So what [I]exactly[/I] is everyone's problem with FM?

[GeneralTacticus]

BWHAHAHAH... Bullshite! WE live in a planned economy right now!

'We' being the Peacekeepers, or 'we' being wherever it is that you live?

Youve never heard of the pentagon?

wtf does the Pentagon have to do with anything?

Every corporation is an *isolated command economy* just look up any economics textbook.

Hardly isolated. An isolated corpoartion dies, because it cannot acquire raw materials or markets.

Have you every actually worked for a living? You DO know that holidays are decided by the manager in almost every case (if your lucky enough to get a job that lets you have them at ALL).

Your point ebing? If you don't like your job, you're free to find another one; under a Planned economy, you can't, because you're always working for the government, no matter what.

Democratic planned economy means that the major descisions about production are put into the minds and votes of the PUBLIC, not a tiny group of bosses and investors

No, it means that they're put into the hands of the government bureaucracy, which is largely unelected and in any case is not controlled by 'the public', whoever that may be.

There has never been ANY example of economic development from a free market - huge public funding is the ONLY way any devolpent has ever happened in any country. FM has a 100% failure rate in Real Life

Care to provide such an example? The main reason the Free Market has not semed to function well when applied 'IRL' is because when it's been applied it's been exploited by American and other Western corporations to buy up most the economy and siphon it's economic production off for their own gain.

and in my experienced has sucked brutally in the game

You msut have had some very strange experiences with your game - or more likely you jus thave no clue how to use it properly.

(actually, interestingly enough, the game modles this well as you find yourself often "rush-building" facilities- equivalent to public funding

Your point being?

[GeneralTacticus]

No its quite the reverse, when your middle class trash, the idea of "freedom of choice" and "property" seem extremley tempting, you go to the mall, you buy stuff, your parents are taking care of you.

Unless of course you happen to be poor and struggling tk make ends meet while you see that others aren't, in which case you tink ti would be great if everyone wasn't poor, and so they find communist promises of no more poverty very tempting.

Once you actually become a wage-slave, every thing changes. You realize just how humiliating it is to be owned by someone from 9-5,

Did you just drop in from the American South in 1860? Being employed by someone does NOT make you their property, nor does it take away any of your rights (unless you consider it your 'right' to live without working).

how tiered you are and how it strains your human relationships,

How exactly does being employed strain your human relationships?

and how all the truly GOOD things that matter in life come from either Real people

Are you implying that some people ar enot, in fact, real? How very egalitarian of you.

or masive public cooperation (like for example technology)

Remind me of the last time 'the public' banded to together to devleop a new piece of technology.

[Drogue]

How exactly does being employed strain your human relationships?

The demands of work often mean you have little time for family, freinds, socialising or relationships. I do not know how this would be better under Planned (although maybe slightly), but it is a problem.

[GeneralTacticus]

I guess that would depend on what kind of work you have. I can understand that if you have a job where you work twelve hours a day in a mine and are so exhausted every day when you get home that all you can do is sleep, that would strain your relationships, but that's a feature of the job itself, not the system it exists in.

[Voltaire]

My objections to capitalism (I’ll keep it short since I have a headache, and I just finished a stressful week of exams, with more coming soon):

1) It is a wasteful system; resources are wasted on the overproduction production of largely unnecessary goods (really, does anyone need 1000 different brands of sneakers to choose form);
2) It is not meritocartic in the long run, those who contribute most to society (i.e. scientist, etc.) are not rewarded nearly as much as they should be, whereas actors and sport stars are overpaid;
3) Over-inflated prices of goods (I’ll elaborate on this later if anyone wishes, right now too tired to do so);
4) It creates a virtual economy based not at all on reality (i.e. stock prices rise and fall arbitrarily on things such as rumors, etc.);
5) Hereditary elitist system established where a few individuals who, for the most part did not earn the money themselves, control the majority of the wealth in the world; &
6) Abuses of foreign laborers by multi-national corporations as a result of tightening labor laws in rich nations.

There, my reasons for the opposition to capitalism in 6 points.

[GeneralTacticus]

1) It is a wasteful system; resources are wasted on the overproduction production of largely unnecessary goods (really, does anyone need 1000 different brands of sneakers to choose form);

Well, someone obviously likes each different brand of sneakers; they wouldn't exist otherwise. Anyway, how is producing just 1 brand of sneakers any better? There's nothing wrong with variety, you know.

2) It is not meritocartic in the long run, those who contribute most to society (i.e. scientist, etc.) are not rewarded nearly as much as they should be, whereas actors and sport stars are overpaid;

That's more an indictment of the people than the system; the system pays people according to what the consumers are willing to offer. Note that in a society which has the intelligence to look past advertising, the situation you are describing wouldn't arise, as companies would find it unprofitable to spend vast sums on celebrity endorsements.

3) Over-inflated prices of goods (I’ll elaborate on this later if anyone wishes, right now too tired to do so

Please do elaborate; the last time you brought this up, using the example of computers, Archaic pointed out that the main reason for the high price was to pay for R & D. Have you got a new example?

4) It creates a virtual economy based not at all on reality (i.e. stock prices rise and fall arbitrarily on things such as rumors, etc.);

That's probably the biggest problem with capitalism, and I can't see a solution to it, other than people being more demanding of information about companies.

5) Hereditary elitist system established where a few individuals who, for the most part did not earn the money themselves, control the majority of the wealth in the world;

Have you got any examples to back this up, aside from the United States? You have to remember that in the United States this divide did not evolve as an inevitable result of capitalism, but rather as part of a conscious strategy on the part of the elite to enrich themselves throuhg their control of the government.

6) Abuses of foreign laborers by multi-national corporations as a result of tightening labor laws in rich nations.

Said abuse is tolerated only when it's convenient for all parties with the influence to do so. If the company, or either of the governments concerned, decides that it isn't acceptable, it doesn't happen - and we have the power to consider it unnacceptable.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, someone obviously likes each different brand of sneakers; they wouldn't exist otherwise. Anyway, how is producing just 1 brand of sneakers any better? There's nothing wrong with variety, you know.

I’m simply stating that it is unnecessary, variety is all good and nice, but it’s overdone. And the variations between different brands are rather minor anyway, so in essence you have the same shoe being produced with 1000 different labels.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
That's more an indictment of the people than the system; the system pays people according to what the consumers are willing to offer. Note that in a society which has the intelligence to look past advertising, the situation you are describing wouldn't arise, as companies would find it unprofitable to spend vast sums on celebrity endorsements.

Yes it is true that consumers determined the wages of most individuals in a free market, I do not find this necessarily desirable. Particularly given the fact the masses are easy to manipulate, and not necessarily the best decision makers in most matters. Yes in a society with has the intelligence to look past advertising this may be true, but do we live in a society such as that?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Please do elaborate; the last time you brought this up, using the example of computers, Archaic pointed out that the main reason for the high price was to pay for R & D. Have you got a new example?

The example with computer hardware perhaps wasn’t the best. Let us examine this form a purchasing power parity perspective. Technically a theoretical basket of goods should cost the same anywhere around the world. This means that a product that costs an arbitrary price of $10 US in the United States should also cost $10 US equivalent in Nigeria. This is hardly the case, one will find that this theoretical basket of goods (whatever it may be) will cost considerably less in Nigeria than it would in the US.

To demonstrate the point even further. Consider an average family living in the United States, earning $14,500 US/year (slightly above the poverty line in the US). This for a family living in the United States is barely enough to make ends meet. But not consider the same family living in Nigeria earning the same amount of money; they would be considerably better off in Nigeria with the same amount of money than they would in the US given that the price of goods in Nigeria is considerably less than those in the US. What then contributes to this discrepancy? I would argue that the price of goods in first world nations are heavily over-inflated from their actual theoretical value (based on the labor, resources, etc. that went into the production of the goods). Given that wages in first world nations are considerably greater than those in third world nations, corporations can exploit this by over-charging first world citizens on the goods.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
That's probably the biggest problem with capitalism, and I can't see a solution to it, other than people being more demanding of information about companies.

Then we agree on the point that free market tends to lead to virtual economies.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Have you got any examples to back this up, aside from the United States? You have to remember that in the United States this divide did not evolve as an inevitable result of capitalism, but rather as part of a conscious strategy on the part of the elite to enrich themselves throuhg their control of the government.

I don’t necessarily think that the problem of a hereditary elite is per se caused by capitalism. In fact it has existed throughout most of history under various systems. My problem here rests with the fact that a free market is not a deviation from this in any way. Initially it is meritocratic since it encourages people to work, and rewards those that do. But this collapses since their children inherit the money though not doing of their own. And it is obvious that you cannot have an unlimited number of individuals at the top of society, and the more that occupy the top, the harder it is to climb up the social ladder. Therefore each succeeding generation the hereditary elite is entrenched more and more. I believe we should deviate from the system of hereditary inheritance completely; capitalism would be an idea system if one were to outlaw inheritance and have the accumulated wealth of the individual return to society. In that case it would become completely meritocratic.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Said abuse is tolerated only when it's convenient for all parties with the influence to do so. If the company, or either of the governments concerned, decides that it isn't acceptable, it doesn't happen - and we have the power to consider it unnacceptable.

We have the power to deem in unacceptable within our borders, our power stops there. Corporations, as they grow and expand escape the laws of the land by simply moving more and more operations abroad. We may say that we find it reprehensible that child laborers are being exploited by some big multi-national, but most people are willing to turn a blind eye to this, and so long as they do, the government in a free market cannot effectively stop the abuses.

[GeneralTacticus]

I’m simply stating that it is unnecessary, variety is all good and nice, but it’s overdone. And the variations between different brands are rather minor anyway, so in essence you have the same shoe being produced with 1000 different labels.

And the problem with this is what?

Yes it is true that consumers determined the wages of most individuals in a free market, I do not find this necessarily desirable. Particularly given the fact the masses are easy to manipulate, and not necessarily the best decision makers in most matters. Yes in a society with has the intelligence to look past advertising this may be true, but do we live in a society such as that?

Well, no, because at the present time there is no advertising, except for when the CCCP goes on the warpath.

The example with computer hardware perhaps wasn’t the best. Let us examine this form a purchasing power parity perspective. Technically a theoretical basket of goods should cost the same anywhere around the world. This means that a product that costs an arbitrary price of $10 US in the United States should also cost $10 US equivalent in Nigeria. This is hardly the case, one will find that this theoretical basket of goods (whatever it may be) will cost considerably less in Nigeria than it would in the US.

Why should this theoretical basket of goods cost the same around the world? Different places have different supply and demand situations for money and goods, so why should you expect the price to be the same?

To demonstrate the point even further. Consider an average family living in the United States, earning $14,500 US/year (slightly above the poverty line in the US). This for a family living in the United States is barely enough to make ends meet. But not consider the same family living in Nigeria earning the same amount of money; they would be considerably better off in Nigeria with the same amount of money than they would in the US given that the price of goods in Nigeria is considerably less than those in the US. What then contributes to this discrepancy? I would argue that the price of goods in first world nations are heavily over-inflated from their actual theoretical value (based on the labor, resources, etc. that went into the production of the goods). Given that wages in first world nations are considerably greater than those in third world nations, corporations can exploit this by over-charging first world citizens on the goods.

As I said above, you shouldn't expect things to cost the same all over the world. Different things have different value in different places at different times.

And the main reason why goods cost much more in the West than elsewhere is that Western money is much more vlauable outside the West than in it.

Then we agree on the point that free market tends to lead to virtual economies.

Yes. Though that doesn't have to be a bad thing, I'm at a loss to figure out how people can be prevented from abusing it.

I don’t necessarily think that the problem of a hereditary elite is per se caused by capitalism. In fact it has existed throughout most of history under various systems. My problem here rests with the fact that a free market is not a deviation from this in any way. Initially it is meritocratic since it encourages people to work, and rewards those that do. But this collapses since their children inherit the money though not doing of their own. And it is obvious that you cannot have an unlimited number of individuals at the top of society, and the more that occupy the top, the harder it is to climb up the social ladder. Therefore each succeeding generation the hereditary elite is entrenched more and more. I believe we should deviate from the system of hereditary inheritance completely; capitalism would be an idea system if one were to outlaw inheritance and have the accumulated wealth of the individual return to society. In that case it would become completely meritocratic.

Or alternatively devise a system which makes wealth irrelevnt to the process of meritocracy; i.e. provide free, quality education to everyone, and also make sure that being rich doesn't automatically make you part of the elite (hich can easily be solved by preventing money from having an influence on politics).

We have the power to deem in unacceptable within our borders, our power stops there. Corporations, as they grow and expand escape the laws of the land by simply moving more and more operations abroad. We may say that we find it reprehensible that child laborers are being exploited by some big multi-national, but most people are willing to turn a blind eye to this, and so long as they do, the government in a free market cannot effectively stop the abuses.

We hae the power to legislate what our corporations can and cannot do in foreign countries, if we wish. If they don't want to follow the rules, they don't have to, but they will not be permitted to conduct business in or with the UN, which would leave them pretty screwed.

[Archaic]

Voltaire, the theory of PPP only applies in the long term, in which it does work. It also makes assumptions about the basic levels of development of the two countries you're comparing.

In other words, all other things being equal, prices will eventually converge. I hardly thing the United States and Nigeria can be considered as having all other things equal, can it?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And the problem with this is what?

The problem is that it is a waste of resources that can be put to better use.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, no, because at the present time there is no advertising, except for when the CCCP goes on the warpath.

I should have been clearer, let me rephrase the question. Is the public intelligent enough to be able to make informed decisions and look past the advertising?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why should this theoretical basket of goods cost the same around the world? Different places have different supply and demand situations for money and goods, so why should you expect the price to be the same?

My reference to PPP has been erroneous, as pointed out by Archaic (the conditions in the two nations should be the same for the prices of goods to be the same). My question to you then is what contributed to this price difference between the first and third world nations? Why do goods cost more in first world nations?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As I said above, you shouldn't expect things to cost the same all over the world. Different things have different value in different places at different times.

Yes, that’s all nice and fine, but still doesn’t explain to me why most goods are cheaper in 3rd world nation.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And the main reason why goods cost much more in the West than elsewhere is that Western money is much more vlauable outside the West than in it.

Why is that the case?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Yes. Though that doesn't have to be a bad thing, I'm at a loss to figure out how people can be prevented from abusing it.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Or alternatively devise a system which makes wealth irrelevnt to the process of meritocracy; i.e. provide free, quality education to everyone, and also make sure that being rich doesn't automatically make you part of the elite (hich can easily be solved by preventing money from having an influence on politics).

You make a good point, but there is a problem, you cannot totally eliminate wealth form meritocracy. Those who contribute more should receive more, and this in most cases means receive more money, this improving their standard of living and quality of life. And even if we somehow prevent the rich from influencing politics, it wouldn’t truly prevent them form being the elite, given that they’d still have the highest standard of living.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
We hae the power to legislate what our corporations can and cannot do in foreign countries, if we wish. If they don't want to follow the rules, they don't have to, but they will not be permitted to conduct business in or with the UN, which would leave them pretty screwed.

How will we enforce this? We can pass all the laws we want, but if we have no way of checking up on the actions of our corporations abroad then they are useless.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Archaic
Voltaire, the theory of PPP only applies in the long term, in which it does work. It also makes assumptions about the basic levels of development of the two countries you're comparing.

In other words, all other things being equal, prices will eventually converge. I hardly thing the United States and Nigeria can be considered as having all other things equal, can it?

My mistake (economics isn’t my forte). But if you could explain to me why there is such a discrepancy between the cost of goods and services in first and third world nations?

[GeneralTacticus]

The problem is that it is a waste of resources that can be put to better use.

Why is ti a waste of resources? Variety makes waste less likely, because people are more likely to find what they want, and hence there is more consumption.

I should have been clearer, let me rephrase the question. Is the public intelligent enough to be able to make informed decisions and look past the advertising?

As yet, we have no idea, because as I said, we have no advertising. However, I don't see why it would be anything other than a mtter of simple education.

My reference to PPP has been erroneous, as pointed out by Archaic (the conditions in the two nations should be the same for the prices of goods to be the same). My question to you then is what contributed to this price difference between the first and third world nations? Why do goods cost more in first world nations?

Because the West is richer, but is also human; that is, they want much the same things as non-Westerners, but they have more money to spend, so companies selling things can ask for more and still get paid.

Yes, that’s all nice and fine, but still doesn’t explain to me why most goods are cheaper in 3rd world nation.

Because the Third World nations are poorer, and hence, have less money to spend, so if the people selling the goods want to make money, they have to price them lower.

Also, you're looking at the issue of the goods being cheap from our perspective, the perspective of someone whose currency has much mroe value than the local one. It onyl seems cheap because you ahve more buying power than them. To them, I'm sure the prices would seem normal, or high, depending on the goods in question and their financial situation.

Why is that the case?

Because the West is richer; this is mainly as a result of the West plundering the resources of the rest of the world during the age of imperialism, which resulted in them developing much larger economies than the rest of the world and allowing them to continue using up most of the world's resoruces - because they had the money to buy them.

You make a good point, but there is a problem, you cannot totally eliminate wealth form meritocracy. Those who contribute more should receive more, and this in most cases means receive more money, this improving their standard of living and quality of life. And even if we somehow prevent the rich from influencing politics, it wouldn’t truly prevent them form being the elite, given that they’d still have the highest standard of living.

What's so bad about them enjoying the highest standard of living?

How will we enforce this? We can pass all the laws we want, but if we have no way of checking up on the actions of our corporations abroad then they are useless.

But we DO have ways of checking up on their actions. As part of the laws, we require them to let our inspectors into all of their factories (or contractors factories, if they employ the old trick of paying others to do the exploitation for them), to make sure they're obeying the regulations.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Voltaire


My mistake (economics isn’t my forte). But if you could explain to me why there is such a discrepancy between the cost of goods and services in first and third world nations?

You should be able to answer that yourself. Supply and Demand.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Archaic
You should be able to answer that yourself. Supply and Demand.

Supply and demand by my reasoning doesn’t explain why goods in the third world cost less than they do in the first world. In fact, I would think it should be the other way around seeing as the first world has a larger number of consumers and hence there should be a greater supply of goods in the first world, therefore a lower price. But as I’ve stated, economic doesn’t make much sense to me (not do any of the other social sciences) given the fact that they are not based on objective reality but are rather subjective human systems.

[GeneralTacticus]

They cost less TO US because we're richer than the local consumers, who are the primary market.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why is ti a waste of resources? Variety makes waste less likely, because people are more likely to find what they want, and hence there is more consumption.

Because those resources could be put to better use. Yes variety is great, and we should have variety, but that’s not the case in capitalism, you have the exact same product resold under a different brand name with slightly different looks for the most part. Still, my argument is that since it is unnecessary it is a waste.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As yet, we have no idea, because as I said, we have no advertising. However, I don't see why it would be anything other than a mtter of simple education.

I would beg to differ, people are easy to lead. Simple education does little to help in this matter. You cannot teach someone to think for themselves. We could palace laws restricting marketing, and this I would perhaps agree with, but I would imagine that it would be against the concept of a free market since it would be government interference in the economy.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Because the West is richer, but is also human; that is, they want much the same things as non-Westerners, but they have more money to spend, so companies selling things can ask for more and still get paid.

That makes sense, but doesn’t that meant that companies are asking westerners for more money for the same products simply because they can afford to pay more money? This just does to demonstrate my point that they overcharge for goods.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Because the Third World nations are poorer, and hence, have less money to spend, so if the people selling the goods want to make money, they have to price them lower.

Same as above; this only does to show my point that in rich nations goods are overpriced. Clearly the companies are still making profit in third world countries by charging considerable less, so why don’t they charge the same prices in first world countries, still making a profit, but at the same time considerably increasing the standard of living in first world nations because now people will be able to afford more.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Also, you're looking at the issue of the goods being cheap from our perspective, the perspective of someone whose currency has much mroe value than the local one. It onyl seems cheap because you ahve more buying power than them. To them, I'm sure the prices would seem normal, or high, depending on the goods in question and their financial situation.

Perfectly valid point, but as I stated above, companies in these locations are selling the goods for a price which is considerable cheaper form the prices they sell them at in rich nations. Therefore you are still being charge more.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
What's so bad about them enjoying the highest standard of living?

Nothing, I’m just saying that those who contribute most to society should be the ones who enjoy the highest standard of living, not some spoiled brat that daddy left all his money to when he died.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
But we DO have ways of checking up on their actions. As part of the laws, we require them to let our inspectors into all of their factories (or contractors factories, if they employ the old trick of paying others to do the exploitation for them), to make sure they're obeying the regulations.

Yes, we could. But what if the foreign nation does not allow us in? Perhaps the government is receiving a generous sum of money form the corporation to keep things hush-hush. We cannot control the actions of our corporations completely.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
They cost less TO US because we're richer than the local consumers, who are the primary market.

Ok. So wouldn’t it make sense for someone living in the US to cross the border to Mexico to do their shopping given that the goods cost less? Also, as I’ve stated before in my response to you, since the same goods cost less in a different market, it means that simply because we can pay more the corporations would be willing to charge us more therefore reducing our overall standard of living.

[GeneralTacticus]

Because those resources could be put to better use. Yes variety is great, and we should have variety, but that’s not the case in capitalism, you have the exact same product resold under a different brand name with slightly different looks for the most part. Still, my argument is that since it is unnecessary it is a waste.

You still haven't answered my question: why is it unnecessary? The sneakers still get bought. You have essentially the same quantity of resources expended on sneaker production. What does it matter if not all sneakers are the same?

That makes sense, but doesn’t that meant that companies are asking westerners for more money for the same products simply because they can afford to pay more money? This just does to demonstrate my point that they overcharge for goods.

How is this overcharging?

I would beg to differ, people are easy to lead. Simple education does little to help in this matter. You cannot teach someone to think for themselves. We could palace laws restricting marketing, and this I would perhaps agree with, but I would imagine that it would be against the concept of a free market since it would be government interference in the economy.

I would say that it's quite easy to get people to think for themselves; simply point out what happens when you uncritically swallow whatever you're fed, and the kinds of people who don't think for themselves. No-one wants to be considered a moron.

Same as above; this only does to show my point that in rich nations goods are overpriced. Clearly the companies are still making profit in third world countries by charging considerable less, so why don’t they charge the same prices in first world countries, still making a profit, but at the same time considerably increasing the standard of living in first world nations because now people will be able to afford more.

Because if they sold things in the First World at the same prices as they do in the Third World, they'd have to cut back our wages to fund it, and nobody would really benefit (well, presumably some would benefit because their wages didn't go down in proportion to the price reduction, but equally many would lose out because their wages dropped too far).

Perfectly valid point, but as I stated above, companies in these locations are selling the goods for a price which is considerable cheaper form the prices they sell them at in rich nations. Therefore you are still being charge more.

Your point being? I (well, I don't wor , being a student, so my parents) get paid more, as well.

Nothing, I’m just saying that those who contribute most to society should be the ones who enjoy the highest standard of living, not some spoiled brat that daddy left all his money to when he died.

I gave some thought to this last night, and the conclusion I came to was that if you kept track of who inherited how much, and put a tax on that amount that would ensure that over x years all inheritance would be returned to the state, then the inheritance would still allow help teh reciever, but they would still have to stay rich, rather than just banking it and living off the interest, or whatever.

Yes, we could. But what if the foreign nation does not allow us in? Perhaps the government is receiving a generous sum of money form the corporation to keep things hush-hush. We cannot control the actions of our corporations completely.

Yes we can; if they won't let us inspect their factories, we presume they're in violation - 'What have you got to hide?' - and act accordingly.

Ok. So wouldn’t it make sense for someone living in the US to cross the border to Mexico to do their shopping given that the goods cost less?

Not necessarily, because:

a) It takes time to get there and back,

b) You have to go through the whole process of being llowed in,

and

c) the goods you want may not be available there, or may be in short supply.

Also, as I’ve stated before in my response to you, since the same goods cost less in a different market, it means that simply because we can pay more the corporations would be willing to charge us more therefore reducing our overall standard of living.

No, it isn't necessarily reducing our standard of living, because charging us higher prices means that the companies can also afford to pay us higher wages.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You still haven't answered my question: why is it unnecessary? The sneakers still get bought. You have essentially the same quantity of resources expended on sneaker production. What does it matter if not all sneakers are the same?

Not all the sneakers get bought, my argument is that it is a waste given that you have the relatively little variety between the different brands of sneakers there is no need to have more than one brand. Furthermore it is an even greater waste because assuming that each of the corporations produces the same number of sneakers, not all of them will get sold, in fact chances are most will not. Then you have the problem brought about by new variations on the design released every year, the old design is thrown out if not sold, and people are encouraged to buy the new when it is not necessary. Under a planed economy we should strive towards efficiency in our products, that is anything we produce is meant to last for a relatively long time. Whereas with constantly new models of products come out in a capitalist system, the products are not made to last given that the corporations desire for people to buy the new models. It isn’t nearly as profitable for corporations to produce a sneaker which is very durable and does not need replacement every year. They profit more by making the products of lower quality than they could be, so that consumers must buy the new products when they come out.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
How is this overcharging?

It is overcharging given that the corporations charge consumers who are better off more than they do those who cannot pay. It would not make sense for Nike to attempt to sell $100 sneakers in most of Mexico, therefore they have to charge less for those sneakers. But since in America people have more money to spend, Nike can afford to change them more for the same product. They are making a profit in both cases, but the profit they make in first world nations is considerably greater.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I would say that it's quite easy to get people to think for themselves; simply point out what happens when you uncritically swallow whatever you're fed, and the kinds of people who don't think for themselves. No-one wants to be considered a moron.

Humans are collectivist in nature, they follow the group. We do not desire to be individuals, simply a subset of the group. If it were that easy to make people think for themselves we would not have superstition, organized religion, ideology, etc. Earth’s western societies were plagues by consumerism driven by the social concept of “cool”; that which society deemed the best became the best in the eyes of people. There is little difference in quality between a brand name product and a generic product, yet consumers are willing to pay considerably higher prices for a logo on a shirt, shoes, cap, etc. Essentially the majority of consumers will follow the social fad, this has been shown to be true over and over again. So no I don’t think allowing corporations unlimited freedoms in advertisement is a good idea.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Because if they sold things in the First World at the same prices as they do in the Third World, they'd have to cut back our wages to fund it, and nobody would really benefit (well, presumably some would benefit because their wages didn't go down in proportion to the price reduction, but equally many would lose out because their wages dropped too far).

Fair enough, so wages are proportional to the cost of goods.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Your point being? I (well, I don't wor , being a student, so my parents) get paid more, as well.

Yes you get paid more, but your money is worth less.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I gave some thought to this last night, and the conclusion I came to was that if you kept track of who inherited how much, and put a tax on that amount that would ensure that over x years all inheritance would be returned to the state, then the inheritance would still allow help teh reciever, but they would still have to stay rich, rather than just banking it and living off the interest, or whatever.

This idea I like and can agree with. I would not mind a switch to capitalism if we were to devise a system where we avoid the problem of the hereditary elite. This would in fact I think ensure that capitalism remains meritocratic.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Yes we can; if they won't let us inspect their factories, we presume they're in violation - 'What have you got to hide?' - and act accordingly.

Ok, but to bring up another possible case, just for the sake of argument. Could we really monitor all the activities of our corporations, in other words what if they establish factories in other nations without our knowledge?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Not necessarily, because:

a) It takes time to get there and back,

b) You have to go through the whole process of being llowed in,

and

c) the goods you want may not be available there, or may be in short supply.

Yes I’m aware of the inconveniences, I was being difficult. But the point I was attempting to get across is that the wages earned in America are worth more in Mexico.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
No, it isn't necessarily reducing our standard of living, because charging us higher prices means that the companies can also afford to pay us higher wages.

But that also means that those higher wages aren’t worth as much. If companies were to charge us lower for the goods, then they reduce the wages, so nothing would have technically changed. The real value of our higher wages manifests itself outside the borders of our faction.

[GeneralTacticus]

Not all the sneakers get bought, my argument is that it is a waste given that you have the relatively little variety between the different brands of sneakers there is no need to have more than one brand. Furthermore it is an even greater waste because assuming that each of the corporations produces the same number of sneakers, not all of them will get sold, in fact chances are most will not. Then you have the problem brought about by new variations on the design released every year, the old design is thrown out if not sold, and people are encouraged to buy the new when it is not necessary. Under a planed economy we should strive towards efficiency in our products, that is anything we produce is meant to last for a relatively long time. Whereas with constantly new models of products come out in a capitalist system, the products are not made to last given that the corporations desire for people to buy the new models. It isn’t nearly as profitable for corporations to produce a sneaker which is very durable and does not need replacement every year. They profit more by making the products of lower quality than they could be, so that consumers must buy the new products when they come out.

Why do you keep assuming that the sneakers would all get bought if there was only one kind? Some don't get bought because people don't want to buy them, period. Making them all the same won't solve the problem, it'll make it worse.

It is overcharging given that the corporations charge consumers who are better off more than they do those who cannot pay. It would not make sense for Nike to attempt to sell $100 sneakers in most of Mexico, therefore they have to charge less for those sneakers. But since in America people have more money to spend, Nike can afford to change them more for the same product. They are making a profit in both cases, but the profit they make in first world nations is considerably greater.

I still fail to see how that's overcharging. They may charge us more when we're at home than they do when we're in the Third World, but that's only our perspective, as I said. The same currency has different value depending on where you take it.

Humans are collectivist in nature, they follow the group. We do not desire to be individuals, simply a subset of the group. If it were that easy to make people think for themselves we would not have superstition, organized religion, ideology, etc. Earth’s western societies were plagues by consumerism driven by the social concept of “cool”; that which society deemed the best became the best in the eyes of people. There is little difference in quality between a brand name product and a generic product, yet consumers are willing to pay considerably higher prices for a logo on a shirt, shoes, cap, etc. Essentially the majority of consumers will follow the social fad, this has been shown to be true over and over again. So no I don’t think allowing corporations unlimited freedoms in advertisement is a good idea.

And if the 'social fad' (btw, I greatly despise the popular notions of 'cool' and so forth, so I know what you're talking about here) is thinking for yourself, then...?

Fair enough, so wages are proportional to the cost of goods.

Yes you get paid more, but your money is worth less.

Your point being?

This idea I like and can agree with. I would not mind a switch to capitalism if we were to devise a system where we avoid the problem of the hereditary elite. This would in fact I think ensure that capitalism remains meritocratic.

I'm glad we can find something we both agree on.

Ok, but to bring up another possible case, just for the sake of argument. Could we really monitor all the activities of our corporations, in other words what if they establish factories in other nations without our knowledge?

Well, they'd have to do it secretly enough that there'd be no evidence that they were doin git in their accounts, etc, which would be pretty damn hard, so I think the only real solution to that is to look hard enough and punish violators severly enough that they don't do it. Total confiscation of all assets belonging to those involved would probably make them think twice.

Yes I’m aware of the inconveniences, I was being difficult. But the point I was attempting to get across is that the wages earned in America are worth more in Mexico.

Yes I can see that, I'm just wondering why you think it's a problem.

But that also means that those higher wages aren’t worth as much. If companies were to charge us lower for the goods, then they reduce the wages, so nothing would have technically changed. The real value of our higher wages manifests itself outside the borders of our faction.

But the point is, it doesn't matter whether we get paid high wages and charged high prices of low wages and low prices. IT doesn't really affect the value of currency either; if a single $US buys twice as much, it's worth twice as much. Very little changes.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why do you keep assuming that the sneakers would all get bought if there was only one kind? Some don't get bought because people don't want to buy them, period. Making them all the same won't solve the problem, it'll make it worse.

We should have variety, I’m all for variety, I just don’t think capitalism necessarily provides variety. You have the same shoes being sold under a different brand name. I don’t see why we need different brands at all. In a planned economy given that we are not restricted by copyright, we can simply take any new good ideas and incorporate them into products. Therefore the consumers have the variety to choose between all possible variations on the product.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I still fail to see how that's overcharging. They may charge us more when we're at home than they do when we're in the Third World, but that's only our perspective, as I said. The same currency has different value depending on where you take it.

I just don’t see why we cannot be charged the same prices as let us say in third world nations, while keeping the wages we have therefore improving our standard of living since the purchasing power of our wages would increase.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And if the 'social fad' (btw, I greatly despise the popular notions of 'cool' and so forth, so I know what you're talking about here) is thinking for yourself, then...?

That reminds me of a Monty Python skit:

Speaker: You are all individuals.
Crowd: We are all individuals.
Dissident: I’m not.

I think that sufficiently shows my point that you cannot make thinking for yourself a social fad, that’s contradictory.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Your point being?

Can we be charged less and still paid the same?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I'm glad we can find something we both agree on.

Well we’re making progress.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, they'd have to do it secretly enough that there'd be no evidence that they were doin git in their accounts, etc, which would be pretty damn hard, so I think the only real solution to that is to look hard enough and punish violators severly enough that they don't do it. Total confiscation of all assets belonging to those involved would probably make them think twice.

Well just as the corporations could establish factories overseas without our knowledge, couldn’t they also establish accounts in Morganite banks which do not fall under our jurisdiction? Or even move to Morganite territory and establish themselves there outside our jurisdiction? In the latter case, we cannot stop them from selling goods given that it would violate free trade with the Morganites.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Yes I can see that, I'm just wondering why you think it's a problem.

I personally don’t think that the standard of living of everyone is as high as it could be. We have the resources to greatly improve the lives of our citizens, give them luxuries which would rival that of the greatest palaces of Earth. Why cannot for example every citizen have a computer? Why can’t they all have the latest electronics? Etc. I’m not trying to make everyone equal; in fact I think those who work more should in return receive more. Nevertheless overall we could set some basic standard of living for all our citizens.

[GeneralTacticus]

We should have variety, I’m all for variety, I just don’t think capitalism necessarily provides variety. You have the same shoes being sold under a different brand name. I don’t see why we need different brands at all. In a planned economy given that we are not restricted by copyright, we can simply take any new good ideas and incorporate them into products. Therefore the consumers have the variety to choose between all possible variations on the product.

I still don't see the problem. So what if you essentially two different variations on the same shoe? What's the problem with that?

I just don’t see why we cannot be charged the same prices as let us say in third world nations, while keeping the wages we have therefore improving our standard of living since the purchasing power of our wages would increase.

I explained that already. If they drop their prices to Third World levels, they have to drop wages as well, to pay for it, and so all you get is a further magnification of the difference ebtween rich and poor, because large bank accounts are now worth even more than they were before.

Moreover, even if that was done, then by your logic the people in the Third World would now be the ones being overcharged, which sets up a kind of endless spiral.

That reminds me of a Monty Python skit:

Speaker: You are all individuals.
Crowd: We are all individuals.
Dissident: I’m not.

I think that sufficiently shows my point that you cannot make thinking for yourself a social fad, that’s contradictory.

And your solution to this is...? Censoring ads to make them appeal to people less?

Can we be charged less and still paid the same?

Quite bluntly: no, we can't. (Well, we could, to an extent, but not the extent that you're asking for)

Well just as the corporations could establish factories overseas without our knowledge, couldn’t they also establish accounts in Morganite banks which do not fall under our jurisdiction? Or even move to Morganite territory and establish themselves there outside our jurisdiction? In the latter case, we cannot stop them from selling goods given that it would violate free trade with the Morganites.

Well, we can actually; corporations that deal with us still have to respect our laws, so, for example, they can't sell arsenic as drinking water. If they violate our laws, they pay the price, no matter where they are.

I personally don’t think that the standard of living of everyone is as high as it could be. We have the resources to greatly improve the lives of our citizens, give them luxuries which would rival that of the greatest palaces of Earth. Why cannot for example every citizen have a computer? Why can’t they all have the latest electronics? Etc. I’m not trying to make everyone equal; in fact I think those who work more should in return receive more. Nevertheless overall we could set some basic standard of living for all our citizens.

Well, that's a nice idea, and in a propserous enough economy it should be the reality, but I don't see what that has to do with your argument that wages earned in the US are worth more in Mexico (which they are).