Planned economy takes power away from the people and instead places it in the hands of a few government officials. In a Free Market, the power is given to the people (Not the corperations, as many here seem to think). Which would you prefer in control of your economy? Potentially corrupt government officials, or society as a whole?

One controlled by elected government officials. And it is in the hands of the whole of our elected government in the Peacekeepers, seeing as we have our strong ideal of democracy, not just a few. And the corporations give the people what they think they want, and the people choose between them - big difference between that and government officials isn't there? A FM society is run by corporations as much as a Planned one is run by the government, since in FM, cororations act as the government, with people 'voting' by buying products, in Planned the government is directly elected by the people.

[Drogue]

In response to Tass:

How the **** can people vote "Never"?!

Because Archaic did not give us a No option. Is that contitutional, to have an official SE poll without a No option?

[Lemmy]

Now that i think about it i'm not sure if this is constitutional.

If Archaic wants to change the SE tabnle, i think it would be best to create a poll with all the SE options avaiable, and a "No" option.
Archaic has had his chance to convince the citizens about FM, these results show he hasn't been completely succesfull, so in a next poll the citizens shouldn't be denied other options like planned or green.

[Earwicker]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
It does have a factor for planet rating, i dont know which formula you've been looking at, but if it has no planet factor, thats a fake formula.

Thanks, my mistake - I was reading only TKG's excerpt dealing with terraforming damage, not the overall formula.

[Aaron Blackwell]

Indeed. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Indeed Archaic ... too bad you are one them

[DeathByTheSword]

ok i havent interfered in this discussion and i havent paid attention but could you please tell me why a planned economy is more UNP then FM? RP ofcourse because freedom is the highest possible idea of the UNP and planned how ever you want to explane it is not....so please? i am really wondering

[Kirov]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

No need. I just did. And claiming to be RPing doesn't mean you can just ignore any argument presented in non-RP terms.

Oh? And why not? Because you say so?

Well, there are two reasons:

1. The discussion between '+2 ECON' and 'help the poor' is completely unsolvable and nothing can be said. What is better: the red colour or the bicycle? It doesn't make sense, does it?

2. I would like to RP as much as possible, and I'm just an ordinary citizen. I'm sure we are here for fun (altho watching Archaic and Pande quarelling makes me reconsider it), not to win this game, because it is already won. I know that sometimes it must be said 'move the 1-3t-1 to the (32,45) tile', but when discussing SE, we needn't do this. Methinks it's funnier then.

[DeathByTheSword]

Kirov i completely agree with you but could you then answer my question that i asked before yout post?!

[Aaron Blackwell]

ok i havent interfered in this discussion and i havent paid attention but could you please tell me why a planned economy is more UNP then FM? RP ofcourse because freedom is the highest possible idea of the UNP and planned how ever you want to explane it is not....so please? i am really wondering

Out-Of-Character : Right DBS, I will give you my RP point of view on the subject

RP :

Free Market is all about lifting the law restrictions on how market should be run.

The consequence of this is that a few selected individuals, those who have the money and the means to invest in the market, will be successfull.

It will also mean that these same individuals will weight more heavily in the overall results of our Faction and that the goverments will lose a lot of his powers.

Considering that the citizens as a whole only have power in electing the governments and make decisions through poll voting, they will lose a lot of their decision powers as this same power will be taken by a very small proportion of people.

In short :

Free Market => It is the market that is free, but the true decisions powers will be held by a few wealthy people who won't have to worry about the governments anymore ( which is by the way elected by the citizens as a whole) => Lot of power concentrated in a very few hand. Not every citizen will have the same 'weight' in decision making.

Planned Or Green => The government have final say on any subject concerning the faction as a whole. And the government is in turn controlled by the election and poll voting made by the citizens as a while.=> Every citizens
will have the same amount of decision making power as the others.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
ok i havent interfered in this discussion and i havent paid attention but could you please tell me why a planned economy is more UNP then FM? RP ofcourse because freedom is the highest possible idea of the UNP and planned how ever you want to explane it is not....so please? i am really wondering

Well, IMHO, Democracy is the highest goal of the UNPK, and Planned means we have a stronger elected government, rather than having unelected large corporations (especially the media) dictating policy and opinion to us.

What is freedom? Either economic system does not detract from you freedom, bar the extra freedom choice in FM and the extra access to services (healthcare, education etc.) that means you are not bound by how much you earn. In either we can do what we like as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

Planned is also fairer, in that no matter what you earn, you have access to public services. If you are ill, you get treated, if your house is burning, the fire brigade will come and help. Free education also puts people in a meritocracy, in that those who are more intelligent do better, rather than those who can pay for a good education. It means we all start on a level playing field, so where we get to depends on us, not our parents wealth. This is freedom in the sense that we are all born equal, and able to do what we want.

I think the UNPK are more about democracy, fairness and meritocracy than freedom personally, although we are free, and what economic system we choose won't affect that IMHO.

[Voltaire]

The whole issue of whether we should adopt a free market economy also bring about the question of do we value equality (or at least equality of opportunity) as much as we value democracy. I agree fully with Drogue that we should strive for a meritocracy, and if we adopt a free market system meritocracy is shattered. No longer will you have equality of opportunity, those with more money rather than those with more merit will be the successful ones in society. Do we really want to return to the social structure of old Earth where actors and athletes are valued more than scientists and educators? In the end free market also contributes to the dissipation of democracy, for when the governing class isn’t chosen for quality it is chosen for material wealth: this means decadence, the lowers stage a society can reach.

[Kirov]

Actually, I think that both FM and Planned have nothing to do with freedom. It is democracy that makes the difference. In the Old Earth there were many countries without freedom that had been running either FM or Planned (compare Cuba and USSR with Chile and late China).

I understand what Drogue's point is, but I think we shouldn't mix the words 'freedom' and 'equality' or justice'. It is observed that in modern societies almost every party calls itself 'democratic' whilst claiming that their opponents are not. Such words are simply marked with emotional background, thereby they are so eagerly used. However, I do not consider GT and Archaic's views as non-democratic. Nevertheless, bear in mind our goal is not 'freedom' in terms you can do what you want. We have to provide our citizens much more than that, and basic social goods are IMHO included. Be careful tho, since we have not only to avoid the FM mistakes, but also those of communist, mainly soviet, countries. I'm far more skeptical than let's say Pande at this point.

[Drogue]

That's Kirov, that was the point I was trying to make (that neither have much effect on freedom), while also trying to answer DBTS' question. We do very much have to avoid the old Earth Communism.

I think a partly FM system, in that you have a meritocracy, but in which you can pass down wealth to your next of kin (a reward for hard work during life) with laws to help stability and guard against monopolies; with good public services, that can assure a basic quality of life for eveyone; and, most importantly, that has a strong Green ethos, both in laws and social attitudes; while remaining a libertarian democracy, so that the individual is free to do as he wishes, so long as it doesn't detract from others; is what I see would wish for, and think that the Peacekeepers would thrive under. I think society has advance to the stage that people are not just governed by their own interests, but also by the interests of society. Remember when we talk about human nature, that it is not just some abstract theory, we are the humans here, and so it is our nature we are talking about. Are we ready to help each other? To co-operate instead of compete?

[DeathByTheSword]

when i read all these answer i must say i am shocked....because it looks to me that even i live in a planned ecomony and not in a free-market.....but what i think most planned supports do is they overpower the free-market idea....i think i liv in a free-market land but no one is really wealthy and no one has real power...and on the other hand they underpower the planned idea...they think it is just that the government is in control of nationwide issues...well i dont believe that is what planned is about....planned is very simple the government plans the economy and that is wrong...just look at old russia i am not using it as an example because i believe communisme and planned is the same but communisme in Russia used planned economy and you see how that failed...so i believe that planned supporters are a little of with there ideas of what is what...

[Lemmy]

DBTS, while most european countries call themselves capitalistic and free market economies, this is not true. During the cold war, a lot of european governemnts adopted communist ideologies in fear of uprisings among the population. So in fact most these european countries are some sort of FM/Planned hybrids, or socialistic.

[DeathByTheSword]

so do you all see planned as social benifeicts and stuff because then i understand why you are so against FM but if not then i really do not understand what you mean with planned