OFFICIAL : Economics Final

Pandemoniak · January 30, 2003, 09:07

Green or FM ?

Pandemoniak · January 30, 2003, 09:10

Previous stats can be found here

Cedayon · January 30, 2003, 09:52

Is the green + wealth proposal (from Maniac) going to be considered seriously?

In absense of that I'll have to vote for FM (hint, hint

)

Method · January 30, 2003, 11:19

free market!

DeathByTheSword · January 30, 2003, 11:45

FM..........as an old P4 member i want to annoy CCCP members

Maniac · January 30, 2003, 12:13

I'll wait with voting until I've checked the viability of the green+wealth proposal. Cedayon's research in the previous poll doesn't indicate so though.

Cedayon · January 30, 2003, 12:33

G+W doesn't look feasible at this time (as a replacement for the FM extra energy), no. I think it's worth considering when we have a few more psych magnifying improvements in the important bases, though.

I can look into it further if the people want that, but I'd need a setting that people consider feasible (my initial tests were with 30/30/40, which some might consider too much to be spending in psych).

edit- also, I'd like to hear how the pro-Green folk feel about Wealth (instead of Knowledge) and this proposal.

Maniac · January 30, 2003, 13:24

I checked it on the 30/30/40 setting as well (for JV). And indeed, it's no good for now.
Below is my research for the Jedinican economical prognoses under three different systems. Regarding specialists, I only used the minimal number of doctors to prevent drone riots. Extra talents and psych spending beyond that are, gametechnically speaking, useless unless for a GA, which currently isn't very valuable. All the other specialists I made librarians. I noticed that, at least for Jedinica Vrijstaat, the difference between going FM or green is rather insignificant. Only Concordia benefits tremendously from FM. The other bases hardly. This is probably due to their large distance from the HQ.

Quote:

nutrient surplus (without consumption) - mineral surplus (without support) - energy surplus (without inefficiency) - economy - labs - psych

Planned 50-0-50:
Con: 2-19-17-12-23-12
Pan: 6-11-12-6-14-3
SS: 3-8-5-2-14-0
TD: 4-19-10-5-8-0
Val: 5-5-5-2-3-0
AM: 1-3-1-0-1-0
Met: 0-4-2-1-1-0

Free Market 40-20-40:
Con: 2-19-29-18-35-16
Pan: 6-11-20-8-21-6
SS: 3-8-13-5-17-5
TD: 4-19-19-8-11-6
Val: 5-5-9-4-3-2
AM: 1-3-3-1-1-1
Met: 0-4-5-2-2-1

Green 50-0-50:
Con: 2-19-20-15-29-8
Pan: 6-11-15-7-21-0
SS: 3-8-7-3-15-0
TD: 4-19-13-6-11-0
Val: 5-5-7-3-4-0
AM: 1-3-2-1-1-0
Met: 0-4-4-2-2-0

FM surplus economy-labs: 9/7

waab · January 30, 2003, 14:58

Green ofcource. The free market will not only make the rich more rich but it will hurt planet.

Drogue · January 30, 2003, 16:43

Personally I favour Knowledge over wealth. I think our society should value the furtherment of science and culture over the pursuit of money. However I do am more concerned with being Green than with the values setting. It is a possible combination, although not at the moment IMHO, sicne we are building some military, and the -2 Morale is a big problem for that.

Archaic · January 30, 2003, 20:15

It's time for a Free Market. People being relativly poor compared to the rich is of no consequence when all people are still better off then they are under a Planned or Green economic system, and when no one is below the poverty line.

GeneralTacticus · January 31, 2003, 03:28

Fm is actually winning for a change.

Pandemoniak · January 31, 2003, 04:37

Seeing the popularity of Green/Wealth, a yes/no poll will be organized right after the results of this one.

GeneralTacticus · January 31, 2003, 04:55

Assuming, of course, that green wins, which it hopefully won't.

Aaron Blackwell · January 31, 2003, 05:54

Quote:

Assuming, of course, that green wins, which it hopefully won't.

I am not sure that remarks such as this one really adds something meaningfull to the conversation ... except maybe adding a little of sacarsm ( not really an unbiased way of speaking).

Besides, preparing for as many situation as possible is not being stupid, it is being carefull and intelligent.

Just my 2 cents.

GeneralTacticus · January 31, 2003, 05:57

Wasn't meant to be unbiased, just conveying my opinion.

And I never said he was being stupid by saying that, I merely pointed out that he was assuming green was going to win.

Aaron Blackwell · January 31, 2003, 06:31

Quote:

Wasn't meant to be unbiased, just conveying my opinion.

I never said you meant to be unbiased, simply that your post could be seen as such.

Quote:

And I never said he was being stupid by saying that, I merely pointed out that he was assuming green was going to win.

I am sure you did not meant to but responses such as " Assuming, of course, that green wins,which it hopefully won't." can certainly be understood like " choosing green is stupid".

I am merely giving some advices to you.

It is not just the way you feel about how you write your posts but more about how these specifics posts will be interpreted by those who read them.

The post I quoted in my first message and the way you express yourself in it could be interpreted as an attempt to depict "Green" people in a bad light.

Of course, I am sure that it was not your intent when you posted it but, still, be more carefull.

Your wishes to switch to Free Market could be achieved quite soon, just be careful not to foil them by clumsy posting ok ?

Cheers to all Green and Free Market supporters

GeneralTacticus · January 31, 2003, 06:37

Oh well, I guess it just depends on how you take it. I don't have a whole lot of control over that...

Archaic · January 31, 2003, 06:46

When the hell did you get back Blackwell?

GeneralTacticus · January 31, 2003, 06:48

Just then, it would seem. His first post since the 6th was right in this thread.

Aaron Blackwell · January 31, 2003, 06:49

Yes, you do have control over that.

Simply take some time to think and re-read your post before clicking on the "submit reply" button, just to make sure you have used the correct words to ensure that your posts will not be misinterpreted.

GeneralTacticus · January 31, 2003, 06:52

That changes what the post is, not how you'll take it

Pandemoniak · January 31, 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Assuming, of course, that green wins, which it hopefully won't.

Certainly not : this next poll will come, whatever the results are.
Since Green/Wealth is proposed as a whole, I have the same reasons to poll this one that I had to poll FM 40/20/40 as a whole.

Aaron Blackwell · January 31, 2003, 10:56

Wrong, it DOES change the way other people will see it.

Of course, there will always be people who will disagree not matter how you spell and choose the words you decide to write.

But you are not writing to these people, but the other undecided people that could switch their vote in favor of your opinions.

And carefull wording of your post IS REQUIRED in order to convice those people. Remember that these people are not in your head, and what may seem clear for you, it is not necessarly the case for them.

Thus the need to be carefull when choosing your words. Otherwise, they may make false interpretation of your opinion ... something that I think you want to avoid.

And thus my advice

Of course, you are free to ignore it, but don't complain to me later on if people misunderstand your words.

DeathByTheSword · January 31, 2003, 11:21

i dont know what is it with you people but if your are not fighting over FM vs. Plannd or FM vs. Green or Anything vs. Anything then you will fight about who some one says something....

Lemmy · January 31, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

...then you will fight about who some one says something....

It's "how someone says something"

nuplicid · January 31, 2003, 19:39

Free Market!

GeneralTacticus · January 31, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Certainly not : this next poll will come, whatever the results are.
Since Green/Wealth is proposed as a whole, I have the same reasons to poll this one that I had to poll FM 40/20/40 as a whole.

...? I can understand that you would need to poll it for the next time the issue came up, but if Green wins, the poll results won't have much immediate relevance, which was what I was talking about.

Archaic · February 1, 2003, 01:27

Aaron, just a question. What exactly are you complaining about from GT's post anyway? It's not as if Pan isn't doing exactly the same thing, so why aren't you calling him on that?

Main_Brain · February 1, 2003, 08:34

I'm getting tired of these constant "switch to... or we are all doomed" Polls.
These Polls come up far too often.